Monday, May 16, 2022

(Let’s complain about some parts of) wine marketing

Quite a few of the emails and Comments submitted to this blog are of this type: “I want to use you to advertise my product.” The writers don’t put it in those exact words, of course, but that is the essence of what they are saying. So, believe me, I am very happy about those other people who also write to me, instead of these particular people.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with these advertising people, of course, nor with advertising itself. These people simply live in a world where they want you to do things their way, rather than the other way around. Boy, they can sometimes be annoying though, can’t they? Let’s talk about this, today.

Basic wine marketing

As I emphasized, I am not discussing advertising or its usefulness, but am concentrating on the way that it is done far too often (at least in my experience). I am not going to specifically name names in the wine industry, of course, since there is little that is specific to trying to sell wine, as opposed to any other product or service.

For example, we could start with YouTube, instead. Leaving aside the blatant breaching of worldwide copyright laws relating to musical compositions, which so many channels seem to base their entire content on (unless the original content creators are being vigilant, and issue a Take-Down notice), how do we get treated, as customers? After all, the content providers are actually trying to make money from us, in one way or another.

Well, we are often subjected to two consecutive lots of 15-sec ads, before we can even evaluate the content of a video. Do these people really think that I am going to bother with this? There are thousands of other videos to view, so I simply move on. If they were actually treating us like customers, their money-raking activities would occur at the end, not the beginning — we should get some content first. Perhaps even worse are those channels that have ads as well as being sponsored — the latter involving a break in “programming” while the presenters themselves try to flog hair-restorer or insurance to us. Infuriating!

Does this apply to wine advertising on the internet? Well, not directly, as far as I can see. After all, YouTube is banning alcohol, gambling, and politics from its ‘most prominent’ ad slots; so that is tough for the alcohol industry.

But the principle of not letting us even get to the content without an interruption certainly does apply, no matter what web page you go to. Perhaps the most prominent interruption is having a popup appear before you can even read the first few words of content, telling you what the page’s author wants from you. The most common request is for us to subscribe, of course. Subscribe to what??!! We haven’t yet seen anything worth subscribing to!

Receiving an endless series of emails is the most prominent infuriation, in the modern world. That is, of course, precisely why we have to subscribe in order to get to the content — so they can subsequently send us emails. I long ago created a “junk” email account just for this purpose. I use it to subscribe to things that I have no interest in, but am forced to subscribe to, just to read some piece of internet content. The emails sent to that address are, of course, regularly trashed, unread. Emails from organizations that I have chosen myself are another matter, of course (Twitter is for show, but email is for dough).


Actually, I once used to have a Facebook account, too, solely for the purpose of viewing a friend’s photographs — this was before the days of Instagram. Anyway, one day I discovered that I had “liked” a whole bunch of commercial products, most of which I had never heard of. So, I laboriously deleted all of the Likes, one by one. Two days later, most of them were back again. So, I tried to delete my account, instead. Boy, was that an effort! Registering for Facebook is easy, but de-registering is a whole other thing. I succeeded eventually; but it has given me a jaundiced view of the anti-social media, ever since.

On the matter of visiting websites, there is the thorny issue of the use of personal information — gathered by logging every keystroke while you are visiting the site, and later using this to target you. People are not happy about this, which is why we have to explicitly “agree” to the use of cookies before we can get to the website content. Almost all cookies are unnecessary for a successful visit to most webpages; and so, in most cases, agreement is simply an admission of guilt. The statement: “We use cookies to improve your website experience”, is often utter rubbish — if they weren’t tracking us, then we would not have to agree to anything. *

Furthermore, do many Americans know that huge numbers of USA webpages cannot be viewed in the European Union? The EU has very strict laws about the use of private information, and many US webpages blatantly violate those laws. Therefore, the owners of those pages must, by law, block access from EU residents. We residents get a message something like this, instead:
451: Unavailable due to legal reasons
We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time.
This notice is often followed by some platitude such as: “We are working to fix this, to ensure that your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws.” Sure — pull the other leg! To add insult to injury, some websites will also put up a Captcha, insisting that I prove to the computer that I am a human being, before I am allowed near the hallowed webpage content. This is the wrong way around — you do not put the onus on the customer to prove that they are an actual customer (or want to be). **

Successful wine marketing

Do these annoyances apply to any great extent in the wine industry? To find out, back on March 23, 2022, I checked the situation for the Wine News Fetch, at Wine Industry Insight. There were links to 66 wine-related news articles listed, arranged in 26 sections. When accessing each of these 66 links, 27 required a cookie agreement from me (40%), at the beginning, and 11 had a “subscribe” pop-up, also at the beginning. Furthermore, two of the sites could not be accessed from the EU, and one required me to complete a Captcha. So, the answer is: Yes, it applies. ***

If you would like an example of perfect irony, try reading this recent article about the very topic at hand (Large spam fine for online wine store) while you have your web-browser's ad blocker switched on (as I always do). You explicitly have to White-List the site (so that the ad-blocker is never used) before you can read more than one sentence of the article.

