Ad--or add?--value
Interesting synchronicity between Chris Anderson's thoughts on the unconsidered "negative externalities" of PR spam and Max Kalehoff's observation of the costs to consumers and advertisers of bombarding consumers with messages:
the cost of advertising for the consumer is rarely factored into marketing strategy or advertising planning. This is important because that cost translates to brand experience, affinity and equity. Fundamentally, how often have you ever heard a marketer ask: “Does our advertising — ultimately, our message — cause our customers to love or hate us?” The closest advertisers come to addressing this question — and this was especially true at Ad:tech — is in discussion of thresholds of tolerance. Thresholds of tolerance? That sounds like a framework more suited for discussions of pain or torture. (The Cost Of Advertising For Consumers)
One of the beauties of search marketing has always been that when the engines manage relevancy well, the advertising is a benefit, not a cost. As performance models begin to emerge in the social network space, the sliding scale between unnoticed skyscrapers and interruptive vs valuable ads will make all the difference. Introduce ANY real consumer cost (in creepiness or by tolling their social interactions) and they will flee to the next cool social platform in droves. Find a way to ad [sic] value and you've got the next Adwords.
