I have seen the future of advertising and it is this:

The old methods of mass reach advertising are no longer working well. As we move into the future, even more advertising will be dependent on opt-in content. Which means that as we move further into the future the more advertising itself becomes an opt-in proposition.

The number one issue in this industry is ad avoidance. It's why the first sentence in the above paragraph is true. And as long as ads are seen as something that are intrusive, they will be avoided to the extent that they can be avoided. If you've got a TiVo, you'll skip past the TV ads. Why? Because ads interrupt the show and you have the ability to skip past them. That's the core of what's got marketers, advertisers, and media people sweating bullets about the future. Because maybe TiVos haven't achieved critical mass yet, but yet is the operative term in this sentence.

Consider this example: I'm online all the time. Probably, I spend more time online than with other media combined. And engagment is a big buzz word these days in media planning, and I'm as engaged as shit in my online experience. (Referece what I am doing at this exact moment -- I'm adding content and let me tell you how much more engaged you have to be to be a content creator than a consumer.) And, yet, given all this, do you know how many pop ups or banner ads I have seen since I switched to Firefox? Absolutely zero. Why? Because I have the ability to block them and they're so intrusive that I want to block them. (I would block billboards if I could and you would too.)

Now, what I have seen a lot of are Google text ads (a.k.a. AdWords). And here's the real shocker: I've clicked on many of them. Not because I was duped into into thinking they weren't ads (altavista circa 2001 I'm looking at you) but because they were relevant to the information that I was looking for. Because the products were relevant to my interests and needs, at least insofar as I self-identifed those interests and needs in a single search string. It's the fact that Google can do that made them overnight kajillionaires; the neat search tool is just the means to that end, after all. (Granted, I haven't purchased anything from one of those links yet but that's not Google's fault; that belongs to the marketers behind those products and services. Hell, Google practically delivered me to their cyber-doorstep.)

Clicking on a Google ad is a form of opting in. Opting in is the opposite of ad avoidance. So all you have to do is make your ads relevant and useful. Easy, right?

Yes. Except you have to rethink the relationship between advertising and media. They can't be seperate. And I don't mean that in an ads-masquarading-as-content way, I mean it in an ads-are-content way. Content that consumers want just as much as 'regular' content. There is no qualatative distinction between one type of content and the other.

Now, I have some ideas about how to go about doing that but I'm getting tired, so those thoughts will have to wait. You know, for the future...

It appears that the Nintendo Revolution will be controlled by what is essentially Powerglove technology:

The controller for Nintendo's upcoming Revolution home console system is a cordless remote-control-like device designed to be used with only one hand. Two small sensors placed near the TV and a chip inside the controller track its position and orientation, allowing the player to manipulate the action on screen by physically moving the controller itself. For example, you could slash an in-game sword by actually swinging the controller from side to side, turn a race car just by twisting your wrist, or aim your gun in a shooter by pointing the controller where you want to fire.

Please join me in saying, "It's so bad."

Seriously, though, some industry-watchers think this is bad, in the literal sense. Others are shitting themselves over how cool it is. The question, dear reader, is what do you think?

Here are two awesome quotes I came across in my FranklinCovy binder:

Life lived for tomorrow will always be just a day away from being realized.

-Leo Buscaglia

By your thoughts you are daily, even hourly, building your life; you are carving your destiny.

-Ruth Barrick Golden

In a serendipitious turn of events, following my repost of this side-splitting Onion article, today Gillette announced an actual five-bladed razor called the Fusion. I guess this might technically be called a six-bladed razor because in literal "put one on the handle" style, this one has a sixth "trimmer" blade in the--you guessed it--handle.

Who knew that Onion article would be so accurate?

Here's an actual quote from the Gillette guy: "The Schick [Quattro] launch has nothing to do with this, it's like comparing a Ferrari to a Volkswagen as far as we''re concerned"

The best part is that you know someone forwarded him the Onion article at some point and he's got to know what a cartoon character he is.

(Plus, this kind of makes this guy look like an idiot.)

/FARK comes through again
//Just sayin'

I just realized that since the Onion's re-design, all the old articles are back online for free.

Here's my top five:

Disgruntled Ninja Silently Kills 12 Co-Workers
Coca-Cola Introduces New 30-Liter Size
Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Blades
Starbucks To Begin Sinister 'Phase Two' Of Operation
Developmentally Disabled Burger King Employee Only Competent Worker

I laughed so hard re-reading these that I am in pain. Literal pain.

(Share your favorite Onion stories in the comment box.)

Oh là-là. Ici est une belle fille de la sorte le plusse raremente. Mon français n'est pas assez fort être juste a t'elle; je pense que riens des langes ont les mots pour décrire sa beauté, mais ils disent q'on peut échanger une mille des mots pur un photo. Donc, voilià: Mélissa Theuriau

(Je pense q'elle ressemblerai le moins utile celebre d'Angleterre et aussi, un autre.)