I think I’d prefer the phrase “attention grabbing” rather than intrusive, but I agree with your point.

But as you say, how would we ever know these things existed if marketing didn’t grab our attention.

We all know about Tivo, and satellite radio, and pop-up blockers, and similar innovations that allow consumers to skip ads. So companies are changing their tactics by sponsoring bowl games, placing products in movies, creating viral campaigns, using search engine marketing, and more.

Meanwhile, in the direct mail market, companies plow on with new tactics like sending FedEx letters, using creative postcard designs, etc.

Essentially it’s an ever-evolving process and marketers have the challenging job of not “pissing people off” as Suzanne said, and yet still getting their name into people’s minds. Ultimately, the companies that do the best job of producing products/services that consumers find worth talking about amongst their peers will have the most success… better than any direct mail or advertising campaign can ever do.

When was the last time you were interrupted by a sales call at home or by a car salesman when you just wanted to examine that new car?

Are these overt intrusions? Absolutely. Does the customer and prospect generally like them? No, they don’t. But they still buy from these companies and these salespeople. And those companies who do not do this exceedingly well die.

Let’s face it. You can’t sell in a capitalistic society without, … well, selling!

So as much as we want to remain courteous and welcome in the customer’s or prospect’s mind, there is rarely a welcoming mat when we do so. And to fool ourselves into believing otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

You’re talking about businesses communicating with current customers. I’m talking primarily about businesses having the ability to prospect for new customers.

I’m in favor of privacy regulations and abide by them, for my own efforts and for those of my clients.

But the fear I’m expressing in my short rant is that we might go so far with the “opt-in, opt-out, don’t dare communicate with me unless I specifically ask for it thing” that we put an unnecessary stranglehold on marketing.

If I’m selling something and you’ve never heard of me, I want to be sure I can be intrusive enough to jump up and down and say, “Hey, Suzanne, look what I have. You might like this. Wanna try it?”

In short, privacy rules are good … but only to a point. We didn’t build the most powerful economy in the world by being shy about marketing.

Our goal as direct marketers should be to get a handle on how to best communicate with our customers/prospects. We need to solicit their preferences and we need to honor their wishes (even if they never want to hear from us).

Of course, this is all easier said than done

Thanks for starting this discussion. Great food for thought.

Just to be clear, I wouldn’t say that advertising must be “slightly” intrusive. I’m flat out saying it must be “intrusive.”

Maybe this is semantics, but I don’t define intrusive as irritating. I simply define it as unexpected, un-asked for, or, as you say, something that “breaks the trance.”

If I’m interested in the product or service being mailed to me, I might not buy, but I will look.

But like you said, advertising must be slightly intrusive.

Everyone is in their own trance, and you must find a way to break this trance and present your offer…

…and a slightly intrusive, but targeted direct mail campaign will usually do the trick.

-Ryan

As usual you strengthen what I wrote. Thanks for the post and reference.

I wrote a brief blog entitled: “Direct Marketing Sells by Disrupting.”

Disruption represents the strength of traditional media and by comparison, the largest weakness of new media as an acquisition tool.

They both have their place. But marketers should ponder this idea when developing their marketing strategies.