Re: Why online advertising sucks

From: Brandon Estes <brandon_estes19_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Tue 13 Mar 2001 10:56:43 -0600

GERI STUNZ KONSTANTIN <geri_at_virtualadv.com> WROTE:

>1) Online ads are annoying. They flash in your eyes,
>make pages download slowly and are overall obnoxious.
>Ad people see this and they don't want to be associated
>with it.

Very good points! I have a few questions though.

How is TV, radio, or magazine ads different? They are
all pretty annoying in their own right. They interrupt
our favorite shows or music, and they make our magazines
fat and cluttered. Everyone hates ads, no matter what
medium they are on. Why are online ads more annoying,
and why are advertisers more willing to interrupt a
beloved tv show or music station than to cause download
times to suffer a little bit?

>2) Online ads are teeny. Us ad pros like a larger
>visual format. No one likes designing ads for Readers
>Digest, we'd rather design full page ads for the New
>York Times.

Do you think the new larger ad formats just released
are better or no different? Would you be more willing
to advertise with these than traditional banner ads?

>3) There's no viable reason for a P&G to advertise
>online. The majority of their consumer base is not
>online. There are many more proven, reliable ways
>to cost-effectively advertise, so why take the
>chance with a client's money and risk failure? One
>would have to be crazy.

First, I think the majority of internet users buy
toilet paper, tooth paste, and dish detergent. What
I want to know is, why is there no reason for P&G
to advertise online? I pretty much agree with you
on this point. In my gut I know selling toilet paper
through an online ad will not work. Is this because
online ads are not a good tool for branding? After
all, toilet paper is toilet paper. What sets them
apart is the brand. What do you guys think? Is
branding possible on the internet? If so, how do we
do it?

>4) There is no credible ad delivery system online.
>(I'm working on one, but this is a real bugger!)

What do you mean by credible? DoubleClick and some
others have pretty good delivery systems. What do
you not like about the current available systems?

>5) There is no advertising consistency online. It is
>not easy to specify "drive times"' to advertise
>online - and it is too hard to figure out when one's
>target audience may go online to see your ad - it's
>hit or miss - mostly miss - unless you throw a lot
>of money at it - and for what? The media is untested
>and prone to failure so far.

This is definately true if you are doing a "Run
of Network" campaign. If advertisers don't like
this method, why don't they simply advertise on sites
that cater to their specific audience? That way, the
target audience will always be online and seeing the
ad.

>7) There is so much fraud & scams online it is an image
>issue too. I am very careful where my clients' ads run.
>An association with the wrong site or other ad on a
>page can diminish a company's credibility. I'll take
>the safer traditional advertising route unless I can
>be assured of a very, very targeted buy which are
>easier to find for B2B than B2C.

Basically you are saying the more targeted the better?

>8) Most ad people do not know how to create an effective
>banner ad, let alone a website. Account people don't
>know how to sell them. Many managers can't even run
>a computer. Computer programmers don't know beans about
>advertising. Until the ad industry catches up, you'll
>see a gap (give it a few years).

What can we do to educate them? Is there a way to
make to whole process easier?

>9) Other advertising media work fine. So why risk loss
>of market share & a client? Not a sound business
>practice to recommend online ads that may lose an
>account or compromise results. Clients don't like
>unnecessary risk.

Is there any way to lessen this risk? Under what
conditions would you use online advertising?

>10) Costs are unreasonable, placement difficult,
>results too hard to prove. Yeah- there are clicks
>and estimated viewership, but I wouldn't trust the
>words of an online ad salesman today - selling
>online ads is right now like selling snake oil.
>Us ad people find it easier and safer to do
>traditional advertising.

$1 CPM is unreasonable? Placement at the top of a
page is difficult? What is it that you want changed?
What type of info is needed in order to prove
results? How does traditional advertising prove
results?

Thank you for your time. A lot of things would
change if we found answers to the issues you
brought up.

Brandon Estes



Received on Tue Mar 13 2001 - 10:56:43 CST