A recent New York Times article covered the advent of some new platforms for showcasing video clips of funny ads with intent of attracting, or “pulling,” visitors seeking ads that promise to entertain; a move the article implied might be the answer to TiVo, media fragmentation, and a host of other problems affecting traditional advertising. What the article misses, though, is the need to account for viewer intent and message repetition.

First, a little background.

In Waiting for Your Cat to Bark, Jeff & Bryan Eisenberg compare traditional, mass media advertising methods (i.e., “push” marketing) to Persuasion Architecture’s use of “pull” marketing. With repetition — and a marginally effective message — ads were once able to create an association in the audience’s minds between…

a) a particular need or want, and;
b) the product’s ability to satisfy that need or want.

They did this using the exact same mechanism Pavlov tapped into when he created an association in the mind of his dogs between the ring of a bell and the serving of food. Done correctly, this type of advertising can reach prospective customers before they’re in the market for your product or service, causing them — once they finally have a need for what you sell — to think of you first and feel good about their decision.

It’s called branding, and it works. But the problems with branding in today’s world are many.

First of all, mass media is an illusion. Thanks to a fragmented media landscape — narrowcasting, long-tails, etc. — most companies don’t have the budget to reach enough people with enough repetition to make branding an efficient option. Secondly, people are using technology to screen out ads that are pushed at them. Because they can, audiences (understandably) don’t wish to be interrupted and now have the means to prevent the interruptions altogether.

Pull marketing, on the other hand, capitalizes on an audience’s existing desire for a product or service and creates a strong enough scent trail (define) to “pull” the customer through her buying process. You don’t have to work to plant an associative memory in the mind of the dog between the scent of raw meat and the satisfaction of his hunger. It’s already there; you just have to make sure the dog can follow the scent all the way to the food.

When buying process is satisfying, it’s often repeated. Repeated satisfaction (not repeated ads) creates brand affinity. This aspect of pull marketing eliminates much of the requirement to repeat an advertising message or to try to “break through the clutter” of ads being pushed at people. You’re going with the flow of a prospects attention and desires rather than trying to commandeer it.

The challenge of pull marketing is to correctly presume, and match, customer intent. What are people really intending to do when they search on this or that term? How do your prospective customers think about and describe their problems? if you misinterpret intent, the rest of your efforts at creating relevant scent trails will be in vain.

Pull marketing won’t reach potential customers before they’re in the market for your what your brand offers. If they’re not aware they need, or will need, what you sell, they won’t search for you — and they’ll be unlikely to pick up on your scent trail. Of course, loads of repeatedly satisfied customers have been known to create word-of-mouth that reaches more people, but the question remains: How do you engage prospects — no, that’s not an oxymoron — in an age when push advertising has become prohibitively expensive?

Let’s get back to the NY Times article and problem with sites like VeryFunnyAds.com:

1) Viewer Intent.

Visitors to these sites come there with the intention of finding entertaining ads. They’re looking for jokes. That’s the itch they’re trying to scratch. They’re clearly not coming there from an interest in the products being advertised. So, pull marketing is out, as is any meaningful attempt at conversion.

But, hey, at least they’re watching the ads, right? You’ve now got their attention and you’re not paying painfully high media rates to get it. How about these platforms as a vehicle for push marketing?

2) Repetition.

First, even before mentioning repetition, let’s talk about relevance. Funny/entertaining ads are only useful when the humor is integral to the brand’s Unique Value Proposition (more on UVP here). If humor is an effective way to convey the brand’s benefits, the viewer remembers the product’s promise. But if the humor strictly gratuitous, or only tangentially relevant, it usually falls flat. And when that happens, listen closely. That’s not the cash register in the background; it’s the sound of crickets and tumbleweed.

How many times will they need to see your ad before they feel the product will satisfy their need? Compare that answer to the amount of times you — or anyone — is likely to watch the same video at VeryFunnyAds.com. Two times? Three?

Does anyone need to tell you that’s not enough? Basically, you’d need an entire campaign of funny ads in order to get enough repetition for this “pull” attempt at branding to work properly. This can be done, but it’s a tall order. For instance, I loved this ad, but it fell flat with different personality types.

Related Posts:

• In (Mild) Defense of Firebrand
• The Whopper is dead. Long live the Whopper!
• The 7 Deadly Claims (Part Four) -- "We're #1"
• The 2007 Marketing to Women Awards
• They're Suave, They Sprint, They're "In The MotherHood"