Re: UKNM: More webwashing

[Phil Gyford]

Oh Ray, Ray, Ray. This is going to go round and round forever isn't it, but

I'm in the mood for knocking my head against a brick wall this morning.


No one's denying that without advertising all these amusing situations you

detail will occurr. But frankly the person in the street who doesn't work

in advertising/marketing (and I include myself as a person in the street

here) doesn't give a shit about any of this. If they want to avoid ads and

it's possible, then they will, without thinking about the effects you or

anyone feel it will have.


If I'm reading a magazine I'll see the ads, but will usually flick over

them without giving them an in depth look. Some are attractive, some are

informative, and some are even both. No one's bottom line is affected by

whether I read an ad or not, although those who make better adverts will

see a benefit when I go and buy their stuff having spent longer looking at

their ads.


However, if I'm watching ITV/C4 then I'll switch over as soon as an ad

break comes on because the amount of ads that are crap or that I've seen

too often outweigh the good/new ones. It's possible to avoid the ads and so

I will. So will lots of other people if they feel so inclined, but by and

large I assume people don't, because it's easier not to.


It's the same with banner ads. Most people aren't going to do anything

about avoiding banner ads, because it's easier not to and however much I or

anyone else dislikes them, they're not a huge disruption to web browsing.

But some people will do the equivalent of switching over when the ads come

on (ie install something that doesn't display the banner ads) because

they're annoying and rarely entertaining or interesting. Unfortunately the

banner ad model relies much more on people interacting with them than ads

on TV, which is part of the problem. And not something I or the rest of the

people in the street give a shit about. If you or anyone else loses some

pennies because a handful of people can be arsed to avoid ads then frankly

few people in the real world will care.


Ray, if you and all your friends get ads made which are attractive and

informative then fewer people will avoid them, your cpm will go up by maybe

a few tenths of a percent and you'll be happier. Otherwise, don't complain

if a handful of people find these ugly, poorly executed, annoyingly

blinking graphics get in the way of doing whatever they've come to the Web

for.


Phil



At 17:57 17/05/1999 +0100, you wrote:

>Yeah, let's ban all advertising on web sites. But why stop there?

>Advertising reduces TV viewing time by around 20%, takes up valuable space

>in a magazine, hides interesting building sites along roadways, and

>transforms an otherwise pleasant twice daily social experience for London

>commuters into a mind-numbing exercise in avoiding everyone's gaze in order

>to read the tube ads.

>

>Let's get back to wall-to-wall black and white TV, black and white

>magazines, and concentrating on the traffic jam, not the billboard. We don't

>need advertising to support media, we just need a state news agency and more

>BBC sitcoms (single camera, mono, sound and laughter optional).

>

>And as for newspapers, if everybody had to pay �10.00 a day for their daily

>read we would have less of those bloody awful recycling points popping up

>all over the place.

>

>Ray Taylor

>NMC/Adplan - the online advertising agency

>2,000,000,000 greenbacks can't be wrong


 Phil Gyford

 w:0171.766.6491 / h:0171.622.9058

 http://www.gyford.com /

philgyford [dot] com

 / icq:3794783

 Deputy Editor, Capital Interactive / http://capitalinteractive.com


********************

UKNM is sponsored by Excite UK, visit us at http://www.excite.co.uk.

Email Khalil Ibrahimi

khalilexcitecorp [dot] com (mailto:khalilexcitecorp [dot] com)

 to advertise on Excite.

********************

Change your UKNM subscription use http://www.chinwag.com/uknm.html