Re: Interesting Twist to BANNER ADVERTISING

From: Christopher G. Modzelewski <cgmodzel_at_g-em.com>
Date: Thu 13 Jan 2000 14:53:38 -0500

Okay, I guess it's time I de-lurked. I've been
following this thread with bated breath for some time,
and now I fear I must come down off the wall and get
into the fray. It certainly is a fascinating
discussion, and I thank you, Fred, for bringing it up!
Well, here goes...

FRED WROTE:
> I think it's good to sometimes get a jolt and
> reevaluate the popular systems in place, asking
> questions ... where will it go; where can it go and
> where has it already gone.

I agree whole-heartedly. This discussion has
definately been a healthy one.

> Obviously if little old me could think up such a
> plan, and program it, (like the ad banner clicking
> robot last month) you KNOW the big guys with deep
> pockets already have ten-times bigger, ten-times more
> powerful and ten-times more sinister systems already in
> place.
>
> How do you know they're not using them right now? You
> couldn't detect it if your life depended on it.
>
> Then you know that some of the twists one could dream
> up are not that outrageous after all!

Wow...my answer to this is relatively simple: There is
a limit as to where paranoia is healthy for business.
Yes, it is _possible_, yes it is even _perceivable_,
but is it likely? No.

One could cite the same arguments about the US
government, that they are in fact tightly controlling
media, attempted to assassinate Reagan and the Pope
and waged a secret war in Switzerland during the 70's.
Conspiracy Theory is a fun pasttime. It is an
interesting hobby to consider the "what ifs." But in
business, that kind of paranoia leads to the lack of
business.

ON ANOTHER THREAD...

LAURIE MAJCH WROTE:
> Hi! I am looking for sites that list sites
> that want to exchange banners, 1 to 1. The
> problem with sites like linkexchange is that
> they propose 2 to 1. Does anyone know any
> places like this? Thanks a lot!

TO WHICH TOM REPLIED:
> http://www.bannertown.net/ offers a 1:1 ratio - no idea
> if they are for real though.

TO WHICH FRED RESPONDED:
> Tom hit the nail right on the head. How do you really
> know how many views you got? Were they human? Were they
> robots? Who sent the robots?
>
> How do you know you got one exposure for every two you
> gave?
>
> You don't.

True. You don't (although statistically, the number of
robots is extremely small, about 1% of all visits to
popular sites, last I read).

And Fred, how do you know that the newspaper you placed
your advertisement in really got delivered? How do
you know the consumer picked it up and read it? How
do you know the newspaper isn't lying about its
circulation?

You don't.

Business revolves around trust, first and foremost.
Trust and credibility are the key to evaluating
advertising. The advertiser must trust that his
agency/network/etc. are reporting accurately. If the
agency/network/whoever is not credible to the
advertiser, then why would the advertiser do business
with them? Would -you- do business with a compulsive
liar?

BACK TO THE INTERESTING TWIST...

FRED WROTE:
> And try to avoid the mind set that you must have ads
> to have a web site. It's simply not true. There are
> many thousands of high quality sites that do not
> have advertising.

Agreed. Nobody is questioning that. But do not
discount the 4 billion dollar industry that _is_
online advertising. That 4 billion dollars pays a lot
of salaries every year. A lot of people (individuals
and companies) would be very upset if that went up in
smoke.

> We can already see that many people's perception of
> the web is being altered by advertising industry
> propaganda... like in David's post on Jan 7...
>
> > Just be cautious -- and keep in mind, a web site that
> > is valued sells advertising as part of its
> > *business* model.
>
> So already people are being led to think that "good"
> sites equate with advertising, and that advertising is
> "content"... which couldn't be further from the truth.

I fail to see how you're making your connection here,
Fred. What I believe David is saying (correct me if
I'm wrong, David) is that for sites that sell
advertising space, that ad space is their lifeblood.
It is what they rely on to pay their employees'
payrolls, to put food on their tables and expand their
business. If you take their advertising space away
from them, you are effectively stealing their product.

Without a product, they (web sites that sell ad space
as their product) cease to exist.

And without them, -you-, Fred, as an ISP, would be out
of business as well. They are the destination (or at
least one of the destinations), and you are the
carrier. It is the equivalent of Greyhound choosing to
destroy New York, California, Florida, Texas and
Washington D.C. Yes, Greyhound is left with other
destinations. But why on earth would Greyhound destroy
such popular vacation-spots?

> If ads were content no one would shout about spam.

There is a fundamental difference between spam and
advertising.

Do people shout about television? Not really.
Do people shout about print advertising? Not that I
have heard/read.
Do people shout about direct mail? Every year less and
less as they grow accustomed to it.
Do people "shout" about banner advertising,
sponsorships and affiliate programs? Or about viral
marketing? Do people complain when they receive a
direct e-Mail promotion _which they asked to receive_?
The answer is, for the most part, no. There are
always exceptions, but they tend to be statistically
small.

SPAM, however, is the equivalent of somebody filling
your "bricks-and-mortar" mailbox with junk mail. And
I don't mean a couple pieces one day, a couple more
the next, I mean stuffing your mailbox with junk mail
so that no other mail fits, and they have to put even
MORE of the junk mail in a bag next to the mailbox,
_every day_. And this is junk mail you are most
definately NOT interested in.

People shout about spam because it disrupts their
interaction with their e-Mail.

Do the other (more passive) forms of online advertising
(e.g. banners, sponsorships, etc.) disrupt the user's
interaction with a web site? No. Why not? Because
people just tune them out. It's like advertisements in
magazines. You just flip (or in this case, scroll)
right past them.

Now then, look at a company such as Yahoo. Do you use
Yahoo, Fred? They are a web site, and one of their
primary revenue generators is the sale of ad-space.
If suddenly they couldn't sell that ad-space because
Yahoo's users weren't _getting_ those ads, then their
business would take a hit. Perhaps even vanish
(unlikely, but if we want to deal in hyperbole...).
Where would Internet users be without Yahoo? I
personally use it regularly. I know that _I_ would
miss it, and I think many other users would as well.

So wouldn't Yahoo fight to protect its business? It
sure would! You steal Yahoo's ad space from them, and
you will find yourself in court faster than you can
say "Copyright Infringement." Fred, the model you
discuss, although interesting, is the hijacking of
online advertising. You are getting on the bus
between the origin and the destination (advertiser and
web site) and then taking the bus for a ride to your
home town. It might be good for you, locally, in the
short-term. But it'll land you in court and
ultimately shake the entire industry down to its core.
Do you want to watch a four billion dollar industry
that we _all_ benefit from turn into a 1 billion
dollar industry or less? Somehow, I doubt it (or at
least I hope not! :-)

Regards,
Christopher Modzelewski
Global eMarketing




Received on Thu Jan 13 2000 - 13:53:38 CST