Monthly Archives: November 2023

Can United Airlines Really Target In-Flight Ads to Assigned Seating?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and paging through the Wall Street Journal, when I came across this story by Patience Haggin about the latest scheme to monetize everyday life.

United Airlines Weighs Using Passenger Data to Sell Targeted Ads

United Airlines is considering using its passenger information to help brands serve targeted ads to its customers, joining a growing number of companies trying to tap their troves of user data for advertising purposes.

Some of these targeted ads could appear on its in-flight entertainment system or on the app that people use to book tickets and check-in, people familiar with the matter said. United hasn’t made a decision yet and may choose not to launch a targeted-advertising business, some of the people said.

Really, Doc  – the airlines are gonna charge me for everything except the overhead reading light (at least for now), then pepper me with data-driven product pitches? That’s just wrong, don’t you think?

– Flight Risk

Dear FR,

In case there was any doubt, it’s clear by now that the law of the land in America is No Ad Left Behind. Exhibit Umpteen: This year’s Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, which was one long commercial interrupted by commercial breaks. It also drew its biggest TV audience ever, so clearly the viewing public is undeterred by the endless adstravaganza.

According to the Journal piece, “United executives are carefully considering how to launch personalized ads in an effort not to annoy their passengers or alarm them with overly specific messages.”  But the wave of the present is clear.

U.S. marketers are expected to spend $46.4 billion on so-called “retail media” advertising—ads sold based on data from a retailer that doesn’t traditionally sell ads but has customer data from their core business—this year, according to research firm Insider Intelligence. Non-retail companies with customer data are also jumping on the bandwagon.

Last year, Marriott launched its own ad business that lets advertisers buy personalized ads on hotel room TV sets, in the Marriott app and in emails based on the hotel chain’s customer data. Marriott’s loyalty program had 164 million members when the ad business launched last year.

That kind of addressable advertising has long been the marketing industry’s dream, especially for television commercials.

Here’s how it would work: By crunching both consumer and cable-box data, advertisers could send specific TV spots to specific households. So, for instance, the Doc might see ads for Carnival Cruises, Centrum Silver, and Ensure during A Charlie Brown Christmas, while the young nuclear family living downstairs – watching the same show at the same time – would get ads for DisneyWorld, Flintstones Vitamins, and Juicy Juice.

The industry’s dream for targeted TV spots, though, has largely been just that – an elusive marketing mirage. U.S. advertisers will spend roughly $4 billion on addressable TV ads this year, which is lunch money given overall TV ad spending of $72 billion.

But there’s plenty of opportunity elsewhere, including the ad-friendly skies of United. Wherever data can be mined, marketers will find a way to extract advertising.

No Ad Left Behind.

The Doc would say Get used to it, folks, but you pretty much already have.

Why Are TV Stations Across America Rejecting PETA’s ‘Tame’ New Ads?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and clicking through MediaPost, when I came across this story in Richard Whitman’s MEDIApsssst column.

New PETA Ads Expose How Product R&D Causes Extreme Animal Suffering

PETA [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] is out with new ads showing in graphic detail how animals suffer as the result of lab experiments by companies testing new products.

Because experiments on monkeys are so gruesome that no TV station would air them, PETA used CGI to create a new TV spot that reveals who pays the biggest price for pharmaceutical drugs tested on animals. The ads clearly make their point, and many outlets still refuse to air them even though no animals were used in the production effort.

According to PETA, TV stations refusing to run the animated video ads still call them “too graphic” and cite probable “viewer complaints.”

What do you think, Doc – is this just one more example of the animal rights group being too extreme for its own good?

– RePETA

Dear RP,

Plug PETA tactics counterproductive into the Googletron and you get results like these.

According to its latest press release, though, that’s the kind of response the PETA peeps now hope to avoid – to little avail, as it turns out.

‘Too Graphic’: TV Stations Block Tame PETA CGI Spot Aimed at Monkey Laboratories

Because experiments on monkeys are so gruesome that no TV station could possibly air them, PETA used CGI to create a new TV spot that reveals—without showing any real animals, gore, or blood—who pays the real price for pharmaceutical drugs tested on animals. But many TV stations are still refusing to run even this PG-rated, animated video, calling it “too graphic” and “triggering” and citing probable “viewer complaints.”

