One thing that I should've made a little more clearer with this statement;
art that is used to advance commerce *will* exist in VR and on the net. it
is the tone and deliver of this art that is going to radically change. Early
in the history of radio, sponsors and advertisers were there, just not in
such an in your face sort of way.
> Today's commercial art generally degrades
> the audience it's directed at by advancing the lowest common denominator.
>
>There are the occasional exceptions. I have always been more
>impressed by the tenor of British advertizments than ones in the USA,
>for instance. As a culture, the Brits seem to be much more willing to
>appeal to someone's intelligence in an advertizment. I'm tempted to
>think that it's only American advertizers that see the masses as only
>so much dumb cattle, although I could be wrong. And even in American
>advertizment, there are occasional bright spots.
Americans have always been impressed with foreign advertising because it
does seem to talk to as opposed to at the viewer.
> The audience likewise is captive or passive. In a medium that is interactive
> (and I would argue that VR demands interactivity) who's going to participate
> in a degrading advertisement?
>
>Now that's a question of Orwellian import. Let's forget the standard
>answers of "if they like the VR enough, they'll put up with a few
>ads." Let's go beyond that, into a more sinister realm.
>Psychologically speaking, can a mass market audience actually be
>lured, trained, and socially conditioned to participate in degrading
>VR experiences, despite their complete freedom to do otherwise?
All things are possible. They might allow the degradation simply because
they know that it's not *real*.
> Market saturation of an image isn't going to
> be possible either- with millions of people going to millions of different
> places in VR or on the net how can it be done?
>
>People might try to close a lot of those interconnecting doors, or try
>to make their own particular cul-de-sac very popular.
>
> The best commercial
> advertising these days are the most memorable (i.e. how do you stick out and
> repeat it ad infinitum) in VR the best 'commercial' art is going to be most
> alluring or enticing and probably subtle.
>
>Hmm. I guess it's hard to talk about the best "commercial" VR art, since
>we don't yet have many exampes of "regular" VR art to draw from.
True! and I for one am trying my damndeest to insure that there is art in VR
and not just advertising.
> Also this is going to be a world
> of extremely directed niche advertising- the age of the lowest common
> denominator will have to fade out because it won't be possible unless we
> force commercial breaks during internet sessions (any takers for that kind
> of service?)
>
>If cable and broadcasting is any indication, it really depends on how
>many providers are involved. In TV-land there really aren't too many
>choices, even with cable. Thus "no ads" is a value-added service that
>costs more money, consumers always vote with their $$$$.
The best argument for as many providers as possible! :)
>Now if economically speaking hundreds of small VR service providers
>can survive in the marketplace, then consumers will really get a
>choice, and "no ads" may indeed become so common that ad-based
>approaches won't work. The question is how to ensure their survival.
>What's to stop a Microsoft or an MCI from "cyborg-ing" them, and
>creating a more monolithic playing field?
you seem to be in an Orwellian funk today;
the only thing stopping the monolith is us, the content providers who are
already here.
> Throw out all of the old concepts regarding advertising and
> commercial art- it won't translate.
>
>I'm afraid that it will - haltingly, stumblingly, but it will. There
>are already many magazines out about how to advertize on the net,
>which criticize the mistakes of naively going from old ad styles to
>new ones. No one is going to read a straight ad copy when they can
>choose not to, after all. But the advertizers are devising new
>techniques to get attention all the time. They talk about building
>"virtual communities," "informational services," or more ruthless
>things like buyouts of other Internet service providers. The ad world
>is putting its collective brainpower into these new media ventures,
>and we might do well to try to stay one step ahead of them.
Again, I shoulda explained my meaning here a little more. In America, TV
advertising consumes nearly 1/3 of all broadcast time for shows. and the
images pop up at any point during the program. This is the paradigm that
can't and won't translate. Also, once the net and VR and up to our wildest
expectations (10, 15 or 20 years?) with viewers being able to choose from
thousands and millions of things and advertisers being able to niche market
more, won't we look back at our previous infomercials and shiver?
+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+
---------->looking towards the future
in the reflection of the past<----------
sm3_14