Mokokoma Mokhonoana || Graphic designer » Advertising

The impact of ‘the race card’ on visual communication

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:01:13 +0000

In a communication process, the most important thing is how the receiver decodes and understands the message, and not what the sender is trying to communicate.

I always say that it is the responsibility of the speaker as to how the spoken to, understands the spoken.

People see things differently and that affects what they make of what they see.

The best attempt to leave no room for a misunderstanding, is for the sender to make their message as simple as possible. But at times even the simplest straightforward message communicates different things to different people.

Let’s take the ad for a newspaper below as an example:

What you and I make of this ad is likely to differ with how the next person interpret the ad and the overall message that they get from the it.

It’s almost safe to assume that the man’s race doesn’t really come up in your interpretation of the ad. In fact, you are likely to even overlook his gender in your attempt to make sense of the ad.

All that you see is a gorilla, a razor and a person.

I’ve edited the original ad to illustrate the effect race has:

I know it’s hard to look at it as though you’ve never seen the original ad, but would you have interpreted this ad (edited) the same way that you did with the original, if the person used in the ad was black?

Would it have been fair to shout “racists!” should the creatives have decided to use a black person instead?

Looking at the edited ad: is the message that you now get reduced, increased, distorted or changed completely?

If you think that racism would have been the first thing to come to your mind, would you still get the same message of racism if you were told that the ad was actually done by a black person?

In such communication that is prone to racial uproars, is the message that the intended receiver gets dependent on the receiver’s awareness of the sender’s skin colour?

Usually when one sees a white person in an ad, we see, well, a person. Race doesn’t really come to mind. But when one sees a black person in an ad, race is usually brought to mind, even in instances where it’s not necessary or intended by the visual communicator.

When we as a people see a black person in a communication vehicle, do we see a black (then) person or do we see a person that happens to be black?

Is the misunderstand of what you get excusable? Would this have been another uproar of racism?

Has the widespread of racism shaped the way we interpret messages we consume?

Is such a risk of unintentional political incorrectness a privilege reserved for black visual communicators?

Is the pursuit of political correctness a hidden part of a white visual communicator’s brief?

That is the end, but I have two questions regarding this writing:

Would this writing come across as an excuse for racism should it have been authored by a white colleague? Does the fact that I’m black make it easier to digest?

Related Writings:

Between ethics and daily bread: A creative’s moral dilemma

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:12:40 +0000

The “creatives” umbrella covers a lot more that the following, but in this writing it will primarily refer and apply to graphic designers, art directors, copywriters, and photographers.

Regardless of how one decides to look at it, creatives are in the business of selling. Be it a product, service, idea, message, point of view or belief.

The food chain financial chain is rather straightfoward.

The creative employs their expertise with a objective of, in almost all cases, increasing a company’s bottom line. The company is then an x amount of (enter your currency here) poorer, while the creative’s bank balance realizes an increment of the very same amount of money — basic rule of economics.

In the context of branding, marketing and advertising, businesses are the main sponsors of creatives’ talent, be it as a team (agency) or on a personal capacity.

Entrepreneurs spot needs that are common amongst a large number of people (consumers) and then they work on means to fulfill those needs or as some may call it to fill in ‘the gap.’ That’s how businesses most business were born. And the bottom line is that businesses exist to make profit, by offering a product that’s in need or demand.

Some products are ‘needs’ while others are ‘wants’ painted as needs.

In 1964, a group of creatives gathered together and First thing First 2000 manifesto came to being. Creatives were demanding a more meaningful and socially useful usage of their expertise and imagination, instead of what they’re be hired to sell: cat food, toothpaste, cigarettes, aftershave, sliming diets etc. I totally agree with the concerns, I mean people with very little or no education have changed the world and here we have schooled people used only to sell a can of air freshener.

I’ve also came around writings by fellow colleagues questioning the moral obligations that creatives are (or should) be dealing with.