Apart from direct marketing, as discussed above, much wine advertising is alternatively about brand placement in public. That is, we cannot legally advertise wine directly in many parts of the media, so the ads occur as part of publicly broadcast events (eg. the Casella half-time wine ads during the American Super Bowl). However, there is also the matter of what are politely referred to as “virtual product placements” (aka subliminal advertising). Given YouTube’s alcohol policy, people are starting to take note of what is happening in the movies (Virtual product placement - your wine in their movie) and on television (Reality TV ‘bombards’ young people with alcohol marketing, study says), as well.

Well, what is the moral from this blog post? Don’t annoy your customers, or they won’t be customers for long. There is an old saying that: “The customer is always right”. This is not a definition of “right” but instead is a definition of “customer” — people will not be your customer if you don’t think that they are right, and treat them so.



* I once visited a webpage that was quite honest about this:
We and our partners process data to analyze website performance and to do the following:
Create a personalised content profile. Store and/or access information on a device. Develop and improve products. Create a personalised ads profile. Personalised ads and content display, ad and content measurement, and audience insights. Precise geolocation data, and identification through device scanning.
** I am not going to go into the problems caused by me having an older computer, the web browser on which makes most websites laugh at me, and breaks many of these sites completely. Apparently, I will also have to buy a new computer, just to access much of the future hallowed content.

*** Lewis Perdue has reminded me that there are websites that will scan other websites, and tell you what those sites are up to, in terms of tracking. Perhaps the best known is: The Markup's Blacklight, if you want to try it.

11 comments:

  1. David:

    You have given me so much to "chew on" here.

    I worked for national and international ad agencies. Who personally disdained being advertisized to, because so much of the "messaging" was inane and off-target.

    Was college educated in Silicon Valley (business school, supplemented by engineering studies) . . . but never drank the "Kool-Aid."

    Who never enrolled in ANY social media platform. Not: MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Linkedin et cetera because I saw them all as an asymmetrical exchange of my personal privacy for some low utility "free" service.

    See . . .

    Excerpt from The Wall Street Journal "Business & Finance" section
    (June 1, 2017, Page B1ff):

    "How Not to Expose Yourself on the Web"

    URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-expose-yourself-a-guide-to-online-privacy-1496249766

    By Geoffrey A. Fowler
    "Personal Technology" column

    "You wouldn’t walk naked through Times Square. Stop being naked online.

    "Your laptop and that smartphone grafted to your hand are double agents. What you look at, where you go and even what you say can be used to paint a portrait of you leaving you as exposed as the day you were born. Much of Silicon Valley wants you to think the price of using the internet is letting them data-mine your life.

    "This is a beginner’s guide to fighting back.

    "It starts with a golden rule: When the product is free, that means YOU are the product. Your privacy is the cost of a free social network, free tax prep or free photo storage."

    I could spend the whole night burning the midnight oil researching and composing comments to this post about the dark side of social media.

    (And may yet . . .)

    ~~ Bob

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bibliography:

    First installment of Wall Street Journal technology columnist Geoffrey Fowler's advisory . . .

    From The Wall Street Journal
    “Business & Finance” Section
    (May 25, 2017, Page B1ff):

    "Your Data Is Way More Exposed Than You Realize;
    To get a handle on your online privacy, first understand how much of your data is already out there, and how it can be weaponized"

    URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/your-data-is-way-more-exposed-than-you-realize-1495657390

    By Geoffrey A. Fowler
    “Personal Technology” column

    Second installment of Wall Street Journal technology columnist Geoffrey Fowler's advisory . . .

    From The Wall Street Journal
    “Business & Finance” Section
    (June 1, 2017, Page B1ff):

    “How Not to Expose Yourself on the Web"

    URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-expose-yourself-a-guide-to-online-privacy-1496249766?mg=prod/accounts-wsj

    By Geoffrey A. Fowler
    “Personal Technology” column

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bibliography:

    How cavalier have Silicon Valley companies been in failing to protect your social media account's privacy from hacking?

