Re: pop-ups

From: Steve Harrison <merlin_at_paypermaster.com>
Date: Fri 01 Mar 2002 17:39:08 -0600

Janet Santos wrote: "Truthfully, for me, I won't click on Pop up ads and
don't care who it is or what they offer. They are more annoying and
intruding than Spam and I will not accept that type of advertising on
behalf of those I represent. That is almost as bad as sites that use exit
traffic."

To which another poster countered (in part): "Argghhhhhhh! Not this
argument again! I would have thought this was the stuff of first year
marketing grads. The fact that 'you' don't like them should not cloud your
professional judgement in using them in situations where they are shown to
work. There's a lot of thigs I don't like to use buit if the money's behind
it then I'd be stupid to refuse it."

I'm with Janet, as a matter of principle, and I believe that a growing
segment of the Internet population is of a like attitude. A professional
marketer who does not take the pulse of visitor reactions, preferences,
likes and dislikes is surely headed down the tubes. And as the pro pop-up
writer confessed later on, "However, I think they'll die a death by
themselves. I'm already seeing agencies move away from them as a whole to
concentrate on other more interactive content that we can offer at similar
prices."

Hopefully, those new tactics (interactive content) will be less intrusive
and annoying to site visitors than the typical pop-up as in use today.

Some of us go far enough back in Internet time to recall heated debate
about whether it was right and ethical to do commercial stuff on the Web at
all. Despite some considerable screeching, the "purists" lost, and now we
have what is arguably the most powerful marketing medium ever conceived.
But it's still the consumer who will drive the marketing tactics and
strategies. What works today may very well become tomorrow's universal
annoyance. For pop-ups, that "tomorrow" may already be at hand. I, for one,
hope so.

The argument about using pop-ups because they are currently profitable
smacks of a casual disregard for one's reputation as a marketer. If money
is your only motivator, then you might enjoy an old joke.

A gentleman approached an attractive lady at a high society affair and
after a bit of introductory chit-chat gracefully posed the proposition,
"Madame, I find you very attractive, would you sleep with me for five
million dollars [or pounds]? The lady glanced about, sidled a bit closer
and cooed, "Why, of course, kind sir." The gentleman then further proposed,
"Well, I don't happen to have that much cash on me at the moment, so would
you sleep with me for ten dollars?" At which the lady flared in rage,
"What?! You insult me, sir! What do you think I am?" The gentleman's punch
line -- "Wye, madame, we've already established what you are, now we're
just haggling over your price."

Some Internet technology, though possible and perhaps even profitable in
the short-run, is simply not good business. Do we really need to revisit
discussions of UCE, Smart Tags and scumware? How about those emails that,
even when only by chance are presented in a email client preview window,
open a new browser to a porn site, which opens a half-dozen pop-ups, which
harvest your IP number or email address, which multiplies the number of
porn spams you get? Does that work profitably for someone? Are they happy
with the marketing agency who built that system for them? I couldn't care
less, it's an abomination of a marketing tactic.

Whether "it works" should not be the prime or final measure for a
professional marketer, so long as we'd purport to market ourselves as
representing the best of the commercial Web. Today's golden fleece may
become tomorrow's albatross -- if reputations are still something to be
guarded.

Steve Harrison ~ Pay-Per Master
http://www.paypermaster.com





Received on Fri Mar 01 2002 - 17:39:08 CST