In the news today, Ford is launching a host of widget ads to promote their new Microsoft-powered affiliation, the highly touted voice command device for mobile and digital music, Sync. For those of you who haven’t yet visited the site, the Sync My Ride slogan is rather catchy for a domain even if the commercial campaign for the Ford Focus which cross-advertises the Sync doesn’t quite convey the message as readily. Both campaigns are in line with a Net-Gen/MTVu-generation demographic which makes sense given the pricetag of the Focus and the interactive-heavy, rich design feature set of Sync.

Ford’s widget ads, which can be seen on AOL sites starting this week, will boast portable API-friendly code to embed the widget on other sites. While I understand what Ford and Microsoft have to gain in the process of building a community of MySpace and Facebook users flaunting their products, I’m not sure what users get in return. To this point, if there isn’t an existing community of users and advocates for a product (like Sync), how does a campaign like this get wheels. Does it have all the ingredients? Or is a bit like putting a cart before a horse?

Google’s Gmail ad campaign stemmed from a preexisting fan base of avid and enthusiastic users to build a more cohesive community through the power of user-generated video and the simplicity of its message: Just how does a single email navigate from point A to point B? In other words, what’s its path? (Google’s satellite feature to map out user video locations is a nice add-on to the video visual) Google’s success with this ad, much like many of their initiatives, stems from a keen understanding of the precise intersect between timing and innovation. Had Google launched a campaign like this before Gmail branded itself as synonymous with “email” and asked users the very same question, it would have sunk.

Widget ads do appear to be the wave of the now with major industries (entertainment, automotive, romance) piggy-backing on the new trend, but again, I’m brought back to the same burning question. What’s in it for me? As the consumer? As the Facebook member? As the occasional MySpace voyeur? What do I have to gain from posting a widget from the film August Rush with trailers from the film and local show times unless I’m a publicity agent at a PR firm or an industry-related site owner that gets some sort of monetary pay-per-click/pay-per-impression incentive? (assuming there is a performance model in place) Companies like ClearSpring, PointRoll, and Interpolls, who is hosting the Sync product, are already fast-track on the way to creating systems for tracking and monetizing traffic based on widget ad revenue. As an aside, Yahoo is currently working on sprucing up their widget platform, most likely to accommodate for this growing trend.

I get that advertising models these days are shifting with the times to incorporate ways of involving the everyday person in opportunities to have a “voice” in their public campaigns and that truly successful campaigns empower individuals by giving them ownership and a sense of tangible pride in their brand, but whether the widget ad model can support this model remains to be seen.

When is a new form of in-your face advertising not really an intrusion? Maybe when it's in your ears instead? According to Joe Pompeii, founder and president of Holosonics, beaming scary voices into your head from a billboard is actually helping minimize intrusive advertising. Holosonics, a technology company that enables highly focused "audio spotlights,"  provides the voiceover from a new Manhattan billboard promoting promoting A&E's new ghost series, "Paranormal State." Walk down Prince Street in SoHo and a directional speaker literally whispers creepy comments into your head.

The technology itself is quite interesting, and makes a lot of sense for Holosonic's initial market: museums, libraries, and other quiet places that can use audio narration to enhance the visitor experience. But hearing ads in your head while innocently walking down the street certainly strikes me as pretty intrusive!

As in museums, Pompeii claims the new approach is similarly all about lessening noise pollution:

"If you really want to annoy a lot of people, a loudspeaker is the best way to do it," he said. "If you set up a loudspeaker on the top of a building, everybody's going to hear that noise. But if you're only directing that sound to a specific viewer, you're never going to hear a neighbor complaint from street vendors or pedestrians. The whole idea is to spare other people."

Sorry, Joe, I'm not convinced. I'm sure it's a pretty cool experience to hear this particular promo for the first time, but the prospect of getting pitches in my ear every time I walk down a street, through a store, and around any other public space (all of which are no doubt anxious to auction off more advertising space to eager sponsors), is creepy indeed.  Intrusive advertising is still intrusive, even if it's more narrowly targeted.

AdAge has an interesting article on the research firm Neurofocus, which wires consumers to EEG machines in hopes of truly divining what they might actually buy. The firm also uses eye-tracking machines to analyze ad viewing, and "a galvanic skin-response meter to measure arousal and emotional response." It's the absolute latest in a decades-long search for the perfect scientific method to capture consumer intentions.

A.K. Pradeep, the company's founder, is clearly onto something. He's finishing up his 100th research project since 2005 and working with some of the world's biggest firms. He's got a crew of PhD's working for him and business is booming.

So why does this all feel so 1950s?

AdAge brings in a variety of marketing and scientific types to debate the effectiveness of neuroscientific research. The promoters hype its potential at last to break through the reality of consumers lying to market researchers while detractors claim the science remains in its infancy and is unable to handle the multitude of factors that go into purchase decisions.

But aren't they all missing the main point about the customer-driven economy? If you're still trying to do research ON customers in some scientifically controlled setting rather than simply listening to their ongoing conversations in real life and engaging them in honest discussion, you'll never get far in understanding what might be useful. Even more, as we should all know by now, buyers increasingly want to participate directly in developing their own products, services, and solutions.

Exciting as it may be to think we may finally have some foolproof method to help us craft just the right message to trigger the buy buttons in our customers' brains,  we need to remember that  "the message" is simply less and less relevant. The conversations are what matter and we need to spend a lot more time figuring out how to have them in open, authentic, and constructive ways so our customers stop lying to us of their own accord.