Re: Webmmercial

From: Amrit Hallan <amrit_h_at_vsnl.com>
Date: Tue 07 Aug 2001 11:58:35 -0500

BRANDI JASMINE <bj_at_brandijasmine.com> WROTE:

>Step 1: We have this really kool, awesome content we
>know you really want but in order to see it you'll have
>to view a commercial message first. Click here to accept
>our ad and see the content. Click here if you wish to
>pay to play with no advertisments.

A thought comes up in my mind, what's the significance
of an ad if it just being watched till it gets over and
the user goes to the content that he/she really wants
to see? Isn't such sort of advertising a nag?

I hear the argument coming my way that, in that sense,
every advertisement is a nag? I don't mean to contend
that. But does such advertising really work, when you
are seeing something just to see something else?

We used to have a writers' discussion group at
TheGlobe.com long time back. An advertisement was
generally appended at the end of every message. All
of a sudden, TheGlobe.com folks started inserting the
ads at the top of every message posted by every member.
Everybody was highly irritated. We all understood that
the ads were a necessity, but it was silly to append
the ads at the top, as in a hurry to read the actual
message, we used to skip the ad in great hurry. When
it was at the end, at least the ad used to get a
cursory glance. The moderator took the group to some
other host.

So what I think is, when we see an advertisement just
before seeing content that we eagerly want to see,
there is a greater chance that the ad will loose its
purpose. For example, if the ad carries as link, why
would I click on it if all I'm waiting for is, to be
done with it? Instead, if the ad comes up when I have
gone through the content, my initial excitement has
mellowed down, and hence, there is greater chance of
my clicking on the link in the advertisement.

Amrit Hallan
BYTESWORTH INTERNET MARKETING SOLUTIONS
http://www.bytesworth.com



Received on Tue Aug 07 2001 - 11:58:35 CDT