PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Reach Millions of Users Worldwide!
April 20th 2001, 15:01 CEST by Morn

Okay, so we've already had our good share of stories about websites being in banner revenue related trouble, how about all that silly AdWare out there?

@#*^!%!~: The advertising company we were using just notified us they're going out of business, and we likely aren't going to get any money for a lot of the ads already shown. Beta 5 no longer contains or uses any third party (Conducent or Radiate) advertising DLLs. If you do choose to show ads, it just uses an IE control, and shows nearly worthless ads :-(

...says the latest update on the <a href="http://www.getright.com/beta45.html">GetRight Beta Page</a>. GetRight, of course, is the infamous download manager that introduced a banner ad-enabled mode as an alternative to shareware registration in a recent version.

Banner ads in a tool like GetRight that runs minimized most of the time -- I mean, <b>come on</b>! Could there be anything more stupid? Well, uh, besides those <i>revolutionary</i> Internet smell devices? The way banner ads are handled these days is such a farce, it's really no surprise that it's all such a mess now.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Reach Millions of Users Worldwide!

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Morn"
2001-04-20 15:02:12
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
TINAC
(This is not a conspiracy)

- Morn
#2 by "asspennies"
2001-04-20 15:20:26
asspennies@counter-strike.net http://www.asspennies.org/
Just imagine the potential for iSmell on a site like planetcrap.

I think GetRight was one of these "companies" that arose out of making a marginally useful product, being unable to sell it as  shareware, and simply sticking ads into it as a way of making money for doing essentially nothing after writing the original program.  And like Morn says, it's really no surprise that banner ads are such a non-issue these days.  They're absolutely and completely ignored, even moreso than highway billboards.

I don't think even the big ads they put on cnet-type sites are useful.  No ad I've seen has tried to reinforce the name of the product - the fundamental purpose of all advertising.  It's all about shocking some stupid monkey.
#3 by "BobJustBob"
2001-04-20 15:36:03
kevinakabob@mindspring.com
The only ads that work are food ads when I'm hungry. I don't care what the ad actually says, unless it's from Taco Bell in which case the ad is so stupid and annoying that I boycott their food. All I need is to hear the name of a food or restaurant when I'm hungry and I might decide to have that/go there.
#4 by "circle"
2001-04-20 15:52:55
circle@bellsouth.net
I use an older version of GetRight just for this reason.

Doesn't ICQ do this (ads in the program) as well? I could be wrong.  ICQ does commit another of my pet peeves, though.  Every time I launch the program, it puts a 'from ICQ' folder in my favorites.  I don't think that you can disable this [wrong??].  If I wanted another fucking folder in my favorites, I would create it myself!  Hmm.
#5 by "jason"
2001-04-20 15:56:36
jason@loonygames.com http://www.bluesnews.com/
Actually, I read yesterday on f***edcompany.com that iSmell went under. Big shocker there. :)

-jason
#6 by "G-Man"
2001-04-20 16:44:37
jonmars@earthlink.net http://www.shiftlock.org
#5 "jason" wrote...
Actually, I read yesterday on f***edcompany.com that iSmell went under. Big shocker there. :)

Unrelated but something I've been wondering recently. Is Bluesnews even a registered company? And if so (I'm assuming sole-proprietorship here) does it hold any trademarks? (e.g. the name, the logos, out of the blue, BlueJet etc,.)

 - [g.man]
#7 by "None-1a"
2001-04-20 16:48:07
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a
#2 "asspennies" wrote...
I don't think even the big ads they put on cnet-type sites are useful. No ad I've seen has tried to reinforce the name of the product - the fundamental purpose of all advertising. It's all about shocking some stupid monkey.


Since the last time this topic came up I've been seeing more and more tradional companies running banner ads for there crap. And wouldn't you know that they are doing the same stupid stuff that made the ad banners for internet companies so dang bad in the first place. Is there just something about a banner that turns other wise good ad designers into morons or something.
#8 by "AnalFissure"
2001-04-20 16:51:27
I hear ya, circle.

What about the "links" folder? I mean, besides the redundant name, what if you don't use the links toolbar?

I've finally given in and turned off "show all hidden files" in explorer. Thus allowing me to slap hidden, read-only, blank files with names like "links" and "from icq" in their respective folders all over my HD.

PS. For some information on getting rid of ads for any (past, present, and future) version of ICQ, visit: http://www.c3s.co.uk/adbusters/index.html
#9 by "Ashiran"
2001-04-20 16:56:22
ikhier@wish.nl wtf.couchcrew.com
Banner ads are the breedingplace for failed designers.

Not to mention the fact that every decently designed site is set up in such a way that the attention is directed towards the site itself and not to a banner that hangs on the side somewhere.

Notable exception are the XXX sites ofcourse. But they DO smack the banners in the center of the page. Center of page == attention == viewed
Then again those XXX sites never fit in the decently designed category.
#10 by "Morn"
2001-04-20 17:03:16
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
I have a couple of theories regarding banner advertising and what's wrong with it, but I won't voice them at this point because there are certain people out there who'd probably smite me with their in-depth knowledge of marketing, and then point at me and laugh. :)

- Morn
#11 by "LPMiller"
2001-04-20 17:09:42
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
Good god, we don't need another Scott Miller thread!

I don't get why net ads aren't just treated like magazine ads.  Creative and marketing types got too into the 'interactivity' of the whole thing, and totally lost focus.  Seems to me they should be treated just like a mag ad, or a billboard, where number of eyes is all that matters, not whose so bored they need to click on the freaking monkey.

Now they act like NO ads work at all.  Like anything, if its a good ad that doesn't annoy the snot out of me - or worse, suck up bandwidth like a bitch - then it works.

LPMiller
Chief News Editor
Got|Apex?
#12 by "Morn"
2001-04-20 17:15:09
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
Shush, who are you to disagree with the immense knowledge and experience thousands of elite marketing people have amassed within the last couple of years? Everybody knows a banner ad is only successful when people click on it, and if they don't, you must do everything you can to make more of them click it. Sheesh!

*sigh*

- Morn
#13 by "Gabe"
2001-04-20 17:15:29
gakruger@hotmail.com http://www.refracted.com
Then we would spin you around so you would experience... No, I won't drag this thread down too. :)

-- Gabe
#14 by "szcx"
2001-04-20 17:16:59
szcx@bersirc.com http://www.leslienassar.com/
The new version of GetRight shows the following message box every time it launches.

"The gravy train has derailed!  We are no longer receiving revenue from banner ads, so we've set up a PayPal account.  Please donate."

"Please Donate" is the "Under Construction" of the new millennium.
#15 by "brennan"
2001-04-20 17:26:06
scott.gs@home.com
For God's sake people, get hold of yourselves!  Don't do it!  This thread must survive!

Yeh, I agree with LPMiller.  Why aren't web ads treated just like print ads?  I for one don't mind the newer ZDNet ads; they're slightly more obtrusive, but they seem to work reasonably well.

Did anyone else sign up to hear from Salon when they started offering subscriptions?  Did you hear anything?  I didn't.  Did they abandon or postpone this idea?

-brennan
#16 by "asspennies"
2001-04-20 17:27:24
asspennies@counter-strike.net http://www.asspennies.org/
#14 "szcx" wrote...
"Please Donate" is the "Under Construction" of the new millennium.


Boy, is it ever.  He's been leeching off the ad banners for so long that he now needs donations so he won't have to get a real job like the rest of us.  It's not as if he's providing continous content, either.  (I'm assuming it's just one guy behind this whole GetRight thing)

Let's hope he doesn't start selling rings...
#17 by "Scott Miller"
2001-04-20 17:47:22
scottm@3drealms.com www.3drealms.com
LP: >>> I don't get why net ads aren't just treated like magazine ads. Creative and marketing types got too into the 'interactivity' of the whole thing, and totally lost focus. Seems to me they should be treated just like a mag ad, or a billboard, where number of eyes is all that matters, not whose so bored they need to click on the freaking monkey. Now they act like NO ads work at all. <<<

I think advertisers prefer magazine ads for several reasons:

[1]  They're obviously better produced (the look better) and are bigger.

