Home Economics

Writing about moguls and their mansions had me dreaming of a home of my own this past week. Through normal channels (i.e. wages, inheritance, that worthless stock I have from the floundering software company I used to work for) the prospect seems fairly unlikely, but another article I recently wrote about advertising in the magazine industry has given me an idea.

In short: why can't advertisers subsidize my home purchase in the same way that they subsidize the magazine industry?

After all, everyone knows that media-based advertising's in decline; it's too saturated, it's too hard to measure. Place-based advertising - TV monitors running commercials in shoe stores and supermarkets, ritzy storefronts on the world's most prestigious shopping streets, logo tattoos on key influencers, etc. - represents the future of marketing. And with so many brands branching out to encompass more and more products, isn't it time for complete advertiser-sponsored houses?

In the right demographic neighborhoods, a Ralph Lauren house or a Nike house, their exteriors tastefully emblazoned with inspirational graphics and persuasive taglines, could be an extremely effective promotional vehicle. In return for some help with the down payment and mortgage, I would maintain the house and serve as the resident spokesperson; when curious consumers knocked on the door, I'd be there to hand out free samples and marketing literature.

-- G. Beato

current   |  archives   |  about   |   |  elsewhere