advertising – Page 3

Less Clutter On The Air

At last somebody in the commercial radio business has noted that one of biggest reasons to turn off isn’t poor music policy, crap jokes or bad station identity – it’s annoying and repetive radio commercials. Somebody in the UK should take on board the Clear Channel approach of trying to make better radio ads and brodcast fewer of them: “Radio is the most difficult medium because there are fewer senses to work with. For the most part, radio ads are a yawn” [source]. With online catching radio in terms of advertising spend (Britain’s Online advertising market will surpass the £500-million mark this year – Independent Online) radio’s revenues may be in for a rocky time. Inn the UK the Online industry may well surpass radio during the next 12 months so it’s important that the industry wakes up and does something to ensure that the recent history of growth and development can be sustained.

Google Mail Controversy

According to BBC News, Gmail, the planned free e-mail service from Google, could be facing strong legal opposition in California

I suspect everybody will link to this over the next few days, but it does make me smile. At the beginning of April, Google announced an email service. This morning, BBC News reports that a US Senator is drawing up legislation to stop it on the basis of the reports, which claim it will scan emails to allow targeting text advertising to be placed (similar to the other Google ad products).

I don’t know if it’s the Senator’s actual words or a BBC journalist writing, but the legislation is reported to being put in place because the problem,

“is Google’s plan to make revenue from users agreeing to their incoming e-mail being scanned for targeted advertising”/ source

The keyword for me there is “agreeing”. If you agree to the scanning (which I suspect is being hyped out of all proportion), then why not get the benefits of all the extras Google are offering? There are many other email services on the market, so there is no reason to sign with Google unless you want to.

I am not sure if somebody is just jumping on the bandwagon, but Google’s getting a nice lot of coverage from this offering, and with an IPO looming, it can’t be such a bad thing. I do suspect that over the next few days, you will also see a whole stack of marketing gurus commenting on the effect any controversy is having on the Google brand. You heard it here first!

Online Advertising is a Nuisance

43% of users think that online advertising is a nuisance. But will they pay for content? Isn’t that the question?

According to MSNBC earlier this week, 43% of users think that online advertising is a nuisance, and, in another survey, 53% respondents said online clutter was a problem – both via Mark e ting Fix.

Of course, consumers do not like advertising. Nobody likes being advertised at, just as everybody believes that they are not swayed by advertising (but they know people who are!). Is this a big deal? Well, of course, no advertiser wants to believe their advertisement gets in the way, and no advertiser wants to annoy users to the extent that they are turned off the product by the commercials. Yet, as noted in many places, TV advertising is the most intrusive advertising – the programme physically stops so they can show you an advertisement. So, why does online advertising come in for such a hard time?

Badly designed advertising can be a nuisance, but I think advertising isn’t generally too much of a problem. What I am interested in is the concept of clutter. So many sites these days surround you with advertisements. Banners at the top, buttons down the left, a skyscraper on the right and some kind of rich-media thing walking across the middle. There’s a very large portal that does this kind of thing all the time. They’re making money, but it’s very frustrating.

I’m sure cleverly designed advertising in the right place works – in all media. The online challenge is to make it work and make it profitable, at least profitable enough to pay for the sites we like.

Thoughts on Blogspace

I may be attaching a misplaced purity to the weblog concept. I wouldn’t impose those same ideals on the population as a whole, so why should I do it to the blogosphere? Freedom to write whatever I want is a fine thing, and perhaps I am imposing concepts of integrity that are incompatible with this freedom?

Yesterday’s post started a whole train of thoughts about the concept of blog integrity and why should we care? I am sure it’s the idealist in me that is attaching a great deal of importance to the billions of words blogged on a daily basis. Perhaps I shouldn’t care because the power of blog-space is that people write opinions and thoughts in a way that they want to. It’s not for anybody else to say that I shouldn’t be allowed to promote a new mobile ‘phone because either I want to or the company sent me a free ‘phone.

I believe I might be attaching a purity to the weblog concept that is misplaced. I wouldn’t place those same ideals on the population as a whole, so why should I do it to the blogged world? Freedom to write whatever I want is a fine thing, and perhaps I am imposing concepts of integrity that are incompatible with this freedom?

I’m not sure where these thoughts are going, but they are challenging my blog ideals. I mentioned in one of my posts yesterday to the UK Bloggers list that, perhaps, blogs were just catching up with other media. I suspect that is true, but in a way I hadn’t thought of – the fact that they are as exploitable, commercially, as any other media.

Where does this leave my online ideals?

In related reading, Rebecca Blood talks about these issues in Weblog Ethics.

Elsewhere: Blogging & Advertising

If you decide that your audience will accept advertising, what does this mean, and how will it work for a blog?

Over on the ukbloggers-discuss mailing list at Yahoo Groups, we’ve been discussing advertising, prompted by Tom Coates asking, “Did we ever come to any conclusions about the appropriateness of advertising?” in the context of blogging. In essence, we’re saying that blogging is personal and, if you decide that your audience will accept advertising, what does this mean and how will it work for a blog?

I started quite open to the concept,

I believe advertising is a compromise. Are you comfortable with a reader questioning your independence? I know it’s a very grand term, but, nonetheless, it’s at the heart of the advertising debate. It may not matter to the vast majority of readers, but it could (should?) to some. I don’t think anybody, but me, cares about my independence, but it is the reason why I wouldn’t want any advertising on my blog.

