There's another part of marketing that's not reported-- the art of the commercial as entertainment.

There are folks that skip through the commercials, sure, but if they catch a funny one, that Tivo surrre becomes handy to watch it over and over. I see this principle with my take on Budweiser ads. I don't drink Bud. Never will, it's swill. But I'll watch Bud ads all day if they are entertaining enough... same thing with the California Cheese "Happy Cows Come From California" campaign. I buy cheese because I like it. I watch cheese commercials because they're entertaining.

I think the only reason CAN-SPAM, DoNotCall and e-mail filters became so front and center, is because of the intrusive nature. I think #4 and #5 of your questions are both true. I don't think there's an iceberg, because look at how much money can be made advertising ways to defeat... advertising! By that, I'll cite Earthlink's efforts in that arena.

Just some thoughts.

Well, apparently P&G is going full steam ahead with the idea of printing ads on individual Pringle's chips. Your mileage may vary, but my own odometer's rolled over. (And we dropped cable over a year ago, and watch whatever television we watch via DVD box sets, nowadays.)

TiVo has ad-avoiding abilities, but look at what your friends were TiVoing. They weren't skipping any ads from the Sopranos, they were using it to put the show on their schedule. Don't be misled by the hype and think that people are buying TiVos to skip ads, that's just a side effect of taking control of your TV.

And for what it's worth, if I see an ad that looks interesting at 60x speed on my TiVo, I'll usually watch that commercial. But most of them aren't interesting at 1x, so why would I watch them?

George, I agree. I don't think most people who want Tivo buy it just to skip commercials. I think ad skipping is a byproduct.

Well, ad skipping, maybe, but also not needing 800 VHS tapes a month. Heh.

I'll try to be succint.

>1. Why so many anti-marketing initiatives in the last 24 months? Is it a coincidence?

Because marketeers insist upon giving people what they *don't* want. We're fed up. As Steve Gibson once said, "It's *my* computer." You've pushed us over the edge.

>2. Is the era of anti-marketing upon us?

Duh.

>3. Is it because it’s an election year Happy consumers = happy voters.

Has nothing to do with it, other than opportunistic politicians trying to capture face time espousing useless efforts to legislate technology about which they know nothing.

>4. Have consumers reached the boiling point?

Like the proverbial frog in the pot.

>5. Have marketers gone too far?

Yes, but you crossed the line long ago. Marketing should be about finding what people want, then giving it to them. You do exactly the opposite with intrusive pop-ups, spam, spyware, et. al.

>6. Is this just the tip of the iceberg?
Well, consumers can only hope we are the iceberg and you marketeers are the Titanic, blindly speeding toward destruction.

So what occasioned this particular rant? A post on J-Walk's blog (http://j-walkblog.com/blog/index/P15443/) that your company wants to "find an opportunity" to put ads in RSS feeds. Incredibly, unbelievably boneheaded. An ad-free RSS is *exactly* why I use the stupid thing. Read the blog to get a feel for your potential audience, rather than hand-picked "focus groups". Whay do you insist on alienating users?

A pox on your house if you continue doing so.

Dan, thanks for stopping and offering your feedback. It is appreciated.

However, one thing that we do not tolerate is your threatening tone "A pox on your house if you continue doing so." That is a little out of line and not needed. There are actual humans behind this computer generate code. It is easy to write threatening message because you cannot see a face. You can not like what we do, but your tone is out of line and threatening.

Dan's screed, while a little emotional, made some good points. You might have responded to them.

Once upon a time, advertising was a useful service for readers: if I wanted to buy something, advertising told me what was available, where I could get it, and how much it would cost.

This is no longer true.

Advertising is dozens - no, hundreds - of people shouting at me, all day, every day, BUY BUY BUY, with no regard for whether I want what they're selling (and no respect for me as a person). Every channel of communication available to me - email, web sites, television, telephone - is being overwhelmed by advertisements. I'm even expected to *eat* advertisements that have been printed on my food.

Advertisements are no longer honest. The LOW LOW LOW price in the ad is never what you pay, but you won't find out the real price until after you've signed the two-year contract (early-termination fee, $300).

It's no surprise that people resent being treated this way, and are doing everything they can to get out from under the deluge.

Tell me - do you have the Pheedo logo permanently tattooed on your forehead?

No? Why not?

Could it be that there are some places advertising *doesn't* belong?

Anonymous,

Dan did make some good points. And your points are very valid. I agree. Every channel is being overwhelmed by advertising.

In the publishing world the reason is to provide consumers with free content. If you're willing to pay full price for a subscription, that is a different story. Until that happens, advertising supported content is here to stay. Yes, there are better ways of doing it. Yes, we are working on that model.

I am a consumer too. I recognize the need for change. Being the in the advertising business, hopefully I can have some positive effect and make advertising a useful service once again.

I won't subscribe to web sites, because I can't believe that doing so would reduce the quantity or intrusiveness of the sites' advertisements.