OK, I realize that this may sound like heresy to an audience of journalists, and I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this statement 100 percent, but consider what
Tim Appnel has been pondering in the
O'Reilly Radar blog. On May 20, in "
Advertising as Conversation, Part 2," he wrote:
"Sponsored editorial sites like the
Borland Risk Management Center on O'Reilly's
OnJava.com are a step in the right direction, providing rich content rather than just slogans. These are akin to television 'infomercials,' a proven and effective advertising format. However, companies can get even better results if they are willing to embrace
Cluetrain principles of markets as conversations. ... While I agree that taking such an approach challenges the traditional 'Chinese wall' between editorial and advertising, it's the wave of the future. The secret is to give up control over the message, and let the users do the talking."
This thought expands on themes he raised in
Part 1 of this series. Both articles are well worth reading, as are the many comments to each.
Like most people, I've always loathed most advertising. Much of it is fake, crass, and useless. I just can't believe that such shallow, flashy pitches would entice anyone to buy anything -- but obviously they work. Still, I believe that every individual and organization has the potential to offer a constructive voice in the
public conversation. Maybe what Appnel suggests is one path to that higher goal. Maybe that approach might work even better, at least online.
