Home WebMail Friday, November 1, 2024, 10:23 AM | Calgary | -5.1°C | Regions Advertise Login | Our platform is in maintenance mode. Some URLs may not be available. |
Posted: 2017-04-30T21:20:32Z | Updated: 2017-05-01T00:09:36Z

Ethics lawyers and historians have argued that Donald Trump has blurred the line between his public office and private business interests in an unprecedented fashion.

In another sense, its part of a much larger social trend.

Commercial entreaties whether in the form of magazine ads, radio jingles or television spots have long been a part of modern life. But advertising is now encroaching on public space as never before.

Cities and states now grant businesses the right to put their names and logos on parking meters , bridges , fire hydrants even lifeguard swimsuits . Public parks intended to offer a respite from the travails of daily life now allow retailers to advertise amidst historical sites and nature preserves. School boards ink deals with all sorts of businesses to help them meet their budgetary needs.

Its not just public space that is filling up with brand shout-outs. In conducting research for a new book on modern marketing and its regulation, I discovered that a host of once ad-free environments from the living room to our friendships are now becoming sites for ads or surveillance technologies designed to make them more effective.

Some might shrug, calling the ad creep an inevitable part of modern life. But there are dangers to this trend, along with legal remedies if people care enough to actually do something.

Marketings new frontiers

New marketing techniques and technologies allow businesses to reach consumers in new ways and venues. One space becoming increasingly critical to market researchers is the home.

Smart technologies from Microsofts Xbox One to Vizio televisions now come embedded with what could be described as spying capabilities. These devices can record activities once considered private, like the movies we decide to watch and even our facial expressions while playing a video game. This information becomes part of a digital profile used by advertisers to get a better portrait of who we are and how we can be convinced to make a purchase.

Meanwhile, every time we sign on to Facebook or search Google on our personal computers or smartphones, we are adding to vast stockpiles of market research. This kind of surveillance is hard to escape. Marketers have moved past cookies: They can now identify individual users from the number of fonts in their browser or the rate at which their particular computers battery loses its charge.

Even our brains have become fair game for advertising annexation. A landmark 2004 study asked subjects to take sips of Coke and Pepsi while a machine measured blood flow in their brains. When the brand was a secret, participants expressed a slight preference for Pepsi. But when the brand names were revealed before taking a sip, participants, both verbally and neurologically, revealed a preference for Coke. The study was widely heralded as proof of the ability of advertising to actually change our brain chemistry, to instill emotional markers that can trump objective evaluation of the actual product.

Since then, companies have spent millions to record activity in consumers brains to better capture the desires we wont or cant articulate. Some major ad campaigns we currently see from Samsung to Campbells soup reflect the results from this new neuromarketing research.

Our friendships and social networks arent immune. Marketers target micro-influencers often people with modest Instagram or Twitter followings that can be leveraged to sell products or services on social media . While Federal Trade Commission rules require endorsers to acknowledge the compensation they receive in return for giving favorable plugs for a product, enforcement is minimal .

The consequences of ad creep

Even those bullish about these new marketing gambits do admit that they can be annoying. Still, a common response to complaints about the growing presence of ads is Whats the harm? As the argument goes, being annoyed is a small price to pay for subsidized public infrastructure , free online content and exposure to ads more attuned to our actual interests and needs .