I’m writings this as both a creative and a so-called consumer, so I’ll try to be as neutral as possible.

Some people view businesses as huge evil monsters and, like with other things, there are those with conversing opinions.

The art of persuasion predominately use psychology and it is the biggest tool used in luring people in to buying things, mostly things they don’t really need, esp. in advertising. With just a few seconds of air play, an ad can leave you feeling like a failure, unattractive, a not-so-cool piece of flesh and a nightmare to the opposite sex.

Think of this type of advertising as peer pressure from ‘peers’ who like you for the depth of your pocket, not who you are.

Now this is where the questioning of morality should come into place.

Is it morally wrong to exploit human desires? The answer to that will depend on your beliefs. And since the subject matter is subjective, do we continue forcing our take down the other person’s throat or do we excuse the morally right or wrong debate and argue based on the law of the land, if we are to conclude the argument fairly?

Is it illegal for advertisers to exploit people’s insecurities and desires?

And let’s be fair enough to acknowledge that even campaigns with a good social cause make use of psychology.

How many times have you donated money simply because someone ensured that you’d feel inhuman should you have not?

As creatives we feel that our expertise should be utilized to create cultural and social projects like: street (and buildings) signs, books, catalogues, instructional manuals, educations aids, films and television features and the likes.

I applaud the creatives behind the First Thing First Manifesto for being wo/men enough to stand up against the hands that feeds them.

But let’s be objective for a second, apart from the street signs, all other projects that the manifesto demand creatives’ expertise to be used on are in one way or another selling something.

Books are not free: someone has to pay for the writers, printers and distributers. Someone will have to sell those books. Catalogues: showcasing what? Instructional manuals: whatever that the manual is intended to help the user operate is unlikely to be free.

You can argue that the instructional manuals are for educational purposes and that the education is free, but even if education was free… education equips people with skills so they can go work for profit seeking corporations — ultimately something needs to be sold to someone.

The human race faces natural disasters, crime, rape, women and child abuse, global warming etc.

Such challenges could be what we as creatives focus our energy on as suggested by the manifesto. As ‘human’ as it sounds, reality is that a living needs to be made.

Again, for one to earn, something must be sold. Skills are designed to enable one to partake in the jungle of economics.

Graphic design is also a commercial art. And in that context, it’s perpetuation is dependent on clients who has something to sell.

The challenge is that the answering to a brief is how most creatives make a living. Emphasis being on answering, and not choosing which briefs to answer to.

Are all businesses that sell to consumers evil? And isn’t the selling that qualifies an organization as a business? If so, are we as creatives also evil because in someway those businesses are our consumers? Are we less evil because our products are intangible, because we’re less manipulative in attracting our clients to hire us or is it because after work we go home and help those we’re hired to lure consume the advertising?

What is immoral? and whose definition do we judge against? The seller or those sold to?

Is the exploitation of human needs and desires an art to be celebrated or something to be ashamed of?

Is “making a living” and “financial security” dangled to creatives so they unconsciously play puppet to the so-called evil corporations?

Is the “business world” bigger than creatives? And how feasible is the “anti-selling silly things like cat food” ideology?

This reminds me of a line in some movie where a bank robber asked a bank teller “do you want to be a dead hero or live coward?”

Related Writings:

Is a sale too complex to measure ROI on design, accurately?

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:30:17 +0000

If most prospect design clients share the same sentiment, with Tom De Marco, that “you can’t control what you can’t measure,” then it’s inevitable that most will believe that investing in professional design is not that much of a necessity.

One of the hardest (and in most cases, impossible) thing to measure, accurately, is the Return On Invest made on design — be it graphic design, website design, user experience, User Interface, Product design, et cetera.

This makes it very difficult for designers to sell design to prospects. It’s much easier to sell something if you can show or provide tangible proof or results.

To overcome this challenge, companies that sell lose-weight-without-a-sweat products rely on Before-and-After pictures to build credibility and ultimately motivate consumers to make a sale.

