Re: Interesting Twist to BANNER ADVERTISING

From: Ilona <ilona_at_queendom.com>
Date: Thu 6 Jan 2000 12:50:40 -0500

FRED WROTE:
> Not true. You would be hard pressed to identify one
> single web surfer who REQUESTED that ad. I have a real
> problem calling banner exchange ads "content". Maybe
> it's just me.
>
> In the banner exchange schemes, ad banners are 99.9% of
> the time NOT part of the content. In fact, the site
> owners seldom knows what banner will display for any
> given surfer at any given moment.

The discussion of what is and is not "content" is
irrelevant. You would be tampering with the HTML code
(including the content and the ad tags), which is
protected by the copyright law.

In my opinion, replacing original ads by local ones is
unethical-- stealing, pure and simple. You don't tear
out ads from mags to replace them with ads that you
sell. True, most users don't ask to see the ads, but
someone has to pay the bills-it's either the
advertisers (who get the eyeballs in exchange for their
cash), the user (in the form of registration fees for
ad-free content, or in the form of attention to the
ads in exhange for free content) or the website owners
(and why would they run the site if they had to pay
for people to view their free content). I think that
the current arrangement makes perfect sense and
everybody benefits.

BTW, I may be missing something but I am pretty sure
teh ISPs are being compensated for the bandwidth, they
don't need to steal someone else's ads.

Ilona
Queendom.com

???? Quizzes ????????? Puzzles ????
Be seriously entertained @ QueenDom.Com
???? Tests ????????????? Polls ????
***************************************************
* Body-Mind QueenDom
* URL: http://queendom.com/
* E-Mail: webmaster_at_queendom.com
***************************************************




Received on Thu Jan 06 2000 - 11:50:40 CST