• by Bill McCloskey , August 9, 2001

Remember that scene in the movie Network? The TV anchor who rants, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.” I felt like that for most of this week, all while reviewing the long awaited Rich Media Guidelines from the IAB. Right now, I feel like the same character later in the movie, when he announces, “it was a nice try fellows, but the revolution is over.”

This is my third complete rewrite of this article. I’m sure my editor is going crazy with me. But this material is so close to my heart that it has been difficult to find the right tone for this story.

On Monday, I thought the IAB released their long awaited "Rich Media Guidelines" with about as much fanfare as a Quaker meeting of narcoleptics, and raged over the fact that not a single person from the IAB Rich Media Task Force was available for comment on the release. It seemed like everyone had just stopped caring.

On Tuesday, I fumed over the fact that despite the rubber-stamp support reactions from both vendors and publishers, the guidelines themselves actually try and put a muzzle on the growth of the industry, rather than opening up possibilities. And in the areas where real guidelines are needed - standards around tracking and serving - they are silent.

Today I feel resigned: this is the best we can do right now. Nice try fellows, but the revolution is over.

Others will tell you a different story. I met with Robin Webster yesterday, CEO of the IAB, to discuss the guidelines. I also spoke with Bettina Fischmann and other people who worked in the Rich Media Task Force. They tell me that this is a real step forward and that this will advance the industry. They tell me of the difficulties finding consensus and affirm that this is just the start: it’s a baseline that will be supported by top publishers. And, they reiterate, these are just guidelines. But why do I feel so glum?

Let’s take a look at some of the guidelines:

Rich Media banners are defined as those that support HTML, Macromedia Flash, Java, or HTML. (Current advancements in DHTML technology are not discussed). For standard rich media banners, a 15k initial load is allowed, with 85K allowed to stream-in behind – but only when a person clicks or mouse-overs the ad – making a total of 100k. Of course, since the additional 85k load can only happen when the user initiates it, it means a delay in the rich media experience – a hiccup in the action not only sanctioned but mandated by the guidelines- especially for those with slower connections. Why not just make the guideline 100k? Or 15k with a subsequent download of 85k download without stipulating how it gets initiated? The way the “guideline” is written, it pretty much guarantees that the banner experience will be sub-optimum.

This is particularly strange since the “Pop-up #2” guideline allows for a 550 by 550 Pop-up window, with a 100k maximum load and no initial download or user initiation needed. Why?

The rich media skyscraper gets a 25k initial load and 3 separate loads of 50k each, but again only after the user initiates it. Of course this begs the question: if you are going to make it “user-initiated”, why limit the additional downloads to 3? If the user wants to drill down in the ad and they are initiating it, why not make it 5 or 10 loads of 50k? Why the limit, at least as far as the site is concerned?

The expandable rollover ad gets some respect: support for expanding the standard sized banner to 460 x 240 on rollover gets adopted, but no rollover sounds. All sounds must be user initiated by user click, eliminating some of the more interesting and creative uses of sound I’ve seen. Videos also, even silent videos I guess, must be user-initiated. But here there is no mention of Flash. Certainly the movement of Flash creative is no less distractive (eye-catching) than video. Why must video be user-initiated but not Flash? Or better yet, why should there be any restrictions on what is primarily a creative decision?

There is a definite sense in these guidelines of playing to the lowest common denominator. Guidelines should raise the bar, not lower it to the level of the most conservative member. For sites serious about moving forward with rich media, these guidelines, as written, will provide little solace.

But in the end, it may not matter. These guidelines seem more of an obligation -something the IAB promised they would do and can now say they’ve done. But we do need real guidelines: guidelines on tracking and reporting - the type of bread and butter infrastructure problems that are a real problem and are holding the industry back.

What we really need is for someone to raise the bar, throw down the gauntlet, and inspire better creative. We don’t need baby steps: we need giant leaps if advertisers are going to get on board. We need a strong voice out there challenging expectations. Unfortunately, from where I sit, these guidelines, as well intentioned as they are, seem more of a whimper than a roar.

-- Bill McCloskey is Founder and CEO of Emerging Interest, an organization dedicated to educating the Internet advertising and marketing industry about rich media and other emerging technologies. He may be reached at bill@emerginginterest.com.