In the 15-second spot, a “customer” wants to know how much a prescription will cost—and a computer-generated monkey, tattooed with an ID number and wheezing through a breathing tube, has the answer: “Too much.” The video is part of a new series from PETA that also takes on the hefty price animals pay for cheese and cashmere. These two ads are slated to run widely on TV and movie screens throughout the holiday season.

First, judge for yourself whether this pharmaceutical testing spot is “too graphic.”

The Doc’s diagnosis? Pretty tame indeed, given a current mediascape that routinely features bloodthirsty video games, Elon Musk’s demented X-Man cosplay, and constant casual cruelty across all social platforms. Then again, you can’t tell by looking that the monkey is CGI-generated. Ditto for the goat in this cashmere spot.

As for PETA’s assertion that the ads “are slated to run widely on TV and movie screens throughout the holiday season,” let’s go back to Richard Whitman’s MediaPost piece.

PETA says the monkey ad was rejected by multiple TV stations in Indianapolis, Reno and Sacramento.

Only a few individual stations agreed to run the ad in San Diego, Madison, Wisconsin and San Antonio, the latter two near federally funded primate research centers. Also some local stations via Comcast in the Hartford, metro area aired it in time for the Harvard-Yale football game last weekend.

More stations agreed to air the videos in which a computer-generated calf chained up behind a shop’s register and swarming with flies reveals that a wedge of cheese costs “too much.” The group investigated Daisy Farms production methods.

That ad and the cashmere spot “are running on area networks in Charleston, South Carolina, Colorado Springs and Sacramento. Additionally, the calf video will be seen at movie theaters in Sacramento and San Antonio. Altogether, PETA’s ‘Too Much’ videos will air nearly 13,000 times on screens across the country.”

So that’s not nothing. But it’s pretty clear that PETA-bred messages will continue to be muffled, no matter how tame the mistreated animals might be.

What’s Opera, Doc – Product Placements At London’s Royal Opera House?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and clicking through email (which is like fingernails, right? – never stops growing), when up popped this message in my in-box.

Hi,

Thought you might be interested in Operas and Ballets considering product placement.

Paging Dr. Ads!

Really, Doc? The Barbasol of Seville? Cosi Fan Tutti Frutti? Porgy & Bess Eaton Donuts?

Even Looney Tunes wasn’t that crazy.

– Bugs-eyed

Dear Buggsy,

Let’s start with the all-time classic of the horned helmet set (tip o’ the hare to Looney & Cartoon fan 004).

London’s Royal Opera House, which can only dream of reaching such operatic heights, is now flirting with a new low note, as Michael Vincent reports at Ludwig Van Daily.

In the heart of London, the Royal Opera House (ROH) stands as a testament to the grandeur of the performing arts. Yet, as it faces increasing competition, the venerable institution may need to embrace the digital age’s dynamism to ensure its future.

According to Bloomberg, Lloyd Dorfman, the chairman of the board of trustees at the ROH, is spearheading a pioneering approach to bridge the gap between classic artistry and modern-day technology.

That “pioneering” approach? Jumping into the $29 billion worldwide product placement pool.

High-end fashion houses like Burberry have experience in the performing arts, creating bespoke ballet costumes for special performances. The idea is to expand these collaborations by integrating luxury brands into the fabric of the ROH’s daily operations seamlessly. An Example includes having Rolex sponsor the precise timing of ballet performances, elevating the brand’s association with precision and excellence while infusing the ROH with much-needed funds.

Granted, product placement has previously been more associated with soap operas than their highbrow namesakes. But ROH chair Dorfman told Bloomberg’s Sabah Meddings,“Harrods has got scaffolding on the front of their building, and every month they have a different brand.” The Royal Ballet or Opera, he believes, “could also be sponsored by brands such as Tiffany & Co or Rolex, should they be interested.”

So, to recap: We’re looking at product placements during ROH performances, product placements on ROH’s landmark Covent Garden home – what’s next?  Branded baritones? Logoed Lohengrins? HBO mezzo sopranos?

Your operatic death scene goes here.