    "Ripped from the headlines . . .":

    "LinkedIn 2012 Data Breach May Have Hit Over 100 Million" | Wall Street Journal Online (May 19, 2016)

    "Myspace Breached by Hackers Before Memorial Day Weekend" | Wall Street Journal Online (May 31, 2016)

    "Twitter: Passwords Leaked for Millions of Accounts" | Wall Street Journal Online (June 9, 2016)

    "Yahoo Discloses New Breach of 1 Billion User Accounts" | Wall Street Journal Online (Dec 15, 2016)

    "Facebook Finds Security Flaw Affecting Almost 50 Million Accounts" | Wall Street Journal Online (Sept 28, 2018)

    Excerpt from "Identity Fraud Hits Record Number of People" | Wall Street Journal Online (Feb 6, 2018)

    "Some 16.7 million U.S. consumers had their identities compromised in 2017, resulting in $16.8 billion in losses, according to consulting firm Javelin Strategy & Research."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bibliography:

    Facebook is an addictive app. Don't take my word on it. Take their own, via internal research documents . . .

    From The Wall Street Journal Online
    (Feb 1, 2017):

    "Am I Really Addicted to Facebook?"

    URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/am-i-really-addicted-to-facebook-1485968499

    By Geoffrey A. Fowler
    “Personal Technology” column

    -- and --

    From The Wall Street Journal Online
    (Nov 5, 2021):

    "Is Facebook Bad for You? It Is for About 360 Million Users, Company Surveys Suggest"

    URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-bad-for-you-360-million-users-say-yes-company-documents-facebook-files-11636124681

    By Georgia Wells and Deepa Seetharaman and Jeff Horwitz
    Staff Reporters


    The former Wall Street Journal tech columnist Walter Mossberg deleted his Facebook account . . .

    From The New York Times Online
    (Dec 18, 2018):

    "Walt Mossberg, Veteran Technology Journalist, Quits Facebook"

    URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/walt-mossberg-quit-facebook.html

    By Daniel Victor


    The difficulty you'll face trying to delete your Facebook account . . .

    From Time Magazine Online
    (May 14, 2010):

    "Why Is It So Hard to Delete Your Facebook Account?"

    URL: https://newsfeed.time.com/2010/05/14/why-is-it-so-hard-to-delete-your-facebook-account/#:~:text=It's%20harder%20than%20you%20may,to%20permanently%20delete%20the%20information.

    By Kristi Oloffson
    Staff Reporter

    -- and --

    From The Wall Street Journal Online
    (Mar 28, 2018):

    "How to Reduce Your Exposure on Facebook, or Cut Ties Altogether"

    URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-dump-facebook-or-at-least-put-it-in-the-dog-house-for-a-while-1521846110?mod=article_inline

    By Katherine Bindley
    "Personal Technology" column

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bibliography:

    Your smartphone is likewise addictive . . .

    From The Atlantic Magazine Online
    (November 2016):

    "Addicted to Your iPhone? You're Not Alone"

    URL: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-binge-breaker/501122/

    By Bianca Bosker

    -- and --

    From The Wall Street Journal
    “Opinion” Section Online
    (October 6, 2017):

    "The Saturday Essay Column:
    How Smartphones Hijack Our Minds"

    URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-smartphones-hijack-our-minds-1507307811

    By Nicholas Carr


    . . . so maybe you should diminish its use?

    From The Wall Street Journal
    “Opinion” Section
    (January 26-27, 2019, Page A11):

    "The Weekend Interview Column:
    It’s Not Too Late to Quit Social Media”

    URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/its-not-too-late-to-quit-social-media-11548457601?ns=prod/accounts-wsj

    By Kate Bachelder Odell

    -- and --

    Excerpt from The Wall Street Journal Online
    (January 3, 2020):

    "How to Last a Day Without Your Phone"

    URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-last-a-day-without-your-phone-11578079965

    By Katherine Plumhoff
    "Gear & Gadgets" column

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bibliography:

    Consider adopting "selective availability" . . .

    Excerpts from the Los Angeles Times
    “Op-Ed” Section
    (September 29, 2011, Page A17):

    “Too Connected for Comfort;
    Don't want to be addicted to email, Facebook, smartphones?
    Try selective availability.”

    URL: http://articles.latimes.com/print/2011/sep/29/opinion/la-oe-kornbluth-disconnect-20110929

    By Jesse Kornbluth

    . . .

    I commend a gentler, saner "middle path," the way of "selective availability," It is, I believe, possible to check your email only every few hours, catch up with Facebook and Twitter once a day and enjoy dinner with friends without adding your iPhone and BlackBerry to the guest list. The trick: Use devices -- just never the latest version.

    . . .

    Facebook? A real-world friend says you should never "friend" anyone you haven't had lunch with. He has standards. . . .

    I grant that there are disadvantages to the way of selective availability. . . .

    On the plus side, I have time to THINK. . . .

    -- and --

    Here's a real-world example . . .