I’ve never been a woman, duh!, but I heard that the way a guy presents himself counts, big time. The “presentation” is mostly made up by the way the guy is dressed and groomed. Let’s create a scene.

We have some guy walking in a mall. And, Bang.

He sees a good looking chick, a potential daughter-in-law to his mom.

He makes a move. She ends up telling him her name.

From that scenario, it’s unlikely that the guy will know what exactly made the woman give him her attention and a chance for him to promise her heaven-and-earth.

Fast Forward. The guy and the woman are now dating.

Do we credit the way the guy was dressed?, the guy’s looks or the “your father must be a terrorist, ‘cos you’re the bomb!” lame pickup line that he used?

Can it also be possible that the emotional state that the guy found the woman in, made a contribution? maybe she was just tired of being lonely?

If the guy is interested in having as many women as he can get, and say he knew that he won all of his ten girlfriends’ hearts ‘cos of the way he dresses — isn’t it obvious that he’ll invest more time and money into his attire instead of wasting time brainstorming and memorizing cheap pickup lines, as for him they bear no fruits.

This is a very simple, some may even find it silly, analogy but I believe it’s effective in supporting the points I am trying to raise with this post.

Let’s get back to business. (business, ROI and design, that is.)

This is how difficult it is, for a seller to know exactly what made the biggest impact in getting a sale.

When a consumer buys a tooth paste from, say, Colgate, can we really measure what pushed the consumer to choose their product? Could it have been the TV ads that they’ve been constantly fed? Or was it Colgate’s slick new packaging?

Maybe that the consumer grew up in a household that used Colgate’s toothpaste religiously? Or was it that Pick n Pay had an irresistible discount on the product that day? Or maybe, just maybe, Colgate was the only brand in stock at the time the consumer made their shopping?

Or better still, Colgate was wise enough to pay a premium for their product to be shelved on the “eye level” shelves, which is regarded as the most selling shelve space? Or the product, toothpaste, is just a great product on its own?

A sale process is simple, a consumer just select a product and then pay for it, right? Yes and No.

Yes that’s a simple procedure. And No, as the selecting a product part is complicated — that’s where design (plus branding, marketing, sales etc.) plays a huge role.

After a consumer acknowledges their need for a product, they have to make a choice from hundreds (and sometimes, thousands) of brands offering the same product. Let’s make it more intense. Brands competing for the same wallets.

This is a stage where companies rely on branding, sales, marketing, design, etc to make the actual product appealing to consumers.

It usually takes more that one discipline to sell a product or service.

I guess that’s what makes it even harder to measure returns from an investment made on design.

When great packaging attracts a consumer’s attention plus instill trust, and then, the consumer ends up buying the product.

What gets the pat on the back, design or the store manager for offering a 25% off discount.

Design does not exist in isolation. And usually when it contributes, usually the most, to a consumer making a sale, disciplines such as advertising, sales and marketing are usually praised.

Seth Godin, a marketing expert, mentioned “Marketers take a lot of credit, because marketing is near the end of the game.”

If it’s this hard (or impossible) to tell which discipline pushed a consumer to make a sale, how possible is measuring ROI — made on design?

Related Writings:

How Avis made the best of — not being the best

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:46:35 +0000

We all want to be known as the first, best, or biggest — don’t we? If someone has already been labeled that before us, what do we do? We work hard, in trying to overtake them.

Well not Avis. Instead, Avis searched for a silver lining in the cloud they found themselves in.

Avis admitted that Hertz was the first car rental company in the world, and consumers were aware of that too. This positioned Hertz as a market leader in the minds of those that matters the most, consumers.

Your typical competitor would have not hesitated but spend all their marketing efforts on trying to overtake Hertz to take their number one spot in the minds of consumers.

Avis instead decided to look for a reason to appear better than Hertz without looking ‘bigger’ than them. Avis decided to publicly acknowledge Hertz as number one and proclaim that their company was second. This was not an easy task as publicly referring to themselves as No.2 could lead to consumers thinking their service is second-best.

