NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> one:1 marketing / keyword ethics
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> one:1 marketing / keyword ethics
Bill Irvine (wirvine_at_wolfgroup.com)
Mon, 18 Aug 1997 08:46:54 -0400
Hi again Randall...
> From: Randall Farmer [Team 13429] <rfarmer_at_HiWAAY.net>
> I do know that there certainly is some gratuitous tech out there...
> snip <
> anyway). However, I haven't seen many cases in commercial sites where
> content actually suffered because of an overuse of technology -- the most
> major (and close to the most common) error I've seen in the world of 'net
> marketing is the opposite, a site so ineptly crafted that it seems more
> like a newspaper ad than a website. Then again, I can't claim to have
> kept up with all the corporations' sales pitches lately... :)
I can't come up with immediate examples... but in general,
there's a lot of Active Server Pages for no good reason, as
well as pointless JavaScript madness.
> Well, perhaps you should try to point out an exceptional TV ad campaign
> with only five- or maybe ten-second ads (the first campaign at all that
> comes to mind fitting that criterion is the PointCast campaign,
ironically).
You're assuming web banner campaigns *must* be short and
non-interactive. Some enabling technologies exist but are
limited (I created a 1800 frame, animated Shockwave banner
for a Shocked content site which was only 22k -- it accepted
user input and logged how long users looked watched and what
they clicked on during interaction... too bad Macromedia
never followed through on the early co-bundling promises).
The push features of the newer browsers hold promise, but
might take 2 years to reach a useful installed base.
> The problem with trying to compare interactive and "old media" campaigns
> is that they're totally different.
Exactly. The medium isn't as different as many people think.
Well written copy and killer creative wins in any media
(with obvious differences in the way copy and creative are
developed for different media). However, it's the audience
that makes the difference -- Web users have to be the
toughest ad market ever.
> people seem to pay less attention to
> banners than they do to TV spots -- a banner saying "Click HERE for FREE
> STUFF!" gets as high a click rate (about 5-7%, I think) as any of the
> clever banner designs featured in Microscope.
Website banners are very much similar to outdoor
advertising... we're trying to grab the attention, briefly,
of passing surfers. There are also studies (Jupiter?
Neilson? I forget... might even be the GVU results) that
show people remember branding messages placed in banners,
even if they never click... so click-through may not be the
all important aspect we like to think it is.
B i l l I r v i n e
Director Of Interactive Media
Wolf Mansfield Bolling Advertising
T h e W o l f G r o u p
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
xe-a*dsCUTfq/twTHROUGHsh#aioTHEor!sa_at_wCLUTTERagn+se
CUT THROUGH THE CLUTTER
http://www.geocities.com/mediakit/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
