HOW LOW CAN THEY GO?
‘Interactive marketing’ focused on schlock TV

Authors Cathy Cook and Allison Thomas are marketing and public relations consultants. Cook has a masters degree from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Thomas began her career at the Carter White House, then moved to California to work on technology and competitiveness policy for Jerry Brown and Alan Cranston. In 1985, she founded Allison Thomas Associates which now represents “digital convergence” companies.

The Digital Revolution sure means a lot of things to a lot of people.

We recently attended a so-called “interactive marketing” conference in Phoenix that brought together members of the advertising industry to discuss the potential of interactive media. Looking forward to a stimulating discussion about how to realize the full promise of this technology, instead we found ourselves in the midst of 300 Miles Drentells (the head of Thirtysomething’s ad agency) — advertising agency managers, “interactive media” sales types, 900-number operators, major consumer products companies, and TV and cable sales representatives.

For us, it was an exploration of the dark side of the interactive media business: technology solely in the service of the profit motive.

BUZZWORDS AND BASICS

We all know that sales-types sell hype, but this conference showed how low they could go. Interactive has become the buzzword of the hour, used to describe everything from 900-number interactive Trivial Pursuit (actually a telephone service, and not what most people think of as “interactive” in the new media sense), to toy doggies with a penchant for coded video.

We suppose it’s okay that cable and telephone service companies are using the telephone (800 numbers for children, 900 numbers for adults) as the feedback loop and calling it “interactive” like it’s something new.

Oh, brother. But couldn’t they think of something a bit more innovative? The Game Channel, for example, is offering “interactive Trivial Pursuit” where users call a 900 number during regular programming breaks to play the game. In a stroke of creative genius, these game breaks are split around either side of traditional commercials because producers believe that’s how to make interactive gamers watch the commercials. However, we were pretty sure they’d be able to tear themselves away from show host Wink Martindale long enough to make their Dagwood sandwiches during the ads.

But our personal favorite was Toby the Terrier, a product based on technology by Portland, OR-based Interactive Systems (sold by Tiger Toys), which bills itself as “a pioneer in the interactive television industry.” Toby is a toy programmed to bark and wag its tail when a coded video is played on the VCR. The coded video doesn’t do anything except make Toby wag and bark. That’s it. Aside from being an incredibly stupid concept, is there anything left for the kids to do anymore?

TECHNOLOGISTS SEE CHOICE, ADVERTISERS SEE CONTROL

What generally happens when new media technologies are widely adopted (like television in the 1950s) is that advertising migrates to whatever offers “more bang for the buck.” The result is that use of the old technology shrinks — i.e., radio shows like the Lone Ranger and Jack Benny folded due to lack of advertiser support soon after TV caught on, as did the Saturday Evening Post, Collier’s and Look magazines — while the new media is increasingly exploited as an advertising platform.

New ways to target. As TV advertising has become increasingly ineffective, the advertising industry’s biggest fear has been that the onslaught of interactive digital technologies would put them out of business. At the same time, many people like us believed that new interactive technologies would allow advertisers to target their message in new ways, and enable them to be in closer touch with their customers than ever before.

To the technology futurists, for example, interactivity conjures up the vision of being able to select an item of clothing — worn by a TV character, or from a broadcast catalog — and to watch it modeled on a figure with the buyer’s dimensions. This ability for “mass customization” enables manufacturers to be in touch with consumers in unprecedented ways and give viewers buying choices they wouldn’t otherwise have.

Peddling to the peddlers. But choice didn’t seem to be what the folks at this conference had in mind. The word most frequently used at this gathering of marketing mavens was control. George Orwell would roll over in his grave at this stuff. Here are some examples of how the peddlers are marketing these interactive technologies to their peers in the advertising world:

• “Viacom wants to work with the consumer to change behavior,” said one company representative from the podium. Pardon me? Any of you actively pursuing a cable company to help you change your behavior?
• Nickelodeon marketing representatives stated that they “use two-way communication to become an important force in kids’ lives.” In other words, to sell the little tykes a few more Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
• Ogilvy and Mather Direct described interactive multimedia as a “surrogate sales agent in the home.” Just what we always wanted; Joe Isuzu in our living rooms.
• The Time-Warner people promised that “interactive media will change the viewing, shopping and buying habits of consumers. And it will, most importantly, be a vehicle for a new type of marketing communications.”

And here all along we thought interactive multimedia was a vehicle to establish a global community, offering access to information and communications of all forms, to all classes of people, when and where they choose. We didn’t know we were dealing with a “vehicle.”

ARE THEY JUST CLUE-IMPAIRED, OR WHAT?

Strangely enough it is our views, at least according to a survey by Eon Corp. (formerly TV Answer), that are shared by average consumers. These consumers want interactive TV first and foremost to access information and watch interactive educational shows. Last on the list were product purchasing and play-along sports shows.

Regulation is anathema. Clearly, these programming and cable folks don’t bother seeking out or listening to market research. Certainly they’ve never heard of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is trying to ensure that the electronic superhighway doesn’t (immediately, at least) go the way of television’s massive dedication to commercial interests. Instead, they see themselves as the railroad barons of the nineties, to whom government regulation is anathema.

One particularly memorable quote captured this disdain for any kind of government involvement when a cable industry executive shrieked, “Do you want the people that brought you the Susan B. Anthony dollar to regulate our industry?”

Remember the promise. After this clear display of intention, we’re frightened that the advertising industry and its clients — via interactive shopping, etc. — is first in line to become the principal financiers of the new interactive media industry.

We’re hoping that at some point, someone will remember the original promise of interactive media — to turn television from a passive into an active medium, to encourage education, communication and thoughtful entertainment. We can’t afford anymore schlock TV.

Cathy Cook, Allison Thomas