Re: Interesting Twist to BANNER ADVERTISING

From: Brian Shepherd <bshepherd_at_Lycos.com>
Date: Fri 7 Jan 2000 09:50:09 -0500

I read Fred's original post, and enough people jumped
in that I felt, I would just be redundant. However,
after seeing Fred's response, I feel compelled to jump
in here.

FRED SAID IN RESPONSE TO MATT MAGRI:
> 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.

Fred, do you know what a click through is? It's when a
web surfer "requests" more information about an ad
they've seen. Ideally, it's targeted to the specific
content they are looking for. I think it IS just you.
People often times do view ads as content. Do you know
that the November issue of PC Magazine is one of it's
biggest issues? Do you know why? They do an annual
review of printers. It also happens to be 75% ads.
And people read the reviews, then look for the ads to
find out about cost, and where they can purchase the
printer. I've done this myself. Also, many banners
are used by sites to "promote" their own content,
labeling them "house ads", thus just another traffic
driver. Who are you to determine what is part of the
content or not? There are many partner sites that work
together to share content. And it doesn't always
happen in the banner space.

FRED CONTINUED:
> (Why is it that some have come to think that banner
> advertising is part of "content"??? Has the web caused
> the idea of content to change? I never considered ads
> to be part of the content of the newspaper. I know a
> lot of writers who would be insulted if you said the
> ads are part of their content. Do people now consider
> commercials to be part of the movie they're watching on
> TV? Or are they still just an annoyance?)

Again, just because you don't view the ads of a
newspaper as content, who are you to make that judgment
for the newspaper and it's entire audience. Can we
agree that the supermarket coupons are a reason why
people buy their Sunday paper? That's the first thing
my wife does when I bring home the paper on Sunday
morning. She grabs the coupons and starts clipping
them out. You, Fred, may never look at the coupons and
think they are not essential to the newspaper, but
believe me, if the coupons didn't work, supermarkets
wouldn't pay BIG bucks to have them included there.

Let's say your are Store24 and sell newspapers. You've
determined that coupons were NOT part of the Sunday
paper. So, you want to go in as Store 24, remove them
out and replace them with a flyer from your own
suppliers. You can't do this. You state later on in
the thread that you own the customers that come into
your store, thus you have the right to remove whatever
components of the newspaper you deem fit. Sorry, not a
court in the country would back you up.

FRED CONTINUED:
> Could a site even testify WHICH banner was replaced
> for which reader at which time???

What point are you trying to make here?
Why is this relevant?

FRED CONTINUED:
> What about schools, government ISPs, and others who
> automatically filter out ads, spam and porno? Will the
> schools go to jail?

Whoa, not even close to what you are proposing. The
site's ad serving system can often times detect
filtering systems and not count the ads and not
unfairly charge their clients. Besides, removing porn
from a school for safety, and removing ads and then
reselling them with no profit to the original site are
no where close to the same thing. Come on Fred, you're
reaching here.

FRED CONTINUED:
> I think we need a wakeup call at this point. Remember
> that the Ad purveyor site SENDS the bit data to our hub
> servers for viewing on our private WAN. Once that data
> arrives here, it's on OUR property. Not like TV where
> the receiver is getting wide broadcast air waves. A
> Private WAN is like closed circuit TV. We can show what
> we please. Period.

No, you don't own it. Does the store who sells
televisions own the content that the viewer chooses to
watch? Does Honda own the radio content I choose to
listen to when I go to work because they sold me the
radio? It is crazy for you to think that because one
of your customers goes to a website, you own the
content. You could make the argument that Dell owns
some of your customers because they are using Dell
computers to access your ISP. Again, you are grasping
for straws.

FRED CONTINUED:
> We let (usually) most web pages "trespass" on our
> system, but we don't have to.

Fine, then start blocking what your paying customers
can access and see how many customers you have at the
end of the day. Start telling people they can't go to
certain sites, I'd love to see how many people are
still using your ISP.

FRED CONTINUED:
> Banner ads can constitute over 33% of incoming
> bandwidth. This is a significant amount of
> tresspassing. The advertisers are in effect stealing
> that bandwidth to display their message, for personal
> gain. Letting all those door-to-door salesmen into our
> subscribers homes.

No, your customers are choosing to go to a site. The
site must justify the content that the user deems
valuable. This comes from advertising. Period.

FRED CONTINUED:
> The site owner who sells the ads is in effect stealing
> bandwidth from the ISP, then charging their advertisers
> for that bandwidth. We, as ISP are in effect charging
> our customers to make you money!!! Seems upside-down
> doesn't it?

Without the sites, you have no business. You don't
seem to get this concept. If you are not making money
with your ISP business, that is your problem. Many are
doing just fine charging monthly fees. Don't blame the
sites for your failure to make a successful business.

FRED CONTINUED:
> However if they could buy ads that would appear in the
> ZDnet site ONLY when a LOCAL dial-up customer surfer
> arrived at ZDnet -- customers who could actually drive
> over to the drug store -- then that's an intelligent
> buy. "Hello, I saw your ad on the web." Who could argue
> with that?

Then work with ZDNet to set up a local program. Don't
just filter it without their consent. However, if they
choose not to work with you, for whatever reason, then
deal with it. It is not your right to interfere with
their site.

FRED CONTINUED:
> However, what if I said: "If someone wants to put ads
> on MY server hub, they will have to pay me for the
> privilege. Period."

You are getting paid. Your customers are putting ads
on your servers. They are requesting the page. You
are charging them for that privilege.

FRED CONTINUED:
> PS: Interesting also, that we have received over a
> dozen inquiries from web companies who what to "share"
> or help us "test" the code that replaces ads....
> hmmmmmmmmm.

Great! Nobody is disputing the idea of collaborating to
better advance advertising. As stated above, if the content
site is willing to work with you and set up some type of deal,
more power to you. However, you DO NOT have the right
to strip ads out of the content site and resell them without
their permission.

Regards,

Brian Shepherd
bshepherd_at_lycos.com




Received on Fri Jan 07 2000 - 08:50:09 CST