Avis then explored opportunities and competitive advantages of being second best, which led to their famous slogan: “we try harder.”

Their slogan is effective because it’s simple, meaningful, memorable.

Avis promised to please even more than the leader, Hertz. And people responded positively to Avis’s sincere desire to please.

Take a look at the execution of Avis’s brand positioning strategy below:

Their initial ad campaign had what most called the most famous last line in advertising history:

“The line at our counters is shorter.”

I really enjoyed reading about Avis and how it positioned themselves — and It would have been ‘greedy’ of me not to share this with you, especially those who weren’t familiar with Avis’ brand positioning strategy.

The power is in their simplicity, I doubt there’s any “comeback” that Hertz can do that will stick in the minds of consumers like Avis’s brand positioning.

This is brilliant!

Related Writings:

Is mentioning “terms and conditions apply” a waste of ad space?

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Fri, 22 May 2009 07:14:20 +0000

I’m not really sure if this is a South African advertising phenomenon, radio to be exact, so for the sake of not ranting about some countries I’m not sure of I’ll stick to South Africa.

It’s a no-brainer that entities such as TV Channels and Radio stations depend on advertising for most part of their income. So, as one would expect, watching TV or listening to radio means you will be fed with adverts — there’s hardly 10 minutes of broadcasting, without not being sold something.

All radio ads I’ve been fed so far have one thing in common, their punch line is exactly the same:

“…terms and conditions apply.”

I’m fully aware that advertisers are obliged to include that line at the end of their ads — bodies like The Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA) comes to minds. They actually state that:

Advertisements shall state that conditions apply.

I’d like to excuse TV adverts as they usually, though in tiny print, state that terms and conditions do apply plus state the terms and conditions that applies.

If you’re going to tell listeners that terms and conditions apply but say nothing about the terms and conditions, what value does that last two seconds of a radio ad add to the listeners?

One second makes a huge difference to the structure of the ad and what the advertisers are charged.

Do consumers really need to be fed ‘terms and conditions apply’ all the time?

Obliging to this line means advertisers forfeit 6.66% of their ad space, on a 30 seconds ad. That’s money on a phrase that is already tattooed at the back of our minds before we even consume the ads.

Let’s follow Entrepreneur Magazine’s advice on radio ads, and use their frequency ‘suggestions’ for my calculations.

But don’t run a schedule with fewer than 18 commercials in one week. Preferably opt for 24 or more. And don’t advertise for one or two weeks and then stop. People need time to get used to hearing your business name, particularly if you’re new, and then they need to hear what your business is all about. [via Entrepreneur Mag]

Rough calculation*

Let’s just say, a 30 seconds ad cost R 30,000 every time it is broadcasted.

R 30,000 / 30 sec. = R 1,000 per second.

Now let’s minus 2 sec. (dedicated to “terms and conditions apply”) = 28 sec.

It will cost advertisers R 2,000 to tell consumers what they already know and expect, every time an ad is aired.

If we take Entrepreneur Magazine’s suggestion of 24 or more per week, for four weeks.

R 30,000 x 24 = R 720,000 per week

x 4 weeks = R 2,880,000 per month

Approximately 6.66% or R 191,808 paid belongs to “terms and conditions apply”, not the advertiser’s message!

*Maths wasn’t my forte at high school.

Related Writings:

Modern psychology slowly dictates how and what creatives sell

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:57:44 +0000

As advertisers, marketers and graphic designers, to name a few, we are all in the same business. The business of selling.

We are employed to communicate our clients’ brand message/promise, which is usually their sales pitch for their product. Research has enabled us to recognize the product’s targeted market’s behavioral patters. This sort of pushes us to think of design from the consumers’ point of view.

When selling a product, we are now forced to focus on what the consumers want or want to hear instead of selling the ‘real’ benefits of a product.