[2]  The fact that most people ***pay*** to subscribe, means that people looking at those ads are more likely serious about the magazine's topic, thus making them more likely to by interested in the related advertising.  On web sites, there are far more surfers that might visit a website about golf, for example, but not have a high enough interest level to even consider buying golf products.

[3]  And related to item [1], magazine ads are much more capable of showing the product within a context (such as a family enjoying a new TV set), and also having plenty of copy about the product.  With banners, space is too small and the advertiser must rely on a clickthru so that the person can be taken to a page that shows more information and better pictures.  This step isn't required with magazines, obviously, and it's a step that hurried web surfers just don't have the time to do more often than not.

Bottom line, banner ads do not work nearly as well visually or by communicating important selling ideas, nor do they have as focused a target readership.  Subscription sites will cure that last problem, though.

Scott
#18 by "Scott Miller"
2001-04-20 17:53:27
scottm@3drealms.com www.3drealms.com
My personal view is that banner ads are good for relating a quick point, but that's about it.  For example, "Duke Nukem Forever is released!"  In other words, treat a banner ad like a headline related to some exciting product news.  Otherwise, I see little value to banner ads.  In the entirely of time I've been on the web, I've clicked on less than 10 ads.  I don't even remember the last time I remember seeing a banner ad, I think I just tune them out.

Scott
#19 by "Morn"
2001-04-20 17:53:37
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
#17 "Scott Miller" wrote...
Bottom line, banner ads do not work nearly as well visually or by communicating important selling ideas, nor do they have as focused a target readership. Subscription sites will cure that last problem, though.

I like the idea of subscription sites -- in theory, at least. Content warez is a problem. When you buy a magazine, you may show it to a friend or to your family, or even give it away when you're done with it, but what's going to stop some m0m0 from posting his login data to Usenet?  (Well, doh. That's been happening with pr0n sites for ages now. Uhm, don't ask me why I happen to know this.)

As a small player, how could I protect myself from people setting up free mirrors of my site(s), a thought Buccaneer had the other day? It's not like I had an army of lawyers I could throw at them.

And so on and so on. In the end, I don't think subscription models will be a viable alternative, unless someone figures out a way to make them secure (but hey, it's the Internet. If they can crack CSS, they can break into PlanetCrapPlus. :b)

- Morn
#20 by "Sgt Hulka"
2001-04-20 17:58:15
Sgt_Hulka@Hulka.com http://www.hulka.com
In Post 17, Scott Miller spewed forth the following;
"Bottom line, banner ads do not work nearly as well visually or by communicating important selling ideas, nor do they have as focused a target readership. Subscription sites will cure that last problem, though."


Well, I personally will not subscribe to any site.  Porn sites have been charging for years, yet I've not registered/subscribed to any of those and I like to see naked woman as much as any other cold blooded male.  In other words, I don't think any content on a web site will make me subscribe. Rush Limbaugh can't even get me to pay to be part of his "exclusive" content.

AOL pushes ads on my each time I log it and it only pisses me off. I pay to belong to AOL, fuck off with your ads. Game magazines have too many ads per issue.  Sometimes I think I'm only buying a mag of ads with some content thrown in for good measure.

#21 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-04-20 18:46:15
warren@epicgames.com epicboy.flipcode.com
Morn (#0):
Banner ads in a tool like GetRight that runs minimized most of the time -- I mean, come on! Could there be anything more stupid? Well, uh, besides those revolutionary Internet smell devices? The way banner ads are handled these days is such a farce, it's really no surprise that it's all such a mess now.

Banner Ads in shareware is one thing I won't be sorry to see die.  I get enough of that shit on the web ...

circle (#4):
Doesn't ICQ do this (ads in the program) as well? I could be wrong. ICQ does commit another of my pet peeves, though. Every time I launch the program, it puts a 'from ICQ' folder in my favorites. I don't think that you can disable this [wrong??]. If I wanted another fucking folder in my favorites, I would create it myself! Hmm.

Best thing to do with that is right click it and mark is as "Hidden".  That way everyone wins ... ICQ thinks it's there, and you don't have to look at it.  :)

szcx (#14):
"Please Donate" is the "Under Construction" of the new millennium.

