re: ::scr more on text ads

[jo walsh <jo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > http://www.metafilter.com/textads.mefi
> > http://www.blogger.com/spons/micro_ads.pyra
> 
> What I just don't understand is why iot took the netmarketing industry so
> long to figure this out[0]. I mean, I've been telling any marketing
> departments that I've had to work with that banners and especially pop-ups
> are not just useless, they're a liability, and I'm sure that I'm not the
> only one.

fwiw, the text ad we were running on one of state51's sites, which
had increased revenue by 400% over the equivalent banner, was summarily
cancelled by the advertiser recently; they rewrote their T'n'C to prohibit
the use of text ads without permission. they'd been advertising on a
cash-per-click rather than cash-per-impression network to maximise logo
exposure cheaply; it blew up on them, we made a few grand out of it.

the site is a friendly, long-standing and trustable source of local
information; the text link was presented in-context and to the casual eye
looked link an intrinsic part of the site. insidious, you may suppose. but
state51's been giving hardware, bandwith, time and commitment to this site 
for six years, which has never covered its costs before.
  
> People put up with intrusive advertising on TV (IMHO) because it gives
> them a chance to get up and make a NCOT. Well, that's why I put up with
> it, anyway. It's just sad that the marketing world didn't seem to be able
> to get the "web" ne "tv" thing for so long. 

well, an underlying similarity is that they both provide free-to-air
content (once you've invested in the reception hardware and the costs of
the transmission medium). interesting media costs to produce; writers and
technicians and animators need roofs on their heads and cheese in their
fridges. distribution equipment is expensive.  

while the eventuality is that content is free-to-air, producers need to
offset these expenses, need to justify their activities. while obtrusive
in-band advertising and brand sponsorship is obviously not a nice
solution, i dont see the culture coming up with a better one.
 
perhaps cheap-to-air is a better nomer ;) the guardian's production and
distribution costs are in no way covered by its price; a much smaller
segment could afford several pounds a day to read it. half its staff is
devoted to classified and display advertising; i've noticed when i
infrequently pick up a hardcopy, that it's taking ads which look more like
itself than it was ever prepared to do; insidious in the source again.
it's taken on more light-entertainment, feelgood content, as has the beeb,
with a consumer justification, but i'm still glad they exist; cheap-to-air
provides some interesting media to those who could not justify its true
expense.

> Now, these pop-under adverts are doubly counterproductive to me. Sure,
> they try to hide the ad when they pop it up (which shows that they *do*
> learn, albeit really fricking slowly) and it gives the ad time to load
> (rather than just being shut on sight), but hiding which site spawned the
> damn thing leaves only the product/manufacturer to bear my ire.

it's an odd development in the technology rat-race; spammers fighting
ISPs, hackers fighting security consultants; but producers fighting
consumers? as you say, those responsible for buying and selling this sort
of advertising should realise these strategies are Just Plain Wrong - but
how can this be proved to them, where's the carrot on the end of the
cluestick?
 
> Hasn't The Onion been doing text ads along it's right-hand column for
> years now? I wonder how effective they've been?

they've run a lot of gaudy flash lately... 
 
> Jones. Quiet now. Too much liquid and not enough lunch.

walsh. flu, housebound, possibly delirious.