Usage of modern psychology is advertising, marketing and graphic design has contributed much to understanding of people’s motivations to buying, which is mostly unconscious.

This has in a way has made the ‘traditional’ focus on a product sold, seem less effective.

Obviously, this affects the tone and imagery used in the selling materials we as ‘sellers’ create. Companies has shifted their focus and brand promise to try exploit common human desires to be: beautiful, successful and socially acceptable.

Brands that makes soap has shifted from selling what their product achieve, cleanliness. They instead focus on selling beauty.

Deodorant companies no longer promise consumers good hygiene, they now sell popularity, especially by the opposite sex.

Now when a creative gets employed to sell a male deodorant, the visual focus is no longer solely on the deodarant but some guy with few females behind him, drooling.

Related Writings:

Is humour the new sex in advertising?

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:23:59 +0000

I’m not sure if I am alone on this one, but whenever I watch TV most of the ads I see tend to aim at leaving the viewers laughing more than anything else.

Sex has been employed in advertising since the beginning of advertising. It has been predominantly used to draw attention to a product, with a goal to make a sale.

The sexual imagery used usually has no connection to the product advertised.

While listening to the Metro FM’s Breakfast Show a couple of weeks back, the DJ asked the listeners to call-in and share their faviourite (currently on-air) adverts. All of the adverts the listeners mentioned as their favourites were ads that had a some sort of a ‘punch line’ at the end.

Most of the callers couldn’t stop giggling while they were sharing their favourites with other listeners.

It’s clear that the ads made it to the viewers ‘faviourites list’ simply because they made them laugh. The same kind of adverts resurrect whenever ‘cool’ adverts become part of the conversation whenever I converse with friends, family and complete strangers.

Before labeling an ad as a success, does the advertiser and the ad’s intended audience judge the ad on the same audience (re)action?

Some ads even managed to make me laugh so hard that I’d be in tears. But, I have never bought and I doubt I’ll ever buy most of the products that were being advertised, though I fall within the advertiser’s targeted market. KFC also has some funny TV ads, again most make me laugh until my poor t-shirt drowns in my tears. However, the disturbing thing is that I really don’t remember or even have noticed which of their product range was advertised.

Most ads have some sort of ‘story or play’ happening for 99% of the time and then only get to say, name or show the product being sold at the last 2 seconds of the ad.

The product usually loses the spotlight to the ‘joke’.

I have a friend named Tshepho, almost all the time we watch TV together and an ad he liked just went by, he’ll go “tjo, ah advert yela e blind san!” (wow, that ad is a killer man). And most of the times I can tell when he is about to say his ‘phrase of approval’ before he even utters a word.

Why? Because he’d already be laughing like there’s no tomorrow, occasionally with a round of applause.

I know that with the countless number of marketing messages we consume daily, an ad that seriously made me laugh is likely to stay in my already over-populated mind for some time to come, while some ads never get to part ways with my memory.

People really do fall in love with ads; my dad would at times shout my younger brother’s name, just calling him to come see his favourite ad. But does that translate into a sale or at least a brand building exercise that might be a sale someday?

Do consumers really make their final buying decision based on who made them laugh the most?

The biggest contrast between sex and humour in advertising is that sex is mainly used to attract audience to the ad, while humour is only exercised after the ad has attracted the viewers’ attention.

Is there any logical reasons for advertisers to play comedians?

Related Writings:

Quality is not an effective branding message

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:41:59 +0000

Quality is a great statement to make about your brand. It is even better when your costumers make that statement about your brand for you. Yet, having a quality product or service is not the end of branding efforts, but only the beginning. Quality just gets you in the game and brings your brand into consideration. Brands that are not delivering a quality product or service consistent with their price will disappear (think of the Yugo!).

Attention to quality is fine. Marketing managers get into trouble, though, when they believe that quality is the basis on which their brand competes in the marketplace. Brand managers too focused on a quality message send their brand adrift without much meaning.