    Excerpts from Business Insider Online
    (November 12, 2013):

    “George Clooney Doesn't 'Understand Why Any Famous Person Would Ever Be On Twitter' “

    URL: http://www.businessinsider.com/george-clooney-doesnt-understand-why-celebrities-use-twitter-2013-11

    By Aly Weisman

    George Clooney . . . in his latest interview with Esquire magazine . . . bash[-ed] celebrities' use of Twitter.

    “If you’re famous, I don’t -- for the life of me -- I don’t understand why any famous person would ever be on Twitter,” Clooney told the magazine. “Because first of all, the worst thing you can do is make yourself more available, right? Because you’re going to be available to everybody.”

    Clooney explains how it's just too easy for celebrities to tweet 140 characters and end up regretting it:

    "So one drunken night, you come home and you’ve had two too many drinks and you’re watching TV and somebody pisses you off, and you go ‘Ehhhhh’ and fight back. And you go to sleep, and you wake up in the morning and your career is over. Or you’re an a--hole. Or all the things you might think in the quiet of your drunken evening are suddenly blasted around the entire world before you wake up.”

    . . . [Clooney] says he greatly respects his famous peers who make themselves unavailable, like Bill Murray and Brad Pitt.

    Clooney says he cast Bill Murray in "Monuments Men," which he is producing, “Because you can’t get to him -- You can’t get him on the phone, he won’t answer your e-mails.”

    As for his good pal Brad Pitt, Clooney says he is the biggest movie star in the world because he remains elusive:

    “For a long time now, Brad has been the biggest movie star in the world. He’s bigger than me, bigger than DiCaprio. And I really admire how he deals with that. It’s not easy for him. But he tries to be the most honest version of Brad Pitt that he can be. And he also remains unavailable. He’s still a giant movie star because you can’t get to him. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think of him as incredibly talented and smart and all those things. But you also can’t get to him.”

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi David

    Thoughtful post, as always. I think you have a slight misunderstanding about media in general--as do most people. Media doesn't make its money by selling ads to its customers. It makes money by selling its customers to its advertisers. Content isn't value in itself, it is only value as a means of securing more customers, which can then be sold to advertisers. The more readers/customers, the more money charged for the ads.

    With this in mind, it is NEVER in the best interests of the media to reduce or limit the number of people it can consider customers...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I am aware of the idea that advertisers expect to be sold customers, not the other way around. However, this is not, to me, the meaning of the word "customer". I am a customer if I choose to be one, not if the advertisers choose to call me one. I am only a customer if I purchase some thing or service — I am not a customer just because I received some piece of advertising. This is the purpose of the final point in the post — I choose the relationship, not them.

      Delete
    2. During my time in the media planning and buying department of Los Angeles and San Francisco ad agencies charged with serving the paid media advertising campaigns of clients, I learned about a "metric" used in print media: the "pass-along reader."

      Separate from the paying subscriber.

      I found that measure of "reaching" one's target audience to be disingenuous.

      If I am at Starbucks sipping a coffee, and find a leave-behind copy of The New York Times on an empty table, I might pick it up and peruse it.

      That makes me a non-revenue generating reader of the newspaper. Restated: a freeloader.

      "Why" would my ad agency clients be interested in such individuals riding the coattails of paying newspaper subscribers/paying newsstand purchasers?

      These freeloaders have no active and persistent level of "engagement" with the newspaper. Don't value it enough for pay for the editorial "content."

      I measured my client's Cost-Per-Thousand (CPM) paid media expenditure for a print display ad based on the newspaper's paid readership. Not the "pass-along" freeloaders.

      A contentious battle with the paid media that I always fought and won, when I had Fortune 500 company clients such as General Electric and General Motors.

      Lesser clients with smaller paid media budgets might be brow-beaten or strong-armed by the print media to accept CPMs based on "total readership" (paid and non-paid).

      Fast forward to today: Elon Musk is questioning how many fake and spam accounts are on Twitter. (Company projection? 5-plus percent of its daily active users.)

      "Behind Fake-Account Issue That Elon Musk Cited in Calling Twitter Deal ‘On Hold’ " | Wall Street Journal Online (May 15, 2022)

      URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-fake-account-issue-that-elon-musk-cited-in-pausing-twitter-deal-11652612403

      Excerpt:

      "Spam and fake accounts are an industrywide challenge. They can hurt the experience for legitimate users, who could see posts that they don’t realize are generated by computer programs or otherwise under false pretenses. Operators of 'bots' have used automated fake accounts to incite violence, spread false information, deceptively attempt to influence political activity or achieve other illicit goals. And fake accounts can make it harder for advertisers on social-media platforms to judge what they are getting for their money."

      Delete
  8. Very relatable post - but surely you use an adblocker?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes; and that can make it impossible to visit some sites, depending on how they are set up. Besides, a blocker only blocks some things and not others.

      Delete