A typical banner would include a small button on the lower right giving you the option to “Keep this ad.” Users can then view a repository of their favorites on AdKeeper’s main site. Ads can be updated and saved in a manner not unlike how one would clip a magazine or newspaper. The idea is that customers will come back to it again if they can expect some future perk, says AdLab’s Ilya Vedrashko.

They’re betting that if online, banner-based advertising becomes less about clicks and impressions, and more about retention and a continued experience — what they call “keeps” — the dynamic of the content will change all together.

“We give users a new way to control their online experience,” says the company on their home page.

Think it’ll work? Watch the brand explain it in their own words:

AdKeeper prez Scott Kumit, in an article on AdWeek, predicts “The keep rates are going to be off the chart compared to click rates.”

But is it progressive enough? Or is this the same old eyesore, with one extra button? Banners are disruptive and ugly, but, if consumers are trained to interact with them in the same way they might have with websites in the past — and how they do currently with Apps — advertisers could entirely reinvent the space. Google is certainly trying to (or, at least trying to tell us they are).

We think it could very well work, but it’ll take more than just coupons and cash incentives. That’s still just a way of temporarily baiting the consumer. But if it turns into a platform and means to make the experience more rich and immersive, we’re all for it.

Behold: 1 minute and 28 seconds of cringe-worthy acting, cheesy props and/or CGI effects, excessive vulgarity (for authenticity’s sake!), blatant product shots, and conspicuous packaging. The greatest tragedy is that this short doesn’t even achieve a modicum of camp value. It’s just plain terrible:

On the opposing end of the spectrum is “Burger King Miracle Bun,” a YouTube clip, shot via cell phone or video recorder (not convenient high-res like KFC’s) that categorically gets it right. It’s simple enough: A group of meddling teens discover an impression of The King toasted onto a burger bun in the haus of Ronald, à la Jesus toast. So what if it’s being distributed using questionable marketed techniques? This is how you produce an anonymous viral video.

(In related news: you can now get your favorite NBA team’s logo literally branded onto your breakfast. Is a BK unit not too far off? They’ve sold The King halloween masks in the past.)

Like Bros Icing Bros (read up on it here), it’s so well done, and is so believable that you can’t be entirely sure it was even created by the brand in question (aka: the point of this whole thing in the first place). For starters, it’s a) set at a McDonald’s, b) well acted, c) a feasible concept, and d) poorly shot.

Perhaps the most telling take-away is from KFC’s fail, though: clumsily executed, exceptionally bad viral has a very real potential to turn harmful if traced back to the brand. Inherently a disingenuous marketing move, such efforts must make up for sleight of hand by way of humor, cleverness, and an eventual fess-up. When KFC employs f-bombs and s-words as a way of feigning integrity, they’re risking their basic reputation as marketers and branders.

As big the gains are of viral (rapid spread, cheap cost of production, a day’s worth of internet fame), the implications of a particularly soggy campaign will find the brander roasting in the wrong kind of attention.

Brands: It’s grill or be grilled, here—don’t find yourselves on the wrong end of the spatula.

Drawing from the CRE data as well as other findings, Ilya deduces that at most, some 20% of the folks parked in front of the tube during commercial breaks aren’t doing anything else notable—and therefore might be giving advertisers their undivided attention. This is confirmed by a study released in 2008 which found that only 5.5% of viewers fully attend to commercials. The rest of us are channel surfing, talking to others, or mentally tuning out.

This all amounts to something we’ve all suspected for quite some time: TV ads just ain’t cuttin’ it anymore. Sure, there are some excellent spots being created, but advertising on television has become an unnecessary evil, increasingly phased out by Tivo, DVR, Netflix, and various legal (and illegal) web streams offering few, if any pesky placements.

The examples of active post-advertising we cover here offer an altogether different experience to ad-damaged consumers—an approach that’ll one day be the standard. Old, emboldened ad-execs can comfort themselves with skewed, industry-funded results all they want, but their denial will eventually give way to overdue acceptance. Until then, we’re just gonna grab something real quick from the kitchen. Maybe go to the bathroom.

(image)

Earlier this year, AdLab critiqued The New York Times’ assessment of Super Bowl advertising, which described a coup of Madison Avenue. It recognized that brands are in the hands of consumers. Imagine that!

The news isn’t that vigilante consumers are hijacking Madison Avenue. Rather, it’s that the role of brands aided by new-age marketers is changing to reflect consumers’ increasing desire to get involved.

But it’s not magic. These campaigns are born of forward-thinking agencies and a brand’s cooperation. As consumer content takes the stage, the marketing behind it becomes less visible but is no less crucial. And agencies stuck in unengaged mindset, of course, will bite the dust.

The author’s second point concerns content itself. It’s no surprise that Doritos’ winning entries were produced by industry creatives—aspiring filmmakers not your neighborhood postman.

So does this mean it should be considered any less consumer-generated? Sure, it might not make for as sweet a Cinderella story, but within the given medium (TV) top spots were bound to come from such sources. In this day and age, these folks are looking for any opportunity to get a foot in the door. And they’re the ones who will likely win.

Crowdsourcing, after all, is about drawing the best ideas and work out of the public. It’s also not, as The Times implies, resulting in public mutiny. Marketers are far from being tossed overboard. Instead, it demonstrates the great opportunity for brands to include the average Joe. It’s an investment for brands that will make the audience feel invested as well. And this way, everyone wins.