“Our brand is the quality leader,” they might say. Or “our customers buy our product because of its quality”, you may sometimes hear.

All of this may be true. But what business openly proclaims to have a shoddy product or mediocre services? Sure, Boeing builds quality planes… but then so does Airbus. Anheuser-Busch is definitely an excellent brewery… but so is SABMilller. This abstract notion of quality doesn’t go far in differentiating brands. It can be difficult for brand managers to see clearly that their competitors’ offerings are often of quality similar to their own.

If you and your competitor both offer a quality product (as likely the case), why should someone choose your brand rather than your competitor’s? What meaningful point of difference do you offer? What emotional connection have you made? What unique imagery have you built around your brand?

Heinz is not the only company to make quality ketchup. Heinz, however, has created a point of difference with “thick”.

Quality means a different things to different people. For some, a quality watch may mean “rugged”; for others, it may mean “accurate”; and for still others , it may mean “high status”.

Quality is an abstract concept referring to many different dimensions of a brand’s performance.

An effective positioning is tangible, clear and concrete. Concepts such as “fast”, “reliable”, “fun”, “youthful” and “safe” vividly portray the benefit delivered by a brand.

Quality is expected in a brand. Although the level of quality expectations varies by price (you expect a £400 DVD player to be of a higher quality than a £100 DVD player), consumers fundamentally expect a quality product. Most companies are operating consistently with basic consumer expectations around quality. (if not, they aren’t in business for long!)

Quality doesn’t differentiate brands.

The Nissan Navara, Mini Cooper, Honda Civic and Lexus LS460 are all “quality” cars. But simply noting they are all quality cars does nothing to reflect the different experiences each provides. The Honda Civic delivers on basic reliable transportation. The Mini Cooper represents a fun small car. The Lexus LS range promises a “high performance saloon”. Each of these brands has its distinctiveness and is aimed at different people. “Quality” does nothing to reflect the differences and distinguish these brands from each other.

Why be so vigilant about avoiding quality as a branding message? Because it is so easy to fall back on. Positioning your brand’s key message is a critical branding decision. Choosing an effective positioning requires making a tough choice from among several good alternatives. Should a bank position on low rates? Should a bank position on individualized personal service? What about accessible ATMs? Or perhaps simplified e-banking?

Each on of those positioning alternatives will have its detractors. It is bad to compete on price.

Personalized service will be too expensive to deliver and isn’t key decision criterion for 55% of bank customers.

Accessible ATMs as a position seems so 1990s. Positioning on e-banking doesn’t create the right emotional bond with customers… and on and on. Inevitably someone will suggest positioning the bank on quality. How can anyone object that? It sounds great and fits perfectly with the bank’s mission and vision statements. But what does it really mean?

Quality in manufacturing is important. Quality in customer service is important. Having customers view your brand as providing good quality for money is important. Quality is a way to be. It is not a branding message.

Your branding message should communicate your brand’s uniqueness.

People need some reason to nudge their choice towards your brand. Quality is necessary for your brand to be considered, but it is not sufficient to warrant a purchase.

~•~

This chapter is part of Truth about brands review thus copyrighted to its authors.

Related Writings:

Book review: The truth about brands

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:40:57 +0000

I would like to share The truth about brands one of the books that kept me busy during my festive holidays, which is by far one of my best buys. The book is made of 51 “truths” each chapter incorporates a technique and a real brand case study backing the “truth”.

The chapters are kept short and straight to the point, which makes the book quite an “easy” read. The book is A5 sized with an average of two pages per chapter (which is equivalent to one A4 page covering the entire chapter).

The authors covered a lot of myths on branding that most marketing managers often practice. Reading this book will also help you in avoiding common branding mistakes that could easily have a permanent damage to your brand or those of your clients. You’ll learn how to use all the key elements, including packaging, advertising and pricing, to ensure your brand survives and thrives.

Since it takes a broad range of expertise to build and maintain a brand; marketing, graphic design, art direction, advertising etc. I’m confident that this book will appeal to a wide range of professionals.

