Another day in the hospital, so while Mira sleeps and the bee showers, I write another blog post.
On the way to the hospital this morning I picked up the FT and was annoyed by the cover story. Not the one about Swiss banking secrecy being amended – I don’t have enough assets in this place to be annoyed by that – but rather a story about entertainment weekly doing a digital video ad in it’s magazine. The article said something about Harry Potter like ads, with moving pictures/video. The article compared it to those musical cards – not sure but aren’t musical cards sales suffering, anyone?
The reason why I was annoyed was not because I don’t appreciate experimentation, but surely magazines should be experimenting with their product more before they experiment with their ads, especially ads that are likely to annoy more people then they excite. Marketing efforts should create new engaging experiences. This is more annoyance then experience in my view.
Contrast this with the story on the NYT that Umair Haque pointed out about Heathrow appointing a writer in residence, not any writer, an accomplished writer, Alain de Botton, to write a short book about a week at Heathrow.
Their both marketing, but in the second effort marketing has created a meaningful experience. A product itself which engages users in a new way to the end product – in this case using Heathrow’s terminal 5. In the first example marketing is destroying the product experience. An effort that will add costs to the distribution and give an experience that might be fun at first, but is more likely to annoy. I’m going to call this classic destruction marketing versus new creation marketing.
I hope we see less destructive marketing efforts, like the entertainment weekly experiment, and more creative marketing efforts, like the Heathrow example, in the future. Not just for users but for the brands and products themselves.