NONE: Re: ONLINE ADS>> Creative
Re: ONLINE ADS>> Creative
Alan Ferguson (alan_at_5line.com)
Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:32:13 -0700
From: "BULMASH.COM Sales" <sales_at_bulmash.com>
<SNIP>
>Now you do. I click on ads all the time... well, when they interest
>me anyway.
Do you buy, or assess the competition and add to the hit counts that
further skew the data away from CTR vs sales?
>Since when? A _good_ designer who has the use of banners in mind from
>the start can find a way to tastefully integrate into his/her page
>designs the blank space that needs to be reserved for them.
My point was, integrating blank space isn't the problem, integrating an
unknown is simply what it is, unknown. If you can do it, great. It's kind
of like an automaker designing a beautiful car and allowing someone else
(who may not be a _good_ designer) to put their own headlights and grill
on, it's a compromise and could get real ugly.
>If Microsoft is trying to get Mac Netscape users to switch
>over to Mac IE, the ad might relate to the browser and computer the
>user has rather than the topic on the page. This kind of targeting
>isn't tough.
but pointless, eh?
>Why wouldn't the PC Magazine site run ads? Why wouldn't
>news.com? I can see not running ads for Toshiba on a Sony site. But
>there are lots of "commercial" sites that are primarily content
>providers and derive income from ads just like newspapers and magazines
>in the real world.
They can, should, and do, they're in that business. Magazines and
newspapers are primarily ad vehicles, the vast majority of web sites are
not, they are an ad themselves. Those same news/Ezine sites will likely not
exist when the hard light of cost v benefit is cast and analysed. Banner
advertising to support sites is not a viable business model now (Yahoo
excluded) and will not be in the future.
>To work with all browsers, you're _direly_ limited in
>design options.
Thanks, that's my point.
If all your clients can afford to ignore the roughly 10-15% of the audience
(mostly the online consumers) that won't be able to view their site as you
designed it, even with something as simple as table colors, much less
frames, java, etc., probably don't need the business, and you're a lucky
guy. My experience is that designing for one browser excludes all others.
If you use java applets that work in Netscape they won't work in MSIE, and
only very simple things work on AOL. It's hard for non-internet-savvy folk
to know when their browser is inadequate, but I'll gladly leave the task of
telling them to you (you'll have to use conventional means i.e. TV, Radio,
etc., because on the web they can't see you).
So on top of designing successfully to accommodate an unknown graphic, some
of us are forced to technically dumb down the site to the lowest common
denominator to address client issues, like accessibility by their
customers. The real design challenge is to make a site that accounts for
all and is still an attractive, effective marketing vehicle.
>Few sites will put all their eggs in one basket and accept sole
>sponsorship if they can help it because then their survival rests on
>the whims of a single advertiser.
They may have no choice, the banner ad house of cards is falling and will
surely follow certain large reptiles and bumper stickers to their proper
place. Clever design and technical tricks will not save it, a different
model may, and it will probably be national advertisers who are happy with
branding as the primary goal with CTR a secondary benefit. Good sites will
gather one or many *sponsors* that display an unobtrusive logo in
significant spots throughout the site thus adding to everyones credibility.
The three legs supporting internet site marketing are:
Value - Design - Speed
>So far, the banner as it works now has been the best broad-based
>compromise for >the low-bandwidth world.
You said it, it's a compromise, and generally results in garbage.
Alan
As a side note, the issue of banners is invariably tied to the the cookie
issue which is not getting good press. The NBC TV affiliate KRON in San
Francisco, which owns the SF Chronicle, ran a prime time news broadcast
last Monday night exposing the dangers posed by banner/cookie technology,
and warning consumer/surfers to beware. The thing that was strange is the
company also runs http://www.sfgate.com which, if I'm not mistaken, relies
on banner ads and cookie data for revenue...
####################################################################
Alan Ferguson -- designer, photographer, webslave
5line Communications
alan_at_5line.com http://5line.com 510 988 9393
Internet advertising in the local market -- SF East Bay area
business directory http://creekwalk.com
####################################################################
======================================================================
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
Sure, we're big. But the size of your budget doesn't matter.
Our neighborhoods let you pinpoint exactly your target.
http://www.geocities.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
