Comments on: Now THAT’S an ad

By: Steve Safran

Steve Safran — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:49:09 +0000

The notion that “the users have to deal with it” is so anti-consumer, it’s hard to know where to start.

How about here: pissing off people is a lousy advertising model.

Or here: Blanketing the web with ads is 1.0. Targeting customers with information about products they actually want is 2.0.

Or here: As people who sell products, we want to find people who want our stuff, rather than wasting a ton of ad dollars on eyeballs that aren’t relevant.

Or here: If people want information, they’ll go elsewhere if we alienate them. We better find ways to balance our need for money with their need for a good experience.

We can howl at the moon about how “people have to sit through ads on TV, so they should do the same online.” But the web is not TV.

NOBODY wants content providers to make money more than I. But the way to do it is by listening to the audience - not by telling them to “deal with it.” The web allows for conversation. The audience knows there is a contract here - we will give our time and our information in exchange for your content. Just make sure the information we get in exchange is relevant to our lives. Don’t add to the noise.

By: tdc

tdc — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:39:39 +0000

that’dbecool.

By: ib

ib — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:25:42 +0000

Sorry TheDetroitChannel, I guess we just assumed you were on all of our internal mailing lists already.

By: TheDetroitChannel

TheDetroitChannel — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:20:37 +0000

speaking of ib/meredith: did i miss the press release that announced the remaining meredith properties that use to be worldnow are now under the ib umbrella?

btw- it was a cnn.com beta link that tipped me yesterday. i think it was kctv5?

By: Tim Reynolds

Tim Reynolds — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:39:25 +0000

All of the Internet Broadcasting sites have the capability to do this. We have sold them locally, for a LOT of money. People hate them, so we limit them to a couple times a month for a day at a time. It’s supposed to cookie the user to only see it once a day.

By: Elmo Mothdinkle

Elmo Mothdinkle — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:50:29 +0000

Here’s the reality. Ya want all of this information on the web for no cost? Then you pay with advertising. It’s that simple.

By: fleetwood mack

fleetwood mack — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:36:24 +0000

wonder what general user response is to these things that attack them at log in when they went for news not for a sale pitch.

maybe all news programs on all media should begin with a big fat revenue opportunity and screw the news altogether.

By: Buzz

Buzz — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 03:19:31 +0000

I am the operator of a popular entertainment web site, and I’d like to suggest that quality content, provided in any meaningful quantity, *must* be underwritten in some fashion.

Phenomena such as Napster and YouTube seem to have completely eroded the notion that good content costs (or is even worth) something. Consequently advertisers and publishers are struggling to stay afloat, and the real market for good content seems to be evaporating. Some of the long tail/ pay per play options are interesting, but this approach favors only a very select few companies who can enable micro-payouts on such a large scale. This is hardly the diversity people seem to want from media companies.

Most subscription plays have failed and all but the least consequential ad strategies get derided as “overly intrusive” and/or “annoying.”

Hopefully the on-line community will soon rally around a successor to banners, interstitials and pre-rolls - whatever that is. Until then, expect more “overly intrusive” and/or “annoying” experimentation.

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:53:42 +0000

Up in the upper-left corner, there’s a small box that says “expand”. And boy, does it ever… It’s a great ad, if you are sight-impared.

By: Steve Safran

Steve Safran — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:28:36 +0000

Would you like news with that ad?

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:11:40 +0000

They have to make money somehow.

By: JoeMo

JoeMo — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:58:00 +0000

Yeah, no go in firefox. Using IE7 I see the same thing you are thats almost as bad as those “welcome screens” that redirect you to where you actually wanted to go.

By: Mindy McAdams

Mindy McAdams — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:19:59 +0000

I just went over there to have a look. The strip is at the top of the page, but it didn’t furl down. I waited for a while. I even scrolled over it. Now, I KNOW I have the latest Flash player and JavaScript is enabled … so I don’t know why I was “spared” (Firefox 2.0?), but I was.

I would quit going to the site it they had one of those every day. What an interference.

By: Mike Escutia

Mike Escutia — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:06:10 +0000

Well, they need to get around the pop-up-blockers somehow…