Comments on: Is Advertising Failing On The Internet?

By: Mason

Mason — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:51:40 +0000

Advertising hasn’t failed. Its just being expressed in the wrong medium. Try video advertisement? Its only the future of advertising. try this website ive been using for a while now. adwido.com. they are super popular and reliable to say the least!

By: Clint

Clint — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:03:45 +0000

I think it's clearly true that we don't want/trust advertising. We never have. Ads exist to persuade, not to provide helpful information to consumers.

The crucial characteristic of the Internet is that it makes it so we don't have to see ads. We're active users, and we have access to superior information in the form of consumer-generated reviews.

I wrote a longer response to Clemons here:
*link*

By: Andrew P

Andrew P — Fri, 15 May 2009 04:07:14 +0000

Advertisers are represented on websites in proportion to the money they are willing to spend, regardless of the content of the article. There is only one way to get enough ad $$$ that are relevant to the article content. And that way is to eliminate all restrictions on political contributions. Let’s face it. Only candidates seeking office or people with an interest in changing the laws (or preventing the laws from changing) are going to be willing to spend vast sums of money on opinion and political issues. As long as political contributions are severely limited by law, those scarce resources will go only to television. It is only when there is enough money in politics to completely saturate the broadcast markets that large amounts of political cash will go to internet advertising. And currently, there isn’t enough political money to come even close to saturating the broadcast markets. A tenfold increase wouldn’t saturate broadcast. The best thing for internet media would be if the SCOTUS declared the existing campaign finance laws unconstitutional. And there is not much chance of that happening with current court membership.

By: Andrew P

Andrew P — Fri, 15 May 2009 03:56:35 +0000

Not exactly true. Clearly they are interested in the subject matter or else they wouldn’t be reading it, but I very often like to read what the political opposition is saying – and these are authors I definately do not approve of, but they represent the prime intellectual force of the opposition. Readers of an article are as likely to be strongly opposed to the author’s viewpoint as they are to agree with it.

“They must be interested in the subject matter of the article, and will tend to approve of the author and likely his general area of expertise…”

By: AlexSchleber

AlexSchleber — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:49:37 +0000

@lisahickey great post. Ultimately I’d say: All conversation contains a sales element anyway. BTW, did u see? http://3on.us/advertising-fail

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

By: Excerpt from: “The Twitter Gold Mine & Beating Google to the Semantic Web - O’Reilly Radar” + my footnote « Mind Hacks, Life Hacks, Personal Development

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 05:02:48 +0000

[...] Also compare what I wrote here: http://businessmindhacks.com/post/is-advertising-failing-on-the-internet [...]

By: Zu_ElijahBailey

Zu_ElijahBailey — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:35:24 +0000

lol! Original though.

This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed

By: readwriteweb

readwriteweb — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:48:11 +0000

Alex Schleber: Is Advertising Failing On The Internet? | Business Mind Hacks (via FriendFeed) http://bit.ly/pooEl

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

By: AlexSchleber

AlexSchleber — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:33:13 +0000

@thebrandbuilder thx 4 the great comment on my blog! Really appreciated. Prompted me to add some + thoughts: http://3on.us/advertising-fail

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:29:17 +0000

Olivier, thanks so much for your kind words, and good point re:media buyers priorities. Obviously, as you recognize as well, without profitable campaigns there ultimately won't be either the media/content properties or the buyers left. Which is why I'd argue that the media properties need to view the attention they garner more as something to guard jealously:

If the advertisers are getting poor results, that is a waste of the most valuable resource there is at this point. And someone needs to direct any advertising/selling activity against that as intelligently as possible.

Companies like the NYT should take commissions rather than CPM peanuts, and exert tight control over what is shown alongside the content.

This is BTW the exact opposite of what Google is trying to do with its new universal Adsense content-network activity tracking efforts, which may result in targeting, but the kind that may appear creepy and may thus cause significant consumer backlash.

They are already being called on this out by some:

*link*

By: olivier blanchard

olivier blanchard — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:10:31 +0000

And just when I thought this conversation was all wrapped up, you post this little gem. Wow. I'm impressed.

You make some great points here. Bear in mind that the bucket of advertisers for a particular publication doesn't always match the subject matter/content they produce. That's how you end up with ads for Kraft, Crest or Ford - even if the story they are matched to have nothing to do with cooking, dental care or automotive interests. The way media buyers work doesn't lend itself to a fluid, context-matching model. (Yet.)

Nevertheless, the point needs to be made and made and made until they figure out a way to do this better.

Cheers.

By: AlexSchleber

AlexSchleber — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:24:31 +0000

@thebrandbuilder threw my hat in the ring re:”Is Advertising Failing On The Internet?” here: http://3on.us/advertising-fail

This comment was originally posted on Twitter