NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Peter Bull's fanciful "ad piracy" hypothet
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Peter Bull's fanciful "ad piracy" hypothet
Steven Heath (Steven_Heath_at_grey.net)
Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:11:32 -0700
Folks,
Rather long post but I would like to address two areas on this debate. The
first is Peter's orignial post about the "ISP providing ads" idea and the
other about stripping them away in exchange for money.
First the ISP Providing Ads Idea:
I took the 'ISP idea' to mean that the ISP would be effectivly
the local rep and would kick back a share (majority I
would hope) to the original property that the ad was
shown on.
The one thing about Peter's idea that I have issue with
is that the ISP is not the correct place to do this
idea. The overall idea is excellent, have content on
site shown locally to locals no matter where the content
may come from. I think if you replace ISP in his post
with 'local rep firms with some technogoly' then it
makes far more sense.
Example:
CNET decides that they will no longer sell ads in a
central manner but in turn create some tools to allow
'authorised agents' throughout the word to effectively
resell space. The agent finds a client and then uses the
CNET tools to place the ad into the mix. When a person
hits the site, they are identified as being from X town,
in Y Region of Z Country and an ad seeking that demo is
shown. Now, this is DART (DoubleClick) several years in
the future.
I think Peter used ISP because in that manner the
location of the user could be determined in an easy
manner. I think the ISP does not have the overall
ability to pull this off, but that another discussion.
The "Ad intercept Idea"
Mark did say:
> I'm not certain how this would fly under the laws of
> other nations, but under the laws of the United States
> and of the State of California, I can think of at
> least a half-dozen legal theories that would trigger
> immediate issuance of an injunction and an award of
> huge damages against the ISP for doing so.
Based upon this I must agree with Mark, striping out
some content of a page and not others without
'permission' is very shaky ground. Just because you say
its an ad and not part of the content does not mean
anything.
How would a newspaper publisher like it if the store I
owned that sold your paper covered all the ads the paper
with ones I put in. All the while saying 'hey, its my
store, I can do what I dam well please'...
Also, most sites have terms of use that state the content can not be used
for comercial use or otherwise redistrubted.
Steven Heath
General Manager - Western Division
GreyInteractive Canada
Phone: (604) 687-1001 Email: Steven_Heath_at_grey.net
Web: http://www.grey.net
Canada's only complete Interactive Marketing Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
When it comes to ad performance, not all search engines are equal.
Infoseek gives you solid reporting and highly targeted placement.
(And we return calls, too.) http://info.infoseek.com/doc/sponsors.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
