Could I have said it better?

I don't think anyone could have put my opinion on the matter any more succinctly and eloquently!

Mobile for you? Mobile for them? Video for you? Video for them?

Have you ever been set up on a date by an attractive woman? You go into it thinking "Hey, if my date is anything like her, then I'm all set." Never really works out cuz you're thinking, "I'd really like to just go out with the attractive woman that set me up" and you're comparing your date to the attractive "setup-er" the whole time.

I'm envisioning this scenario as I read about mobile advertising (and any interactive advertising for that matter), that serves "related" content alongside the actual content I am interested in.

There seems to be lots of talk at start the year on the feasibility and role of advertising in the mobile space and in video as well.

But I really can't get aforementioned scenario out of my head..."I really just want to go out with the attractive woman!"

I understand serving related content if you are attempting to reach your user as they are in a frame of mind of intent, but does it really serve me, the individual, to have related content served when I am operating in a very confined space (like a mobile device) and I really just want what I want?

Again, I really just want to date the attractive woman! We complicate life so much, don't we...

Is iPhone your phone?

Well, it's coming...and the clammering has already begun. Will the iPhone cater to your needs and focus its technological offering around YOU? To me it appears that it will - your music, your videos, your contacts, your widgets. It truly appears to be a personalization device beyond all others...

Is it the technology behind the device that will make it fly, the popularity of the iPod or the fact that this device is all about you? Can't wait to see, whaddya think?...

Extra Crispin' Please!

Jeff Hicks, CEO of Crispin, Porter & Bogusky has laid out a five point guide to what appears to be a step in the right direction for advertising in the "post-interruption" world. Kate MacArthur penned an article about the rules that Hicks laid out at the Forrester Consumer Forum.

A summary of the new rules are as follows:
1. Interruption as a tool is obsolete.
2. Let ideas find the medium.
3. Great ideas, not channels, create buzz.
4. Get comfortable with consumers messing with your brand.
5. Business results are the only measure of success.

First of all kudos to Hicks for taking a bold step in leading the "traditional" advertising world in the inevitable direction of "non-interruption." I think there is a long way to go, but a step in the right direction is better than no step at all.

If there is one thing that the traditional advertising world needs to absorb above all, it is point #1...interruption is OBSOLETE! The individual is now in control and interruptive advertising models are in direct opposition to this growing truth.

In all efforts we must look to engage the end user, create materials that they actually want to interact with and reward them for their efforts. In the years to come, I think we will be hearing the songs of "engagement" and "non-interruption" a lot more.

Let that mantra be sung from the hilltops...

Lonely Girl a stroke of genius or pure manipulation?

So Ad Age emailed me a survey question the other day asking me whether I thought the LonelyGirl15 "campaign" (as it should probably now be referred to) was a stroke of genius or merely yet another manipulative tactic vying for eyeballs. And of course it got me to thinking...

Was this an intrusive campaign or tactic?...Definitely not. Was it ingeniously marketing a product or service? Not really, in my opinion...although it did promote YouTube and bring them a good amount of attention.

So what, in the end, did the LonelyGirl teach us? That certain people are desperate for attention? That you can market via the various new interactive channels if you do so in an out-of-the-box fashion? That we really don't know what to make of UGC and how to utilize it for our benefit?

All of these things remain to be seen, what is clear is that it is a whole new world out there and there is enough room in it, even for the LonelyGirls...

ESPN - Does it make sense?

Dont get me wrong, like most guys out there, I love my ESPN. Sports Center, Baseball Tonight...the list of quality sports programming in my opinion is second to none.

However, what does not go on and on is the list of adoring words for their online and onsite advertising strategy. The word intrusive does not even begin to describe the tactics, this site is leading an all out attack on harmless web surfer looking for sports news.

Video pre-roll that cannot be paused or stopped until an initial commercial is run, banner ads the size of Montana. Surely we can find more inventive ways to get the message out and get it in front of someone who actually cares.

I know there are many skillful advertising minds behind the genius that is ESPN...let's start applying that genius online, shall we?

New York City Council is on the right track!

I can imagine that New York City officials have to constantly deal with the threat of illegal and invasive outdoor advertising given the fact that NYC is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. And it turns out that the New York City Council is cracking down on illegal outdoor display advertising.

Ahhh...finally a place where logic and financial interests coincide with making the world a better , "intrusive advertising free" place.

Some of the best advertising is done in public spaces but only when it is thoughtfully and usefully done and does not grotesquely intrude on our day to day existences.

Where should the lines be drawn? At what point do city officials have to step into the mix and start to crack down on guerilla or less than guerilla tactics that could border on grafitti or worse? Do some of these tactics work and serve a good purpose or are they just simply intrusive and downright polluting?

Whaddya think?