I’d put it this way.  It’s a transactional matter and little else.  Wham, bam, thank you ma’am.  It is my supposition and philosophy that the best interactive marketing is a relationship and a conversation.  Listen, respond, improve, grow.  Business is sustainable, get rich quick schemes are not.

Within a couple of days, I’ve seen two more comments on this in various forms within my industry.  First Dave Evans posts about Comment Cowards, and then Marcus Frind commented on my personal blog about a bot which targets his userbase with spam. It’s pretty clear that there is no compunction about using these poor “marketing” tactics.

This matters very much for mainstream marketers because it adds noise to an already cluttered landscape of messages.  Legitimate comments add to the discussion and build community.  Spam erodes it and tears it down.  There’s an ethic to online marketing that’s very important.  The Internet isn’t anonymous.  Assume that your tactic will be on the front page of google search results with your name tied to it.  If you wouldn’t or can’t defend it, don’t do it.  It might seem cheap, but it won’t be in the long run.  It can get viral in a negative way.

I’ll leave out the company, but lets say their initials are lmb.  As a business model they do second mortgages and other refinancing.  One could normally consider them to be a sub prime broker or lender.  

Given the general malaise in the market and the central issue being loose lending practices, there’s all kinds of cognitive dissonance going on with these ads.  However, I’ve seen variants of them for months if not years, and I see them with amazing frequency.  Most recently they are making heavy rotation on my financial news of choice, cnbc.com

Let’s get in the head of the average consumer, or at least make some guesses.  I’m checking out the latest in the dow, and recently watching it decline precipitously.  I’ve heard over and over again that credit is getting tighter.  And there it is, some one dancing off to the side of the page.  Next to the dancing person there’s some heavy copy about refinancing and bush approving a housing bill.  They offer for me to calculate a new house payment.  Only in the smallest grey type do I see the advertiser’s brand.  

Sure it makes no sense, and it might violate every rule of advertising.  They are combining 3 different messages in a way that is not very appealing or clear.  There’s no clear offer.  The dancing people have little to do with anything, and are obviously there just to garner attention.  The brand is nearly invisible.  On the other hand I have to conclude that it works, at least to get people to come to their site, because they keep doing the same basic ad.  They must garner enough attention, and pique the curiosity of their target enough to get that elusive click.  Or perhaps their business model is lucrative enough to pay for absurd numbers of impressions.  Whatever it is, in this era of data, something has to be working right?

i have to admit that I hope not.  It in many ways it is the opposite of showing respect for the consumer.  Maybe the average advertiser can learn from the motion used, as it might really help you get noticed among a largely static webpage.