LOL

Scott Miller (#18):
My personal view is that banner ads are good for relating a quick point, but that's about it. For example, "Duke Nukem Forever is released!" In other words, treat a banner ad like a headline related to some exciting product news. Otherwise, I see little value to banner ads. In the entirely of time I've been on the web, I've clicked on less than 10 ads. I don't even remember the last time I remember seeing a banner ad, I think I just tune them out.

The last ad I clicked on (and this is the only one in over a year) was one for something called "PSYCHO POWER!".  How could I NOT?!



Banner ads violate the basic premise of advertising ... to get your product NAME in front of the customer.  Relying on people to click something is NOT how it works.  Reinforcing your product name/brand is supposed to be the goal.  Yet most banner ads don't even include a product name or a recognizable logo.

You would think that even with 5 seconds of thought it would dawn on you to at least include your logo or something.  That way, even if people don't click you're still getting the benefit of how magazine pages and billboards work.  *sigh*
#22 by "jxqvg"
2001-04-20 19:02:38
jxqvg@hotmail.com
You would think that even with 5 seconds of thought it would dawn on you to at least include your logo or something.


Come to think of it, most banner ads look like they're designed to be either annoying or entertaining.  Those tend to make me not want to buy the product.  After all, who wants to support bandwidth sucking punch the monkey ads?

A banner ad should be treated like product placement, like seeing the Dr Pepper logo at the header of your favorite news site.  After a short while you just start ignoring it, but it's still just as much there as the product placement in movies.  Someday you just buy a Dr Pepper, and you don't know why, really.
#23 by "szcx"
2001-04-20 19:05:27
szcx@bersirc.com http://www.leslienassar.com/
I think whoever makes that monkey shocking banner should license the technology to other advertizers.  They could provide an API that would make it easy for the licensee's to add a t-shirt to the monkey with their logo on it.  Shock the eFront Monkey.  Shock the RedHat Monkey.  Shock the 3DRealms Scott Miller (I mean, Monkey)  :P
#24 by "LPMiller"
2001-04-20 19:07:36
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
I dunno, I honestly think normal ads could work, if companies were realistic in what they charge for them.  I think this is an area where groups like UGO or whatever could succeed - your normal, non java heavy ad will be seen by X people, for a low price of Y, just be sure to put your damn logo in it and actually mention your product once or twice.

The best banner ad ever, that had nothing to do with the product, was the old Pong game java thingy done by HP.  Didn't sell me crap, had no purpose, but...hey, it was pong.

LPMiller
Chief News Editor
Got|Apex?
#25 by "szcx"
2001-04-20 19:07:40
szcx@bersirc.com http://www.leslienassar.com/
Damn you and your similar IP address, jxqvg.  No posting before me or I will be forced to attack you with Nerf Supermax Disc Shooter.
#26 by "jxqvg"
2001-04-20 19:09:07
jxqvg@hotmail.com
Ph33r my Nerf Pulsator Blaster!  Double barrelled retaliatory action!
#27 by "circle"
2001-04-20 19:19:54
circle@bellsouth.net
#12 Warren Marshall
Best thing to do with that is right click it and mark is as "Hidden". That way everyone wins ... ICQ thinks it's there, and you don't have to look at it. :)


As a software developer, intrusive, mandatory crap like that really bothers me.  My company sells a software package that, upon installation, creates no less than 5 shortcuts [start menu folder, start menu root, desktop, IE quicklaunch bar, favorites], not to mention a shortcut to it's start menu folder on the desktop!  That's just WAY too intrusive for me.

I wouldn't be suprised if ICQ started installing a WH_KEYBOARD hook that launched ICQ every time I pressed the I, C, or Q button in windows.  licq for Linux is much better about this stuff, btw - but then you have to put up with Linux...
#28 by "Gabe"
2001-04-20 19:24:46
gakruger@hotmail.com http://www.refracted.com
#27 "circle" wrote...
I wouldn't be suprised if ICQ started installing a WH_KEYBOARD hook that launched ICQ every time I pressed the I, C, or Q button in windows. licq for Linux is much better about
this stuff, btw - but then you have to put up with Linux...

Try ctrl-shift-f. At least for me, if I have ICQ running it intercepts the keys and launches a "ICQ Message Archive" window. Kind of irritating since this is the keyboard combination for find on some of the programs I use. Oh yeah, did I mention I hate almost every aspect of ICQ?

-- Gabe
#29 by "Anonymous"
2001-04-20 19:29:23
Sigh... Crapola (PC ate my post). Ok here goes again (the abbreviated version):

What about interstitials (I think they're called)? When you click a link the page shows a full sized ad where the content usually goes and then (after a timeout or whatever) forwards to the 'real' content.

I haven't experienced such a system yet (although I was about to write one) but it seems like it wouldn't be too annoying if designed properly.
#30 by "Martin"
2001-04-20 19:30:21
martin@theplace.nu
Ackpt. That was me. PC ate my cookies too.. 8/
#31 by "szcx"
2001-04-20 19:38:58
szcx@bersirc.com http://www.leslienassar.com/
I wouldn't be suprised if ICQ started installing a WH_KEYBOARD hook that launched ICQ every time I pressed the I, C, or Q button in windows

Take a look at ICQ with Spy++, it does some damn offensive things.  I'd like to see an article on MSDN that uses an ICQ case study to illustrate what not to do when creating a well-behaved application.
#32 by "jason"
2001-04-20 19:41:34
jason@loonygames.com http://www.bluesnews.com/
Unrelated but something I've been wondering recently. Is Bluesnews even a registered company? And if so (I'm assuming sole-proprietorship here) does it hold any trademarks? (e.g. the name, the logos, out of the blue, BlueJet etc,.)


I wouldn't know...I'm just an employee, but I assume not.

-jason
#33 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-04-20 19:48:10
warren@epicgames.com epicboy.flipcode.com
circle (#27):
As a software developer, intrusive, mandatory crap like that really bothers me. My company sells a software package that, upon installation, creates no less than 5 shortcuts [start menu folder, start menu root, desktop, IE quicklaunch bar, favorites], not to mention a shortcut to it's start menu folder on the desktop! That's just WAY too intrusive for me.

Ugh.  I hate programs that are so arrogant they just ASSUME that you want them on your quicklaunch toolbar and the root of the Start menu.  How about letting ME DECIDE?!

Gabe (#28):
Try ctrl-shift-f. At least for me, if I have ICQ running it intercepts the keys and launches a "ICQ Message Archive" window. Kind of irritating since this is the keyboard combination for find on some of the programs I use. Oh yeah, did I mention I hate almost every aspect of ICQ?

There's an option (somewhere in the swamp of options tabs and dialogs) where you can turn off ICQ keyboard shortcuts ... trust me, it's worth it.  :)

Anonymous (#29):
What about interstitials (I think they're called)? When you click a link the page shows a full sized ad where the content usually goes and then (after a timeout or whatever) forwards to the 'real' content.

I haven't experienced such a system yet (although I was about to write one) but it seems like it wouldn't be too annoying if designed properly.

Everytime you visit a site you have to sit there for 5-10 seconds while a commercial plays?  I don't think so.

#34 by "G-Man"
2001-04-20 19:50:55
jonmars@earthlink.net http://www.shiftlock.org
#22 "jxqvg" wrote...
After all, who wants to support bandwidth sucking punch the monkey ads?

These ads don't require more bandwidth than a normal .gif/.jpg ad. The java takes a while to compile however.

#28 "Gabe" wrote...
Oh yeah, did I mention I hate almost every aspect of ICQ?

So use a Jabber client. WinJab, myJabber or Trillian are nice.

#29 "Anonymous" wrote...
What about interstitials (I think they're called)? When you click a link the page shows a full sized ad where the content usually goes and then (after a timeout or whatever) forwards to the 'real' content.

Typically inventory for the kind of interstitials you are talking about is only marketed in streaming video and flash/shockwave game applications. Most people won't put up with a forced wait when trying to read text.

Pop-up/daughter window ads are technically (using sort of dated classification) interstitials as well, and clearly those are more widely sold.

 - [g.man]
#35 by "Gabe"
2001-04-20 19:57:59
gakruger@hotmail.com http://www.refracted.com
I have to agree, I think I would avoid sites with interstitial ads that take over the whole page and make me wait to get to the content.

g.man, I'll give them another shot. Last time I played with Jabber stuff it was a little, umm, inconsistent.