But is it that simple? Blogging generally costs something – hosting, bandwidth, time and effort. Should a blogger be entitled to get a little something back? I don’t think advertising is a bad thing on blogs,

When typing my previous post, I was being very careful not to say that I felt the acceptance of advertising is inappropriate (because I don’t think it is), but I do believe that while it shouldn’t change what you do or what you say, it may very well change the way you are read. And for some people, that’s a consideration (admittedly, probably not for many).
Or am I putting an undue emphasis on editorial independence for bloggers? Perhaps I am. Is it a silly notion to (try to) apply to weblogs in all their forms?

But then Tom introduced me to projectblog.com, a site aimed at recruiting bloggers with reasonable audiences “who would be willing to help advance their marketing efforts”, and introduced the concept of blogging about products you may have been sent as freebies or paid to write about. I think I turned cynical,

My first reaction was that it proved my point about editorial independence. Then, I was going to cite traditional broadcast media. There are some rules there to ensure a clear distinction between programme and advertising content.
However, when you think about it, how many morning DJs talk about having seen a new blockbuster that’s not released yet? Many of them. And most of them went for free. You do not consciously think their opinion is biased.
Perhaps the online world is playing catch-up with traditional media. And I can’t decide if that’s a good thing or not.
Maybe it’s sad that I cling to the notion that connected networks somehow empower people. I am not against the commercial web, but weblogs are a great example of a (generally) positive use of the technology. When the marketers get involved, it changes my expectations. It’s not a surprise, but the next time somebody raves about something new, won’t you question it (even a little bit)?
Is it possible to turn into a world-weary cynic in the space of two hours?

And now? Well, I stand by my thoughts that you should be clear about what you write. Blogging to me is the fulfilment of the web’s promise of personal publishing for everybody. But, of course, money always gets in the way and there’s nothing wrong with advertising online. After all, it’s what I do, isn’t it?

Commercial Free

Should Blogs carry advertising? When it’s not clear if an opinion blog is really paid for commercial content being passed off as something else.

There’s been an interesting discussion on the UK Bloggers discussion list today regarding online advertising and if it’s appropriate in the blogging world.

I need to put my position into context. I came to the web (and, therefore, to employment) because I truly believe that personal publishing can empower people. To me, the pull of the medium was access to views and interests outside the mainstream. The ability to publish what you had to say without an editor’s red pen. That doesn’t mean that you can ignore laws of the land, but within an existing legal framework, it is relatively easy and cheap to publish. It’s not easy to guarantee the audience, but that’s a different story. The message is out there, and that’s a starting point (and should be a right in a democratic society). This is a good thing.

I also believe there is a need for a commercial web. The fact that we buy things online, read content paid for by subscription or advertising, etc., helps pay for the infrastructure that allows the rest of us to publish. The commercial web is a good thing, too.

Advertising is also a good thing; it pays for things, so I don’t have to. I’ve made a career out of working in advertising-related industries. I have no objection to advertising.

Where it starts to blur for me is when the three points above mix. When it’s not clear if an opinion blog is really paid for commercial content being passed off as something else. It’s not a problem unique to the blogosphere, but it’s something that I haven’t pondered a great deal until today. It is a problem other media have had to deal with for years – some have done it better than others.

I honestly believe that giving marketers access to a weblog audience (and you can see why they would want a mass of referrals) starts to compromise the reason why weblogs/journals, etc., are so successful and such an important part of the landscape these days. Any media with access to an audience is bound to attract the attention of marketing men. Let’s face it, that’s how Amazon grew – lots of affiliates making small amounts of money, and we’ve been linking away to them for years. Is the integrity of a weblog at risk? Well, readers should be asking whether a link to Amazon is borne of genuine appreciation for the book or is placed purely for profit.

The idealist in me thinks the freedom to publish personal opinion shouldn’t be mixed with commercial interests. The realist believes people have to pay for server space and bandwidth, so a little commercial involvement may help allow people publish what they want to say. Thus, the two are intertwined.

As always, it’s difficult to come down on one side of the argument. I would honestly like to believe not everything in the world needs to carry a commercial message. I would like to believe that bloggers did it because they had something to say, even if, like this site, it’s not earth-shattering. The world, however, is much more complex.

UPDATE 10 March 2003: Tom Coates– who sparked the discussion – wrote (as always) a great piece on this subject.

Cookie Me

So DoubleClick are going to be more open about Cookies and all that they are tracking. According to DoubleClick’s press release:

“DoubleClick is to be commended for its cooperation in setting an industry standard for promoting consumer privacy in the data collection and tracking taking place across networked websites,” said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

[release]

The issue of cookies – especially in relation to online advertising – is something that seems to get some people all worried that they are being spied on (like those big satellites can’t see what you’re doing anyway). It seems in the US, people go to court over them. Given that I been working in the online advertising business for nearly seven years (has there been an online ad business that long?) I think I am supposed to have an opinion on this hot potato. Except, I don’t think I do (at least as long as we can use cookies I don’t have an opinion, which I guess means I do have an opinion).

Cookies are not evil and, as companies like DoubleClick must have millions of cookies in their databases I am sure my online activity is not of sufficient interest for anybody to try to find out where I have been. Most people are pretty good and don’t store personally identifiable information and, even if they do, I could just wipe my cookie files and start again and stop being tracked. So, all I really want to say is there is nothing wrong with cookies. Cookies are useful. People who hold data on me should abide by the Data Protection Act which seems sufficient for every other piece of information that is being held about me, so why does everybody so worked up about these little bits of data? Agghh!!