Straight Times
AdAsia Magazine, Singapore, August 2004 issue
The other day, I woke up early. I took a shower, squirting shower gel from a plain grey bottle. Went to the kitchen and made breakfast, pouring milk from an equally plain bottle over cereals from an unmarked grey carton. Over breakfast, I read a newspaper with only news articles in it, no ads. I pay triple but in return for that, the Straits Times has promised not to bother me with unsolicited information any more. Until I opt in, that is. It makes a little bit for boring reading, lacking somewhat in colourfulness but I find I can concentrate really well on the news. And it’s a lot thinner.
But I think I won’t keep this up very long. Life has become a bit grey, not unlike the scenes a Fritz Lang movie, or in Apple’s famous 1984 Super Bowl commercial. What’s even worse, I’m getting behind the times these days. My friends walk around with snazzy handphone models I’ve never heard of, doing things I didn’t even know handphones could do. The other day I missed a conference I’d really have liked to attend, had I known it was there. So before long, I’ll probably opt in and let all these unsolicited commercial messages back into my life.
This type of situation is what The Straits Times are now advocating, even in their main editorials. Showering people with commercial messages until they opt out is, and I quote, ‘as close as it can get to an intent to confuse and mislead, when applied to commerce.’ For anybody but the ST themselves, that is. I admit to making up the bit about reading a half empty newspaper at breakfast. You can’t opt into having to confront sixteen ads for every news article when you want to keep up with the world’s events. In fact, you can’t even opt out.
Of course this example isn’t representative for the opt-in vs. opt-out bickering that has become an integral part of the Great Spam Debate. But it does show how commercial messages have become an integral part of our lives. And how we depend on them for keeping up with the Joneses, often to a greater extent than we realize.
True, it’s getting busy out there. After decades of only TV, radio and print we now also have Internet, email, phones in two flavours, instant messaging and text messaging, and God knows what else. On an average day, about 3000 commercial items reach our eyes and ears. Every new medium brings a new avalanche, commercial or otherwise. Quite often, the first pay the way for the latter, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.
The answer to all of this is of course permission. But you can’t let everything depend on explicit permission. Nobody keeps lists of who they want to listen to. Besides, there are messages we like to receive at any time, unsolicited if need be; and there are the more intrusive ones. When a yes or no has monetary consequences, for instance, or when a message is particularly sensitive, we the receivers should be the ones in control about when we address them, not the senders.
But rather than contributing to finding solutions, people like The Straight Times’ editors seem to prefer the extremist view. Nothing is allowed until people opt in. Except newspaper ads, of course. This view is not in the interest of consumer. Now let’s find someone to tell the consumer watchdog.
The other day, I woke up early. I took a shower, squirting shower gel from a plain grey bottle. Went to the kitchen and made breakfast, pouring milk from an equally plain bottle over cereals from an unmarked grey carton. Over breakfast, I read a newspaper with only news articles in it, no ads. I pay triple but in return for that, the Straits Times has promised not to bother me with unsolicited information any more. Until I opt in, that is. It makes a little bit for boring reading, lacking somewhat in colourfulness but I find I can concentrate really well on the news. And it’s a lot thinner.
But I think I won’t keep this up very long. Life has become a bit grey, not unlike the scenes a Fritz Lang movie, or in Apple’s famous 1984 Super Bowl commercial. What’s even worse, I’m getting behind the times these days. My friends walk around with snazzy handphone models I’ve never heard of, doing things I didn’t even know handphones could do. The other day I missed a conference I’d really have liked to attend, had I known it was there. So before long, I’ll probably opt in and let all these unsolicited commercial messages back into my life.
This type of situation is what The Straits Times are now advocating, even in their main editorials. Showering people with commercial messages until they opt out is, and I quote, ‘as close as it can get to an intent to confuse and mislead, when applied to commerce.’ For anybody but the ST themselves, that is. I admit to making up the bit about reading a half empty newspaper at breakfast. You can’t opt into having to confront sixteen ads for every news article when you want to keep up with the world’s events. In fact, you can’t even opt out.
Of course this example isn’t representative for the opt-in vs. opt-out bickering that has become an integral part of the Great Spam Debate. But it does show how commercial messages have become an integral part of our lives. And how we depend on them for keeping up with the Joneses, often to a greater extent than we realize.
True, it’s getting busy out there. After decades of only TV, radio and print we now also have Internet, email, phones in two flavours, instant messaging and text messaging, and God knows what else. On an average day, about 3000 commercial items reach our eyes and ears. Every new medium brings a new avalanche, commercial or otherwise. Quite often, the first pay the way for the latter, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.
The answer to all of this is of course permission. But you can’t let everything depend on explicit permission. Nobody keeps lists of who they want to listen to. Besides, there are messages we like to receive at any time, unsolicited if need be; and there are the more intrusive ones. When a yes or no has monetary consequences, for instance, or when a message is particularly sensitive, we the receivers should be the ones in control about when we address them, not the senders.
But rather than contributing to finding solutions, people like The Straight Times’ editors seem to prefer the extremist view. Nothing is allowed until people opt in. Except newspaper ads, of course. This view is not in the interest of consumer. Now let’s find someone to tell the consumer watchdog.
posted by Jos. at Sunday, August 01, 2004
<< Home