Re: CNET changes advertising...we should follow
RAMON RAY <ramon_at_smallbiztechnology.com> WROTE:
> If publishers want to encourage more advertising....
> steps like CNET as taken above are what is needed.
> It's not enough to have the status quoe anymore, but
> advertisers demand results, we (content publishers)
> need to give it to them.
ROBERT KNIGHT <rknight_at_corp.ru4.com> WROTE:
> Couldn't agree with you more. In fact, in addition to
> putting up new, more interesting ads, you can actually
> help your advertisers improve performance by giving
> them the ability to target their offerings based on
> specific user characteristics...
People come to a site for the content and the content
determines what kind of viewers come there, specialty
magazines claim a type of reader why not allow the
Internet the same courtesy without making publishers
who are hanging on by their fingernails jump through
hoops ....if you are buying search engines or general
information big reach web sites go buy TV The Internet
already is targeted and self selected...TV is not
measured by results...magazines are not measured by
results, Newspapers are not measured by results...The
Internet is cut up and chewed down by Advertising
agencies showing just how much they can beat up on the
site.
The Problem is not that banners don't work or rich
media gets better results, its that there is so little
pressure on the inventory that no mater what results an
advertiser gets the rates are never low enough to meet
his criteria so they want to spend even less, the
results are unfortunately micro measured can never be
high enough...Publishers need to be allowed to make
enough money to sustain their existence...How Bout
it.....There was a piece today on NPR which discussed
how a restaurant has to support the farmer in order to
get him to grow good produce...well you get the idea...
Received on Thu Feb 08 2001 - 13:04:01 CST
