NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> PowerAgents Demise/1:1 database ad serving
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> PowerAgents Demise/1:1 database ad serving
Little Black Book (lbb_at_cais.com)
Sat, 13 Sep 1997 14:33:45 -0400
Mark Dolley wrote,
>deletion<
>In any case, I feel the PowerAgent saga raises a few issues that deserve
>the list's consideration:
>
>How much value does 1:1 database ad serving bring? How much better is it
>than the really intelligent use of context with content backed up by
>anonymous reader surveys?
Whatever type of venture I decide to undertake on the Internet, I always begin
by looking at the situation from the consumers side, or the person who will
be looking at my Web site. After dealing with banner after banner, I can truly
say that sites which implement a 1:1 database ad serving method appeal to
me much more than conventional Internet advertising methods.
Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, thought that the telephone
should be used to deliver news. After much frustration, I'm sure, he finally
conceded that the telephone was a better communications tool than a news
delivery system. I say this to imply that most advertisers treat the Web as
a traditional advertising tool, like print media, and all most people really
want
is good, old-fashioned content.
1:1 database ad serving at least customizes each message to a particular
user. And I 'know' that it's going to be the next wave of Internet advertising.
Advertisers can't keep force feeding the audience what they want, they've got
to give the people what they ask for. I think that more people would give up
vital information about themselves in order for 1:1 database ad serving to
work, if advertisers would find a way to combine content with advertising so
that it doesn't end up looking like the world of 1,001 banners. (I've been
working on a new advertising model for the past year that does just that.)
>
>Would you want to advertise to the kind of person who signs up for less
>than $10 a month to see your ads? (Although I know this question does not
>apply exclusively to PowerAgent.)
Again, from the consumers side, I couldn't possibly imagine earning less
than $10 a month--(Based on an article in "Red Herring," PowerAgent pays
$2-$6 a month)--to have some persistent frame resting on my screen. Even
if it were with advertising that's relevant to me... Even if I were piss
poor broke!
This is a perfect example of Net advertisers treating the Web like a traditional
advertising venue. Advertisers are desperate for a quick, cheap fix. I'm sure
if you asked 99% of the people who surf the Web if they're on here to read
advertising, the answer would be a resounding no. This goes back to the
fact that they want content over advertising any day. And content, used in
the right ways, for instance coupled with 1:1 database ad serving, will pull
the consumer in much more compelling and targeted ways.
>
>How would publishers react to having the effectiveness of their own
>advertising diminished? (Their content would appear under PowerAgent's
>permanent banner window, situated above the browser.)
Some of the advertisers would join outfits like PowerAgent just so they
could feel like they were constantly reaching more of their target market.
Some might intensify their level of advertising on the Net. And eventually
everything would topple once they realize how very little, most people
surfing the Web, care about that amount and intensity of advertising.
>Could we expect
>publishers to react in the same way as they reacted to TotalNews? (Which
>put other people's content in their own ad-filled frameset until the
>litigation struck). I see PowerAgent as not a lot more than a very
>ambitious TotalNews - more like a TotalWeb.
>
>How long can we reasonably expect the bandwidth to stay slow enough for
>the "while you wait" technologies to enjoy a market?
Personally, I'm not going to wait to find out. I've already built a unique
model
of advertising which totally eliminates banners, while you wait technologies
and the whole nine. It combines 1:1 content--not just news, personalized
service and 'informising'. (Informising combines informational content with
advertising.) The main point being that it's a 1:1 form of marketing, not just
shotgun advertising.
Advertisers will of course continue to make money using the methods that
they currently do on the Internet, but without formulating alternatives that
emulate what the 'consumer wants'--(content, content and more content)--
eventually they're all doomed.
>
>Finally, would the demise of PowerAgent spell the end of venture capital
>for "Field of Dreams" online advertising startups ("Build it and they
>will come")?
I think venture capitalists will surely begin looking at potential online
advertising startups with a very, very fine toothed comb. I think models
which follow in PowerAgents footsteps are going to really have to prove
that a consumer will 'want' to be paid $5 to look at a dozen or more ads,
per month. (I personally think it's an insulting concept, but to each his
or her own.)
And I think it's also up to the venture capitalists to look at the proposal
from the side of the consumer. When top name firms like: Draper Fisher
Jurvetson and EDS, invest a whopping $16 million dollars in a concept
where you pay a person $2-$6 A MONTH to look at ads from companies
like Lexus, for instance, it just doesn't make sense. But that's just my
opinion du jour.
Monique Harris
lbb_at_cais.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
Money Minded debuts Oct. 1 on http://homearts.com, the #1 Lifestyle
Site for Women. It's straight talk on personal finance and investing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