I’m so impressed by the book that I decided to take a different approach as to how I review it. Instead of me telling you a lot about the book I think that the best way for you to have an idea of how great this book is, is for me to allow you to read few extracts from it.

As a result I’ll post one full “truth” every Thursday for the next 6 weeks starting from today.

The other 45 truths will only be available to those of you who will buy the book.

The chapters will be published in the following sequence:

Quality is not an effective branding message

Price is the communication of the value of your brand

Beware of the discounting minefield

The retail experience is the brand experience

Is your brand different? If not, why will someone buy it?

Packaging protects your product; Great packaging protects your brand

All chapters are obviously copyrighted to the authors; Brian Till and Donna Heckler. I’m only publishing the few chapters to share, educate and offer you a “test drive” and hopefully you’ll consider investing in this book.

Related Writings:

My views on facebook’s advertising model

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:56:49 +0000

Mark Zuckerberg and the crew behind Facebook has just launched their redesigned users’ profile layout. One thing for sure is that loyal users will definitely need some time to ‘digest’ and get used to the new layout. In this post my focus is more on Facebook’s ad system and a bit on the new layout.

My guess is that one of the reasons they decided to redesign was to maximize their advertising revenue, as one of the first changes one sees is that the new layout has more ads in more places than the prior design.

The common mistake people who aims to make money from their website make is that they always try to incorporate an advertising model/space after the site has been up and running. Ad space/model should be included in the ‘prototyping’ phase before the actual site is designed… it will be better than having to change the layout later just to accommodate advertising when users are already familiar with the existing interface.

With all users’ personal information Facebook has, I think their advertising’s relevance is quite disappointing, couldn’t they use a more targeting ad system? Yes I’m in South Africa but that doesn’t mean all ads from SA companies appeals to me!

Geo-Targeting alone won’t make facebook’s ads reach their potential!

Facebook currently uses age, sex, location, workplace, and relationship status to target users. I believe things like a user’s ‘activities’ can also be of value in terms of filtering ads, if Alfred likes mountain hiking – hiking gear would definitely appeal to him. The user’s ‘Favourite books’ section can also be taken further, as the author’s other books can surely be of interest to the user.

I think most ad models fail to reach the site’s potential because the advertiser doesn’t make the ad’s relevance to the user a priority, they instead get obsessed with how the ad looks and how many ads the user is exposed to.

As a user I’d rather have an irritating and not so good looking ad that appeals to me rather than nice looking ad of a ‘Stop snoring now’ offer.

When I decide to click to view my friends’ photos on FB, all I want to see is pictures of my friends, not some advert asking me: ‘Are you moving to London’ – no thanks, I’m happy with my country and its flaws.

And how does an advertiser get the nerve to ask the users if they’d like to see more adverts? This is like saying [below a billboard], now that you’ve seen this billboard, go 4 streets up, turn left and go 2 blocks up and you’ll find another billboard!

Users use FB to interact with their buddies, they don’t go there looking for ads! So ads should be placed with caution.

Facebook fails at segmenting their users further so companies that advertises on it gets a more user targeted and efficient deal.

A perfect example of a company that excels with it’s online ad model, I’d say is Google, everybody visits Google with the same goal – to search. The reason Google’s ad system is a success is that their ads are in a way what the user is looking for, let’s say you search for ‘laptops’, you’ll be given search results on your ‘query’ plus ads of companies selling laptops in your country/area. Google offers advertising that ‘captures’ people while they’re interested.

What matters should not be the millions of users exposed to an ad but rather the number of users that find the ad appealing. If placed properly an advert could be the second best thing [ after the actual content ] that an advertiser could give the user.

FB has all the info it needs to show ads appealing to users individually, as most of it’s content is user-generated.

I believe facebook’s ad model can be made more efficient to increase their revenue and more importantly show ads that add value to a user’s ‘facebooking’ experience.

.

.

Related Writings: