They're selling something

You and I have known for years that advertising is so annoying, it rarely inspires us to buy anything. But apparently, someone let the secret out.\nAccording to the Mar. 31 issue of The Economist, the Internet has taken away the corporations' power to influence purchases, and put it into the hands of the consumers. The world might just be coming to an end.\nFord has found that 80 percent of their customers already know what car they want to buy, and for how much money, before they throw themselves at the mercy of sales representatives on the showroom floor. The customers did their homework on the Internet.\nMcDonald's chief marketing officer, Larry Light, told The Economist: "The days of mass marketing are over." If that's their attitude, it might explain why a recent batch of McDonald's TV commercials were so bland, it made me wonder if they've just given up.\nTraditional advertising is an insult to the public's intelligence. Don't get me wrong, I laughed really hard at that Toyota commercial where the guy has "adrenalitis," and because his lack of adrenaline, he doesn't even flinch when a snarling dog lunges right at his face. But Toyota must think I'm stupid if they believe laughter will make me buy a truck.\nWhat the public wants is advertising that doesn't look like advertising. They want to feel as though they've been informed about their \npurchases.\nConsider, for example, the way Amazon.com first hooked me up with Thievery Corporation. It's a method called behavioral targeting. The Web site noticed that I like Massive Attack, winning my nomination for "Understatement of the Year Award." Because of this, Amazon.com told me to try Thievery Corporation. I heard songs from "The Richest Man in Babylon" online. Once the music samples informed me of the fact that Thievery Corporation is mind-numbingly awesome, I made my purchase. Now this is the future of advertising!\nBut herein lies a paradox. Traditionally, advertising and content have been two separate things. Furthermore, content is only affordable because it has been paid for largely by advertising. However, this new trend of "informing purchases" only seems to work when the content and advertising are both the same thing. What could this mean for the future of mass media?\nIf analysts agree that traditional ads are ineffective, why should advertisers keep paying for them? It causes one to wonder if there is a "media bubble" about to burst.\nBut The Economist seems to think this won't happen any time soon. Companies are predicted to increase their advertising spending again this year, despite growing skepticism that traditional advertising doesn't work.\nInstead of a bubble burst, I see TV starting to imitate the "informative" nature of the Internet. I see the return of the infomercial, and this time, it's evolved some new enhancements for survival in today's world.\nOne kind of new infomercial is the typical 30 second pharmaceutical spot. It tells you the indications for use, list of side-effects, and tells you to ask your doctor. But "ask your doctor" is the ad's secret hypnotic message that's supposed to make viewers run to their doctor and demand the pills from the ad -- after all, they already feel informed about what the pill does.\nAn even more dangerous cousin of this infomercial is something both President Bush and Michael Moore have done: published skewed, biased presentations of facts in order to sell ideology. Whether it's through the use of fake TV news pieces mailed to local stations, a "town hall" meeting with a screened audience or a "satiric documentary," all these things are designed to make us feel informed.\nDon't let them fool you. They're not informing you. They're trying to sell you something.