| |||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSThat's because televisions do not get viruses, magazines do not crash, and ads do not appear out of nowhere to cover the article consumers are reading in their daily newspaper. These Internet-advertising-inflicted mishaps fuel consumer backlash. Factor in a healthy suspicion of cookies, the annoyance of pop-unders, sound without consent, spam from here to eternity, ads that expand beyond their boundaries and spyware practices that occur under the radar, and you have to be living under a pile of revenue not to see how poorly we as an industry treat the consumer attention we profit from.
To be clearer, search marketing is not Internet advertising. The brilliance of search is how it induces a direct marketing opportunity while simultaneously helping consumers achieve their immediate goals. That is why consumers love search/Google. Regardless of how you feel about the 800-pound baby gorilla, consumers love that big monster and the big monster loves 'em right back, consistently placing the consumer's needs above all others.
Buyers, sellers and related third parties involved in Internet advertising behave as if we are serving a similar, if not identical, experience to search because we continue to find ways to serve relevant ads to consumers. Relevance is great--but seeing relevant advertising is not a consumer goal when consuming content online. Goals vary by user (and by site visited), but an umbrella desire is to not have one's time wasted or one's privacy intruded upon without one's explicit consent. Two items we desecrate. Imagine how fast the surfing experience would be if the Internet was stripped of 50 percent of the advertising. Internet advertising actually prevents consumers from realizing their primary goal of speed and efficiency--and as far as privacy goes, well, what's a few cookies among strangers?
If you are an online publisher, and you want to continue to take in revenue at the expense of consumer trust, this column is not for you. However, if you are looking to win both users' trust and advertisers' revenue, please continue reading about an idea from the past that would work well in today's climate.
Before McCall's was laid to rest in 2001, the women's service category of magazines was commonly referred to as "the seven sisters"--named for the fierce rivalry among them. But one magazine created a concise point of differentiation. The "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" stood above the crowded field and continues to stand for quality and assurance. The seal "may be carried only by those products whose ads have been reviewed and accepted for publication."
So, what if online publishers sealed their sites, protecting their users from all predatory advertising behavior? What if a "seal of safety" appeared tactfully on every page view, which indicated no pop-ups, pop-unders, floating or expanding ads that would disrupt the user's experience. What if this "seal of safety" ensured no spam of any kind would spawn from their sites, and that any cookies would be announced and implemented based on user acceptance. What if this "seal of safety" meant sound and motion ads would not be seen or heard unless requested in that format, and that nothing would ever attach itself to a user's browser while on the protected sites without explanation and approval?
What if a group of sites formed a "sealed network" where these measures were adopted--along with a significant limit to the number and weight of the ads--so the surfing experience within the network was faster than any site outside of it?
Would a site, or network of sites, that visually announced that the interest of their users were well above the interest of advertisers, stand above the crowd? The publishers who have the courage to zig while everyone else is zagging will win back the trust of online users--and investments from traditional brands who appreciate the difference between advertising and direct marketing. These suggested measures will cost publishers the direct marketing expenditures and practices that are alienating the very attention they are meant to nourish. Not a bad deal for those who can look beyond their next quarter. So, who is up for changing how consumers feel about us?
RSS FEEDS
But will this realy make any positive impact on the consumer experience? Will it mean that consumers will spend more time Online than TV, Radio, etc just because a few ads are no longer served on a web page?
I'm skeptical.
Consumers have plenty of choices to 'tune out' unwanted ads and cookies with Spam Filters, Pop Up Blockers, Adware/Spyware Alerts, Cookie Removals, etc, etc. And of course, you can always change your IE's privacy settings to automatically block or prompt you to manually block 1st or 3rd party cookies.
I think Mr. Rosenberg's idea would lead to upseting more businesses that profit from designing, selling, serving or blocking ads, than it would from pleasing others.
Sadly the Ad Monster is out of the bag and it's not going away. Rich media shows no signs of slowing down. In-Banner and Expanding Ads encroach more and more on the user experience. Just last week I was blown away when I saw what the WashingPost.com allowed on their Home Page. Talk about a Home Page takeover!
If only publishers would draw the line and tell their advertisers NO for a change.
As an advertiser, I'm sure this network would create a group of consumers to salivate over. A better quality of targeted Internet users who request the ads they are seeing. This type of network should provide better targeting methods as well.
Nice Article
Au contraire.
Consumers actually love our internet ad model...in fact they even send unsolicited thank you emails (we call them love letters) to us, our content providers and even our advertisers.
And why shouldn't they: - our model is 100% opt-in and user initiated (no pop ups or unders or pre-rolls) - our model always involves a choice: pay for the content or try it for free if you complete an ad - there is always an exit early button - there's always something of value on the other side of the ad-- free limited trial of premium content.
Not only do consumers show their love for our model with these love letters but they are also more likely click on the advertisers link and spend twice as long with the ad than they have to.
Maybe Ultramercial is the "seal of safety".
Maybe our network of content providers is the "sealed network."
Our model turns the advertiser into the good guy - the underwriter of free premium content access.
Check us out at www.ultramercial.com.
Best, Rick Vandervoorn Ultramercial LLC
From: letters@salon.com To: readermail@salon.com Subject: Not for Publication: Access and Advertising Context: Jay Hunter
Pop-ups are annoying, and banner ads require people to click out of their way for you to get credit. But due to the tasteful way in which you offered it, I found that I actually paid attention to the advertisement-for-access deal. (It happened to be for Newsstand.com.)
Creating an effective way to advertise online, without annoying potential customers, is not easy to do. I just wanted to write to say thank you for the manner in which you handle advertisements.
From 141.151.185.23