bombs in bottles
A line in Matthew Graybosch's 2021 post "Advertising Will Never Be Great" got me thinking this morning.
I am the sole judge of which advertisements are relevant to me, and I say that in the forty-plus years I’ve spent doing hard time on planet Earth I have never seen an ad I found relevant.
"Advertising Will Never Be Great"
I have to say: in the forty-plus years I too have been here, I'm not sure I can name a single ad I found "relevant" either.
I've worked in marketing or marketing-adjacent for a while now, so I know what marketers think a "relevant" ad is. By their standards, I've been inundated with them since I was old enough to sit in front of a TV on my own.
I want to spend the next week exploring the question: Are any of the ads I encounter "relevant" - not from a marketing standpoint, but from a personal one?
First, let's set some standards for measuring "relevant." Because I have some idea what marketers are trying to do with ad targeting, I'll split this into two subcategories:
Material Question: By what standards does the advertiser appear to believe this ad is relevant to me?
Answers to this question will account for things like "where I saw the ad," "whether the ad was addressed directly to me," and so on. It'll probably result in responses like "I am a woman in her 40s" or "I live in this town."
Evaluation: What do marketers think is "relevant"? Am I the audience they attempted to target?
The actual, fun question.
Material Question: Does this ad offer a product or service that (1) I will likely *need* in the next month and (2) I would not otherwise have encountered in the course of my daily life?
(1) "A month" is somewhat arbitrary as a time frame. As most ads attempt to generate immediacy, however, I'm going with it. I have encountered very little advertising in my life that was chill. "Give us a call in 2049 when you need a new roof" isn't a popular slogan.
I'm defining "likely" by the good old-fashioned preponderance of the evidence standard, or "more likely than not." Mostly because that's a burden of proof I understand.
"Need" is defined as "will I die or suffer permanent physical, mental, or emotional harm without access to this specific item?" If I can find a substitute item that prevents death or permanent harm in the course of my daily life, the answer is "no." Otherwise it's a "yes."
(Edit: Why so strict? Simple: This is also the standard by which I measure my purchasing choices during Lent each year. I observe Lent as a "no-buy" season. If I or the cats do not need it for our long-term health or survival, I don't buy it. Since I'm already evaluating purchases by this standard, it makes sense to use it on others' attempts to influence my purchasing behavior.)
(2) A key premise of advertising is that it helpfully "informs" the public of goods and services the public wouldn't otherwise know about. Therefore, if I would reasonably encounter something in my daily excursions, the ad is redundant and thus not "relevant," per advertisers' definition as well as my own.
I may comment on whether I would in fact follow up and buy the thing from that advertiser. "Would buy" will not be a factor in rating personal relevance, however. (E.g. an ad for work boots might be "relevant" if I currently have no footwear safe for the heavy yard work I need to do, even if I wouldn't buy *those* boots from *that* store.)
Aka "factors that may skew the data pool."
I will use:
I will not include ordinary signs identifying local businesses, but I will include any additional signs advertising specials, sales, etc. (subject to the billboard rule).
All this is, of course, entirely subjective. But so are advertisers' claims that I need their ads.
--