advertising

You are currently browsing the archive for the advertising category.

feedingtubepatient.jpg

There’s a special category of bad news that deals with being fat. And it is often linked to watching TV. It is ‘the cheeseburger of guilt’ because it combines two of our favourite unhealthy pleasures in one bad package. The simple story is this: Americans watch more TV than anybody else and they are, as well, the fattest people on the planet.

We have all heard the numbers for television watching and it’s always a shocker: the latest report says that American households watch 8 hours a day, almost twice as much as the rest of the world. Many studies have come up with similar results and they’re all bad. More or less at random, I picked a Harvard study of nurses in the US that revealed they watched an average of 35 hours of TV each week. Those of us who don’t watch much of the tube shake our heads and wonder how that is possible! Here’s the math:

Hours in a day: 24
Subtract:
Sleep: 7
Work or school: 9
Commute: 2
Left over hours of free time: 6
Multiply by days in a week: 7
Free time in a week: 42 hours
Estimate time spent watching TV: 35 hours
Percentage of free time spent watching TV: 83%

Reaction: YIKES!

It gets worse, of course, because while TV addicts watch, they eat. Again, there are a million studies of obesity and we’ve all seen or heard the numbers; the latest reports are here and here. The result is simple: Americans are by far the fattest people. The various ways to measure fatness are suspect because a person can be plump and be perfect healthy and happy. (And it certainly is a good thing that such people have their own association now.) But, as a rule, if your Body Mass Index is over 30, you are in health trouble and as many as 25% of Americans are in that shape (a cool map from CNN shows the problem getting worse over twenty years). In fact, fat is now so common that many obese people see themselves as ‘fine’.

Would that it were so. Obese people spend a lot more money for health care; they have much higher rates of diabetes; and their lives are shortened by as much as 5 years! They even add a billion extra gallons to gasoline consumption every year – being big ain’t even green!

But does TV watching cause fat? And, for those of us interested in using more technology in teaching, the next question is: Will more internet use also add to obesity? It’s a particularly interesting question given the recent reports that connect being obese to having fat friends; it turns out that your ‘network’ of family and friends establish a norm and you tend to move closer to that norm. So will the web add impetus to that process by connecting you with even more sedentary surfers stuffing themselves?

Time for the researchers to study the situation. But my (biased) guess is that the internet will help more than it will hurt and here’s why.

  1. It’s not being sedentary that does the real damage; it’s being brainwashed! TV junkies are trained by commercials – and the conditioning begins very early. One diabolical study calculated that, for each hour of TV watched, a 3-year old kid will add 167 extra calories to their daily intake! And there’s a deluge of those sugar-pushing ads aimed at kids: 77% of all food, soft drink and fast food ads are slotted in times when kids are watching TV.

    However, ads of this type have not worked online, as yet. Why? Because the web encourages clicking and if an ad gets in the way, you’re gone. The TV remote means you can do the same thing but, if you switch channels, you simply move to another channel showing a similar commercial. If we can keep web advertising under control, there’s a possibility that it won’t grow into the involuntary feeding tube that is TV.

  2. TV once captured our attention but now that we’ve seen the breadth and depth of interest that can be accessed on the web, it is all too easy to see that TV is by-and-large dull and desperately grabbing for our ‘fake attention’: the speed of editing on TV has significantly increased, the volume has gone up, the ‘zap’ factor is eye and mind boggling, and the content is…well, desperate seems the right word. If all you can give me is another ridiculous ‘reality’ show and the abuse of American Idol, I have two choices: go to the refrigerator and keep myself awake with calories or turn off the TV and get online. (Really keen folks will go for a walk but let’s not get too carried away!)

Of course, there’s nothing magic about the web. There is even more junk online than on TV. It’s just so much easier to avoid it because you can find what you want or you can make what you want. Online there is the possibility of being more genuinely interested in what we’re watching and thinking about than we are with the swill served up by the majority of TV. The web provides a new type of screen activity that does not need to be supported by the refrigerator.

gamblingdice.jpg

Last year I went to the University of Toronto and I also worked on contract for another University in the city doing website design. My webwork paid for my courses in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and covered the cost of my lovely little laptop! Both in class and on the job, I learned a few things but nothing was more of an eye-opener than the day my client for web design showed me how she was using Google Ads.

Like many people, I was barely aware of the bland little ads on the left of the screen; the idea they actually did something useful seemed unlikely. As many of you will already know, they generate billions of dollars in ad revenue but a more interesting question is, “How can educators get some of that money?”

Ten years ago I worked on contract at Macromedia; I was in charge of the redesign of their website and there was much discussion of banner ads: to have them or not. I wanted the site to generate some revenue because my experience in business suggested to me that it’s always good to have a bit of a revenue stream. But the banners were as irritating as TV commercials and they didn’t generate much in the way of money. So, this year, when the marketing manager in charge of promoting the University’s courses told me she was going to use Google Ads, I wasn’t overly impressed.

As you can tell, I’m a beginner at this but this is my understanding of what happened when the Google Ads and the new site hit the web:

  1. The marketing manager chose a number of words and, when anyone used one of those words in a Google search, a little ad for the University courses showed up on the left of the screen. Over 2 months, 1.5 million of those impressions appeared. No charge.
  2. It’s no surprise that a very small percentage of people actually clicked the ad - in fact only one-tenth of one percent, or 1,500 people. Each time anyone clicked, it cost the University two bucks. Cost: $6,000.
  3. Of the 1,500 ad-clickers who reached the University website, an amazing 10%, or 150 people, actually signed up for a course after each plunking down $600. That’s $90,000!
  4. Of course it’s not all Google and good design. The University in question has a great ‘brand’, there’s still a calendar being sent out and word-of-mouth is also a factor. But the same courses had enrolment of 120 in the previous term so there was a direct 25% improvement, worth approximately $20K.

At the risk of saying what every 10-year old and every marketing manager already knows: These little ads work and organizations are going to use them more and more. If you’re going to buy something, the first thing you do is to get online and check it out. Whether you’re formally searching or visiting a related site or mentioning it in your mail, the little ads will be there. And if the University’s use of them can stand as a test case, it benefits both customer and supplier.

Google does very well by all this, of course. If one small marketing program in one University can benefit, then start multiplying $6K by all the other programs in all the other companies and all the other organizations…

We’re happy for them, no doubt. But the life blood of the web is content. The key question, in my opinion, is this: Can the content suppliers of the new webworld get the costs of content development covered by some of this flow of cash? Next week.

Print Posts

Archives

categories

Close
E-mail It