NONE: ONLINE-ADS>> Personal Home Pages
ONLINE-ADS>> Personal Home Pages
BULMASH.COM Sales (sales_at_bulmash.com)
Mon, 2 Jun 1997 14:15:42 -0800
On 30 May 97 at 6:21, Tom Hespos (thespos_at_k2design.com) wrote:
[snip]
>I would say that the majority of the web properties that I
> visit on a regular basis could be considered "personal" home pages, or
> at least "non-commercial entities" that do not currently accept
> advertising. I assume that many other cybercitizens are the same way.
>
> What if someone were to begin putting together site networks that
> consist of the types of websites that make the Netscape "What's Cool"
> page? I think a banner ad for Blockbuster Video might work well on
> the Kevin Bacon Game page. Or perhaps a company like CDNow might run
> ads on personal pages dedicated to certain rock bands.
>
> It's important to remember that "personal" web pages often are
> particularly good at creating online communities that generate repeat
> traffic and loyal followers. Often, I wish there were some way that
> advertisers take advantage of this.
[Please bear with me. This is long, but I believe worthwhile.]
I have to correct Mr. Hespos on a small matter... many personal
pages did or do accept advertising. There are thousands of them
involved in Link Exchange and there were further thousands involved
with Commonwealth. Of course, I dumped Commonwealth and have yet to be
paid for over 40,000 impressions.
As Mark Welch has said, the categorizing for targeting purposes has
been too limited in such networks. My site concentrates on a "where
are they now" slant regarding mainly TV & movie actors from the 70's
and 80's. It's not about current movies, big stars, movie reviews, or
a certain movie genre and thus had to be placed in the "other" or
"general" category. This is not an appealing category for advertisers.
On the other hand, I'm constantly naming movies (many which went
straight to tape) in my weekly columns, meaning someone like
Blockbuster would seem to be a perfect match, even if only for a
branding campaign to remind site visitors that they can rent these
films at their local Blockbuster outlet. Yet I am loathe to join a
network again.
Here's what I think would make a good network...
1: Affinity/specialty networks seem to be growing in popularity, and
this is a good thing. When I was in sales, product knowledge was
extremely important, and with millions of web sites now, the web is no
longer a product... it's a category of products. Affinity networks can
concentrate on knowing the sites and visitors within a specific area
such as sports or movies and concentrate on selling them to
advertisers. It would also allow for better and more extensive
sub-categorization.
2: The ability to secure both local and national advertisers. What do
the sub-site for a radio station's sports talk show and a Los Angeles
Dodgers fan site have in common? They would be good for both a local
Dodgers promo campaign ("It's bat day on Sunday") and a national
campaign for Sports Illustrated.
3: Flexibility of service... Some sites now do a Link Exchange style
banner trade in unsold slots, but it needs to go beyond this. I'd like
to be able to control the mix of what goes in unsold slots, in essence
turning the network into my own personal ad management software. It
might go like this...
3a. I control XX% of unsold impressions and can specify up to N
banners of my own (either internal promos or external barters) to run
through them either on a straight rotation or a weighted basis. The
other YY% can be used for the network to promote itself (like
DoubleClick's ads for DoubleClick) or a Link Exchange style trade with
other network members (possibly on a 50/50 basis with a 1:1 trade when
other network members' banners are shown). If I had fewer internals or
barters to run, I could assign a greater percentage of unsold
impressions to the swap.
4: Better contracts. It seems that the attorneys for the networks I've
been looking at lately think that webmasters are stupid. Some of these
networks seem to reserve the right to make unilateral, retroactive
changes to the contract without prior notice and at their sole
discretion. Uh-uh. They might as well say "we'll pay you when we want,
how we want, and if we want, but this is the way we think it will go."
4a: And since this is interstate commerce, I find it very annoying to
live in California and have a contract governed by another state's law.
Why should I have to travel or retain an out-of-state attorney to
ensure that my interests are protected? Isn't it possible to have the
contracts governed by some sort of universal model and subject to
binding arbitration? If not, I'm only going to do business with
networks that have an office and a bank account in California and are
willing to have the contract governed by California law.
Well, those are my thoughts.
-Greg
_____________________________________________
| Thousands of Fans Can't Be Wrong |
| -------------------------------- |
| The WASHED-UPdate(tm) Archives |
| The BULMASH.COM Humor Column |
| Unweaving The Web |
|-------------------------------------------|
|LAUGHS CELEBRITIES GOOD ADVICE|
