If you look at history, the places we do the most communicating are typically ones where we try and "escape" brands. Not saying that we changed communication platforms as a result of marketing, but it probably acted as a catalyst for movement. Snail mail was overrun by direct mail ads. They started out as an effective medium and lost value over time. Telemarketers corrupted our phone lines. Email now has folders marked for spam. Internet ads used to be the most effective marketing medium in terms of click through rates - but now if you can get a 1% click-thru rate you're a marketing genius.
Is it really that brands interrupt our lives and are unwelcome? Do we actively try to hide from marketing messages any way we can? Is the reason platforms like Path are emerging, since they currently have no marketing pushes inside the platform?
I don't think so. I think generally we would welcome brands, provided those brands add value.
Add Value, Not Noise
Take a look at the Super Bowl. Over 100 million people tune into watch it. Are 100 million people that interested in the teams playing in the game? Of course not. They tune in because they are interested in seeing the newest ads that come out - most of which have never been seen before. The ads, unlike most of the year, are highly entertaining. They provide value to users in two ways: