Re: Salon.com and taller ads

From: Stefanie Nelson <stef_at_sumus.com>
Date: Tue 27 Mar 2001 14:10:36 -0600

JOE SPATARO <webmaster_at_homeschoolzone.com> WROTE:

> Just saw this piece on yahoo:
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010320/sftu105.html

> Which talks about different size ads on salon.com

[snip]

> What is the experience with folks on this list with
> this banner which seems might tall compared with your
> standard 468 x 60 banner? has anyone out there adopted
> this standard?

TO WHICH WAYNE BROWNING <coffeenews_at_homepagers.com> REPLIED:

>Ridiculous is all this merits as a reply.
>It's content that drives the car not ads.
>This would effectively change a web page into a big
>single ad which will cause the consumer to once again
>say "Where's the beef"? this format drives people away.

I can't disagree more. The content brings the people,
but if they can't see the ad, what good is it to the
advertiser? And if the advertiser isn't happy, there's
no money for the content. No content, no site!!

I feel that we are FINALLY going in the right direction
with increased ad sizes. It's the only thing that can
really save online advertising now. Yes, I agree that it
will turn off a few people who are especially easy to
turn off, but without the advertising, they don't get
the free information and entertainment. Deal with it!!

Larger ad sizes are needed to increase ad recall, ad
response, and creative freedom. Can you imagine a
magazine that will sell nothing larger than a 1" by 4"
ad because they worry that their readers won't like
anything bigger? Or a TV network that will only sell
5 second spots because their viewers feel that the
commercials are too long? The banner is too small, too
standardized, and too easy to ignore. More intrusive
means for advertisers to get their messages out is
critical to the future of online advertising,
whether we like it or not.

Stefanie Nelson
Media Director
Sumus Interactive
stef_at_sumus.com





Received on Tue Mar 27 2001 - 14:10:36 CST