NONE: ONLINE ADS>> Creative
ONLINE ADS>> Creative
BULMASH.COM Sales (sales_at_bulmash.com)
Thu, 12 Jun 1997 01:53:40 -0800
On 11 Jun 97 at 22:39, Online Ads told a little bird who told me:
> From: Alan Ferguson <alan_at_5line.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?
I'm usually far enough ahead of the game to have identified and
assessed competition before a banner ad alerts me to them. I click
through usually out of personal interest.
Following a CTR vs online sales formula for judging the success of a
site, especially one where you're promoting a product that is also
available through retail channels is like judging your love life on a
drinks bought vs women bedded formula. I visited the Red Hat Linux
site many times to get info on the product and then eventually bought
it not by mail order at the site but at a Comp USA a few miles from my
home. Had the site not given me the information I needed, I wouldn't
have purchased the product. Just remember, some people don't have sex
on the first date.
> >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.
Could, but I haven't seen it get ugly yet and I've seen many pages and
many banners.
> 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.
Really, I know of non-adult content sites making a profit on banner
advertising. They generally have different business models than
traditional businesses. The old saying "smart work is more important
than hard work" applies.
[snip]
> 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.
You simply cannot account for all and should not. Why worry about
whether your ad copy on a coffee site will be attractive to Mormons?
They don't drink coffee and no matter how cool your site, they're not
going to choose eternal damnation because you accomodated them. The
first rule of any media is to know your audience.
That 15% exists but may account for 1% of your traffic and by not
utilizing the tools otherwise available, you may be limiting the
effectiveness of your site. Of course you should be multi-browser
compatible. I never said you shouldn't and suggested checking the
site with Netscape _and_ MSIE. But pan-browser compatibility is a
silly idea for most sites.
> >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.
The DVD format is a compromise, and though not the best format has
prevented another VHS vs. Beta war. A compromise isn't the best
solution, it's just the one that works most successfully for the
largest number of people.
I'll agree that web advertising is a medium that is bound to mature and
change. Technology changes will slowly shift the paradigm to even
greater interactivity and advertising will by neccessity become more
integrated into content, but currently the banner is the best
broad-based solution across the great variety of sites out there.
It is working to a certain extent, though many people have much to
learn, such as a great banner is useless if it leads to a lame site.
> 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...
That's called journalistic integrity.
-Greg
sales_at_bulmash.com
======================================================================
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
More neighborhoods to visit than New York. (And much safer.)
Stop by and see our online media kit. No need to take the subway.
http://www.geocities.com/mediakit/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
