NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Peter Bull's hypothetical
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Peter Bull's hypothetical
Alan Ferguson (alan_at_5line.com)
Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:52:03 -0800
In the last few days Peter Bull <peterb_at_dvp.com.au> has illuminated the
electrons with some excellent content to which Mark J. Welch, Esq.
<markwelch_at_ca-probate.com> responded:
>I was fascinated by Peter Bull's hypothetical in which a local
>ISP "substitutes" the ISP's own paid ads for the paid ads on
>web site content pages, thereby shifting the profit from the
>web pages from the site to the ISP.
The way I read it, just the graphics would be turned off, no laws broken
there no matter who does it. The ISP could easily make the claim that
contractually his subscribers must allow some graphics to be turned off as
a condition for services rendered, and that it is a bandwidth issue, not a
hi-jacking. As I see it the text version of the ad would still be there and
be just as effective if not more so.
The issues with banners is much greater than that, it's the whole idea that
banner advertising is the only way to go, it's not. IMHO they're still
annoying and intrusive and a dying vehicle for effective online advertising
for the majority of businesses, especially those that want to reach their
prime market, local folk.
With the rise of the DoubleCliks, Matchlogic, LinkExchange, et. al. and
others that serve banners off site, the delays are too much of a burden as
is the requisite cookie issue associated with them. If you think not,
explain why some surfers do it without graphics enabled and cookie alerts
on (I do).
Peter's insight into local internet marketing is right on, if you want to
reach a local market it helps to have content that is targeted to that
market exclusively. This of course limits the traffic and basically shuts
out most sites like ours from participating in the ad networks. Peter's
hypothetical is certainly going to make more sense as time goes on and the
efforts to support content with banner ads is finally acknowledged as a
losing proposition. While Peter's idea may work, it probably would have
some problems, just ask the folks at _at_bigger.net, they tried a similar
scheme with free lifetime access with an extra browser window for banner
ads (local?), are they still there?
We approach the local market in a way that is deadly for most sites. At
http://creekwalk.com we have adopted the paid links avenue for sustanance
with the theory that all local businesses can benefit from such an
arrangment. While we can and do accept small banners in certain areas, it's
not the focus for viewers. We understand as Peter does that the internet
must be more locally focused for the vast majority of businesses to be able
to benefit.
(Note to Mark, visit http://creekwalk.com and get a free link from your
listing for 2 months, that's a savings of $16.64!).
Good Day.
Alan
________________________________________________________
Alan Ferguson
5line Communications http://5line.com 510 988 9393
Design and such.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsors:
AltaVista Now Serving the Asian marketspace !
Guaranteed Impression, Free Impressions if Clickthru Below 1%
http://www.altavista.skali.com.my email : sales_at_altek.com.my
-----
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