-- Gabe
#36 by "Martin"
2001-04-20 20:01:27
martin@theplace.nu
#33, "Everytime you visit a site you have to sit there for 5-10 seconds while a commercial plays? I don't think so."

No, not like that. It would work like with ads in a magazine. While browsing the site you would happen upon them when you click a link (turn a page). Not as often as with a regular paper magazine perhaps. I have no idea how often they need to be shown to be deemed worth the ad money but if they has to be shown too often, like every 15:th click, they're probably of no use. But if they can be show every 40:th click or so (how often do you click around on the same site 40 times in a row?) (Well, except for that one subscription site for adults that is 8) they don't seem to annoying to me.

And, as with paper mag ads, they more or less *need* to be of the kind where you continue onwards on your own at the bottom of the ad page. That way you have to skim through the ad to find the "forward here" link (turn the page). And if this is designed in such a way that the site and not the ad handles the forwarding link it can be prevented from being hidden with small fonts or more or less invisble graphics.

The ad also needs to be as small as possible, 30-40 kb or so. Around the size of a normal page. The rest of the site shouldn't have any other banners either or the entire idea more or less gets lost. This makes it a lot easier for the designer to create the kind of site they want and it gives companies a lot better way to display their products.

The biggest problem with such a system, from the coder standpoint, is to make sure that it works and that it's fair. I haven't given it all that much thought but it might be quite hard to design one that works without relying on cookies (which normally is a bad thing).
#37 by "Martin"
2001-04-20 20:04:38
martin@theplace.nu
#34, #35: "I think I would avoid sites with interstitial ads that take over the whole page and make me wait to get to the content."

Well, as I clarified (a bit) in my previous post; they shouldn't be of the kind where you *have* to wait to be able to continue on. You just need to scroll past the ad and then click the link.

Ah well, I've grown tired of the Internet anyhow so I really don't care what happens with it at this point. (This is probably a bad thing for a web designer to experience, eh? 8) I just thought the idea was interesting...
#38 by "G-Man"
2001-04-20 20:15:57
jonmars@earthlink.net http://www.shiftlock.org
#32 "jason" wrote...
I wouldn't know...I'm just an employee, but I assume not.

I thought so, the only mark registered by a Stephen Heaslip was the Jinkies, and I doubted it was the right guy. Take a look at this.

But I wouldn't worry, you are hardly alone. Shack News, Voodoo Extreme, Sharky Extreme and even FiringSquad etc (they let theirs lapse in July 2000) haven't registered any trademarks. Only GameSpy seems to be covered in this area. :)

 - [g.man]
#39 by "BobJustBob"
2001-04-20 20:37:08
kevinakabob@mindspring.com
#34 "G-Man" wrote...
So use a Jabber client. WinJab, myJabber or Trillian are nice.


I tried WinJab and it was not nice. Well, it was nice for a few days and then it started losing posts and other such nonsense.
#40 by "circle"
2001-04-20 20:37:42
circle@bellsouth.net
#37
Ah well, I've grown tired of the Internet anyhow so I really don't care what happens with it at this point.


I understand how you feel.  I'm not TIRED of the internet, but I don't really care which new internet revenue model becomes the de facto standard.  I use the internet very little for entertainment anymore - it's mostly just a reference utility.  That's probably just an indication of my increasing lack of free time, more than anything...
#41 by "Narcopolo"
2001-04-20 20:46:51
There was a point when GetRight was the killer app for dial-up users.  I think the best thing they could have done was to pull a Mirabilis and get themselves sold early to MS or Netscape.  They probably got good initial registration for their shareware, and counted on blowing up.

Was it AOL that put the ads in ICQ?  Something is telling me yes.

#42 by "Darkseid-D!"
2001-04-20 20:49:15
Darkseid@captured.com www.sluggy.com
I always preferred flashget ;)


Ds
#43 by "szcx"
2001-04-20 21:02:41
szcx@bersirc.com http://www.leslienassar.com/
Was it AOL that put the ads in ICQ? Something is telling me yes.

