Re: Text Banner Standards: Isn't it about time?

From: Mark Montgomery <markm_at_gwin.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:22:53 -0600 (CST)

MATTHEW DA SILVA WROTE:
>Who said that lists were designed to make money?
>Conversely, my opinion is they serve to attract attention to
>a property -- a Website usually.
>
>Let's spend more time discussing nomenclature standards,
>which is a vital issue. Or tools that allow the average
>business to tie the Net into their purchasing systems. Valid
>solutions will spur Net growth and deliver dollars to online
>advertisers. List-posted banners will soon become unpopular
>with webmasters.
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This one will likely illicit response. That's a good thing
and Matthew deserves credit for showing some courage here
and bringing up an important point that I would like to
respond to.

Since moving my business consultancy on-line in '95 (the
predecessor of GWIN LLC), we've played a role in helping
establish forums that have helped make millionaires and
indeed even a few billionaires. Often has been the case that
those who invested the most time, energy, and money to
obtain the most knowledge and then shared it were never
compensated because they were not selling a commodity.

The problem is not only that high quality forums require a
full time effort by what I consider to be a very high level
of human talent and value, but that the majority of
subscribers in large forums are not in a position to benefit
from the most valuable information. That is why the most
valuable information in the world is not available on the
free Web, but is a multi-billion dollar industry using
encryption and proprietary feeds serving a very few
companies worldwide. I would like to see that trickle down
somewhat so that others can benefit, but those who benefit
must ultimately pay or you simply do not have an economy
that is sustainable.

Only a couple of models have proven to work or some variable
inbetween for relatively unbiased and professional
information, which is after all the most valuable asset that
all other value depends. I do not consider e-commerce or
commissions to be unbiased for professional forums, although
we did test that model too. It's brilliant in its
simplicity:

1) Ad supported

2) Subscriber supported

3) Some combination of the two (WSJ model)

We decided on a subscription model that has no advertising
within GWIN Pro. There are several reasons for this,
including lack of scale in the 70 + forums to support
advertising worth the effort. More important is the news and
intelligence service (Lookout!) that is targeted to a market
that is accustomed to high end ad free content that is
totally unbiased (and many times the cost of ours). But in
the end the type of trusted environment we are striving for
simply must be supported financially by the members.

The bottom line; consumers prefer to be subsidized by loss
leaders and freebies while business and industry can't
afford the inevitable. Opt in and targeted ads (like this
type of forum) are logical and I think the far larger
market, but one way or another someone is going to pay. In
the short term it may be investors in IPOs, angels, or VCs,
but in the mid to long term, it will be advertisers
requiring an ROI or the recipient of the benefits.

Mark Montgomery
Founder & CEO

http://gwin.net


========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
                                ValueClick

 ValueClick has cost-effective ad space available for *Smarter Buyers*
-> Our Cost-per-Click model means risk-free Reach to over 10k websites!
ValueClick Ad Network | 805.965.0543 | http://www.valueclick.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request@o-a.com



Received on Fri Jan 29 1999 - 08:04:04 CST