NONE: different take on ad banners

different take on ad banners

suboski_at_adan.kingston.net

Thu, 22 Aug 1996 05:19:30 -0400

This is not directly related to the ongoing discussion of web
banners, and the assessment of same, but is instead a sort of different take
on the whole subject:

Here in Kingston, we have a biweekly 'community' newspaper. Beaver
Lumber, a local franchise of a chain, advertises regularly in Kingston This
Week, in a particularly clever fashion. Every issue, there is a column on
some aspect of home repair, supposedly written by the manager/owner of
Beaver Lumber, and featuring both the company logo and his picture. So, part
of the ad is concerned with information dissemination.
I spoke with the manager, suggesting that he put these ads on a web
page as part of a steadily growing archive. He declined, saying that Beaver
Lumber was doing this stuff on a corporate level (this seemed so lame!)
Now, think about the success of Jeopardy and Trivial Pursuit. I
believe that people like to learn new things. Further, a regularly growing
archive provides genuine usefulness (eg. one of the columns suggested
punching holes in the rim of a paint can, using a nail, so that excess paint
could flow back into the can. A simple idea, but one could do a lot of
painting before thinking of it) So, such an archive would provide a resource
to people interested in fixing up their homes.
(In the particular case, it was especially disheartening that the
dude said no, since he really wouldn't have had to do anything extra in
saying yes)
Anyway, someone else on the list used the example of a Taco Bell
site, and how no-one would visit it without Taco Bell employing a gimmick. I
believe we should credit people with some curiousity, and recognize that
providing quality information is a useful service that can easily create the
repititious exposure needed for successful advertising. So, I think all this
talk of web banner rates is interesting and useful, but perhaps there are
'gimmicks' for creating repeat traffic that are effective simply by virtue
of being genuinely useful to the potential customers.
My last point on this, given two businesses in competition with each
other, one that has either no web page, or a lame one, versus the other that
provides me with a useful resource, there is no doubt as to which one I will
bookmark...and this will lead to purchases.

A further sort of gripe about super-finely-detailed discussions of
rates, and click-thrus, and statistics...as I said in an earlier post, I
find that I cannot sell simple web pages here in Kingston - to employ a
buzz-phrase, the cost-per-thousand is potentially the lowest of any medium.
On a different tack, it seems obvious to me that the communication
revolution that the Internet will enable is second only to the Gutenberg
press, and, meanwhile, Kingston business-people WILL NOT TRY a six month,
$150 test run...Incredible! These decisions are based not on knowledge but
on ignorance, not on initiative but on complacency (incidentally, the
prejudice is pre-rational, dressed up in rational costumes; prospects raise
objections, which I meet, and they still don't buy)

However, all of those who have bought from me are so pleased that
they have, without exception, and without any prompting on my part, offered
to act as referees for new clients. The web page will not a priori make
someone wealthy in a vacuum, but they are for certain businesses very
effective, web-banners and click-thrus notwithstanding...

Which brings me to the last idea that's been rattling
around...because the web is new, there is this real pressure from
prospective advertisers for impressive results, which really is
nonsense...what I mean is, in many cases, the objection has nothing to do
with the Internet, but is a more general complaint that the prospective
customer doesn't feel that he or she gets the return from their advertising
$ that they deserve. I don't know how many times I've heard, "I can't afford
to advertise". Anymore, I feel like saying something like, "That last
statement proves that you really don't know what's going on."
What I'm fumbling to say is that if designing a web page is
analogous to laying out a print ad, then proving a web pages effectiveness
is analogous to an extensive marketing survey to assess an ad's
effectiveness. For us to have to prove the utility of a web page (such proof
being involved and time-intensive to establish) on top of very reasonable
design rates, is a little like someone buying a tank of gas, and then
saying, "Well, throw in a car to prove the gasoline is useful..."
A counterpoint: local real estate agents all have pagers. This is
pretended self-importance, ie, they could get along just fine without
pagers, the usefulness of a pager is marginal, and on a personal basis
irritating to the agent, since it puts them on 24-hour call. However, they
would never give them up, or even seriously consider no longer using a
pager. Similarly, no agent would ever seriously question the usefulness of
the pager, since it does not matter, it is a 'proven' tool. The important
issue is that if one agent uses a pager, then they all must...it is this way
in which web pages should be promoted

Anyway, just late-night ramblings...we now return you to the
regularly scheduled program, already in progress...

Cheers,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:

Let Web Surfers Know It's Time To Visit Your Site
Web Watches from Lynx Marketing, http://www.logotime.com/web.html
Earn $$$ for publicizing your own web site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Visit our other web sites:
Tennis Server | Tennis Server Ticket Exchange | MyCityRocks | MyCityRocks Ticket Exchange