Oh, I don't know about that.  Mirabilis have always had the most annoying website this side of Real.com.  I wouldn't be at all suprised if advertizing in ICQ was planned all along.
#44 by "treble"
2001-04-20 21:56:11
treblekicker@sympatico.ca www.yellow5.com/pokey
off topic...
protesters have breached the "wall of shame", a four km long wall separating delagates from those protesting at the free trade summit in quebec city.  apparently, the police quickly stopped people from entering, plugged the wall and let loose with some tear-gas.
ahhh, gotta love "democracy"...

regards/john
#45 by "jxqvg"
2001-04-20 22:45:51
jxqvg@hotmail.com
apparently, the police quickly stopped people from entering, plugged the wall and let loose with some tear-gas.


good
#46 by "Desiato"
2001-04-20 23:35:55
desiato_hotblack@hotmail.com www.spew2.com
Warren Marshall (#21):


Banner ads violate the basic premise of advertising ... to get your product NAME in front of the customer. Relying on people to click something is NOT how it works. Reinforcing your product name/brand is supposed to be the goal. Yet most banner ads don't even include a product name or a recognizable logo.

You would think that even with 5 seconds of thought it would dawn on you to at least include your logo or something. That way, even if people don't click you're still getting the benefit of how magazine pages and billboards work. *sigh*


Its funny that only internet ads are expected to draw an *immediate* correlation to sales of product.

Webmaster: Your ad is online!

Customer: Yeah, but our sales aren't even up by 1%, and it's been on the site for a week! This sucks!

Webmaster: I didn't say it would work...


If magazines had to live by this rationale, they would've folded a long time ago. Once again - it is brand recognition, and occasionally an actual purchase by a customer that is actively looking for the product being
advertised. (Or they didn't know that a product existed that fit their needs.)

The net model has to change, and interstitial ads, while a complete copy of TV format ads - will just cause users to find a remedy. The people who are not tech saavy will have to suffer. Net effect? Most people who know what an IP is and can configure their network settings will dodge it, and the newbies will perhaps pay attention -- or just get up and go have a snack, drink, etc.. given the nonlinearity of the web - you could probably find what you're looking for without having to bother - or even taking it to an extreme - find sites that mirror content (no, it isn't the right thing to do, but I could see it happening) because they find interstitial ads so abhorrent that they would rather face legal action than suffer the onslaught of *PUSH* type advertising.

Remember when Wired said PUSH was the next thing? Perhaps it will be, when all the ISPs and physical carriers of data are corporatized, then there is no escape -- unless you build some kind of neighborhood intranet using wireless 802.11 and some gateways to other places....a kind of limited country wide intranet. The routing would be interesting. Hmm.

I'm done rambling.


Desiato
#47 by "tsfr"
2001-04-21 00:10:03
tsfr@zombieworld.com www.planetblah.com
#44
ahhh, gotta love "democracy"...


What the hell makes you think that democracy requires that large mobs be allowed within rock throwing distance of leaders?

-tsfr
#48 by "tsfr"
2001-04-21 00:18:16
tsfr@zombieworld.com www.planetblah.com
Sorry, I didn't mean 'mobs', I meant 'groups of protesters'.  The whole FTA fight is pretty complex and I agree with some arguments on both sides.

I do believe, however, that there should be adequate protection for the politicians.  

-tsfr
#49 by "Narcopolo"
2001-04-21 00:29:53
#48 tsfr

I think the question that many of the protesters are drawing attention to is whether it's democracy at work.  Whose interests are being advanced and all that.  If they can't petition the negotiators, who won't open up the minutes of the discussions to them, and generally don't answer to the public, then it's not a very representative process.

I'm not faulting your scruples, but I would like to see a few bankers get tagged by some bottles.
#50 by "Narcopolo"
2001-04-21 00:32:55
If everyone hear agrees that it's obvious that the old way of internet advertising is dead, and that it was unrealistic to begin with, why aren't we hearing more about new models and expectations for advertising?  

Is it that the current market favors the buyers so heavily?  Or that there are many ads that have yet to run their course/contract?   I remember reading not so long ago that some internet ad trade rep said that despite perceptions, business was booming.  Wish I had a source, sorry.  That said, has anyone seen any movement to turn things around?
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Reach Millions of Users Worldwide!

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]