Re: Can ads kill a web site?

From: Sean Dillon <sean_at_telegraph.co.uk>
Date: Fri 10 May 2002 08:48:54 -0600

Rob Frankel <Rob_at_RobFrankel.com> wrote:

> It's getting worse. CNN ran a story last week about ads that float
> over the page within the same frame, obscuring the content until
> they're finished playing. More proof that anyone with a new
> technology will sell anything to anyone foolish enough enough to
> buy it, even at the certainty of driving away visitors in droves!


CNN always at the cutting edge of what's occuring... ahem.

Eyeblaster, TangoZebra Shoshkele... all been done before.
These styles of ads have been in the market place for >18 months
and provide some spectacular results (we ran one with >23% click
thru).

Well targetted and carefully controlled (I insist on no more
than one ad-play per 3 days, but then I've got >3m users) they are
an increasingly valid form of advertising that attracts premium
rates and good response and have a important role to play in any
well planned campaign.

We have not seen traffic fleeing away in 'droves', we do get
complaints (as everyone does even aboput banner ads), but we
monitor these and carefully explain the need to take advertising,
we after all are a media owner and we needto secure our revenue
streams.

Readers on the whole understand our needs, some may get upset
and go off elsewhere, but the majority of competition runs
similar adverts so what are they going to do?

The point being here is that as a media owner we need to ensure that
we are able to take as many creative formats as possible, anyone
who doesn't will lose out and those sites who react to and work
with the ad-agencies and creatives will invariably win through.

And anyway, why deliver 10 popups when one of these ads can get
you the same revenue?

So, what are your feelings about Unicast's new 300K Superstitials?
:-)


Sean


Sean Dillon
Traffic Manager
www.telegraph.co.uk

e: sean_at_telegraph.co.uk
t: 020-7531-3236
f: 020-7538-7236



Received on Fri May 10 2002 - 09:48:54 CDT