• by January 29, 2004

In a recent New York Times story on consumer resistance to pop-ups - and what some companies are doing to block them (for example, this summer Microsoft's Service Pack 2 for Windows XP will add a pop-up blocker) - David Moore, the chief executive of 24/7 Real Media, was quoted as saying: "But they are part of a quid pro quo. If you want to enjoy the content of a Web site that is free, the pop-ups come with it."

There's no quid pro quo between audiences and advertising. I think one of the reasons many in the Web community have used that tired argument is because the broadcast networks build their fortunes on the "content in exchange for ads" paradigm and some figured what was good for the goose is good enough for the gander. Problem is broadcast and the Internet are not birds of a feather.

Web publishers think that because users have been slow to pay for content, that they consider the Internet "free." But with most households heading for broadband their monthly costs are moving rapidly towards $50 a month. In the same sense, what got broadcasters in trouble (in part) was the notion that consumers considered their content "free." My cable bill is over $75 a month and has been increasing at a rate far outpacing inflation.

What makes cable (or satellite TV) a reasonable quid pro quo is that I get clear signal access to programming which by-in-large is better than what I can get from the broadcast networks. This, to me is cable's value proposition: more choice, better programming, more of what I like (think ESPN 2). And therein lies the right lesson for web publishers: more choice, better quality delivered over fast pipes.

The quid pro quo is really between audiences and content: in exchange for superior content, functionality and choice, the audience gives you loyalty. The importance of that loyalty can't be overstated nor over counted. Some of the best sites in our ad network don't have the biggest audiences, but for certain advertisers, they have the very best audiences because of their high composition and fierce loyalty. Loyalty is important in the selling process to assure advertisers that the audience today will be there tomorrow when their ad runs.

Advertising simply hitchhikes off quality content. Thanks to cable and the early-build-audience-at-any-cost-days of the Internet, users don't think that ads are a quid pro quo for content. But if the ads are appropriate to the site and are reasonably creative in their execution and not annoying in their delivery (there's that pop-up thing again) users don't mind them and in fact just like any other medium actually find them useful.

Audience management systems like TACODA have proved that when ads are served to users who have expressed an interest in the product (through previous site navigation or purchase history) they are viewed at a rate literally thousands of times higher than ROS banners. The takeaway: consumers even when empowered to neglect or close ads without reading them, still will watch them if they are appropriate to their interests and reasonably creative.

Our mission should not be to think of new ways to force ads onto our users. But to build site loyalty through superior content and continue to refine how, when, and why consumers see online ads.

That should be this industry's value proposition.