Now, nobody likes commercials (you know, other than the Superbowl). And certainly nobody likes intrusive ads when you're trying to listen to music. Which is why Spotify uses them as a 'punishment' for not subscribing to their music service.
It this really a good idea? My question is why would anyone purchase advertising on Spotify (or other subscription service) if they know it's going to be used to 'torment' customers? "Subscribe to get rid of ads, or you get to hear about Brand X again!" Wouldn't that just make the customer have a negative association with their product or service? Personally, I try to avoid anything being advertised in such a way.
Of course this is not specific to Spotify or even subscription services - intrusive ads are everywhere. It's possible that the ad agencies figure the brand recognition for their product outweighs the negative feelings engendered by the intrusive advertising - kind of the "any publicity is good publicity" theory, no matter how much it annoys the consumer. I'd be interested to know the data supporting this. I think it's more likely that companies just throw money at trying to get their product or service's name out there without really considering the context. And as a result they damage their brand.
What about you - your "brand" or your name? It might be worth thinking about what media platforms you're associated with and how you present yourself on them. If you're a Christ-follower, it's worth asking the question: Based on your online (or offline) interactions, what would people associate you with more - your political views, or the fact that you love Jesus (and therefore love others [John 13:35])? Just because you "say" it doesn't count. How do you display it?
No comments:
Post a Comment