Re: UKNM: Advertising might actually be dead

[Ben Thompson]

>>Netscape versions of Navigator. Most people I know looking into re-writing

>>Netscape are looking at this area more than any other.

>

>There's a simple solution to this. Write valid HTML. Don't rely on

>proprietry extensions for browsers which may not be around in a few years.

>In 1994 most people used Mosaic, by 1996 Netscape had an extremely dominant

>market share, now Microsoft is taking over that. Who knows where we'll be

>in four more years?

>

Sorry but the two items are not related. Although everyone should write

valid HTML, the parser should be intellegent enough to close a table if the

</table> command is not included at the bottom of the page. Between

Navigator 1 and 2 the parser got fussy and there is nothing worse then going

to a page and not being able to read it. This is one of the reasons why

Netscape is dying.


>There is a well-documented, freely available HTML specification available.

>Read it. Learn from it.


>

>>Now the code needed to identify and remove banners from an HTML page is

not

>>difficult. You merely remove any reference to graphics sized 468 by 60

>>pixels or redirect the request to another site (say your own). The problem

>>has always been accessing the HTML parser that processes and displays the

>>page. Previously this has not been possible and so there has been little

>>reason for people to try.

>

>Innovate. Why does all advertising on the Internet have to be 468 by 60

>banners on Web sites? Are advertisers really too unimaginative to use

>email, and other applications of the Internet, let alone using the Web in

>some way other than a 468 by 60 banner?


Actually, Adverts are standard sizes because the advertisers wanted them to

be standard sizes. I don't have to hand the date that the standardisation of

banners was agreed upon but I think it was October 95.

>

SNIP


>I suspect the Internet advertising community is powerful enough easily

>generate plenty of news coverage about how site publishers are being

>exploited by those who seek to steal their content.


Um, How? Once the browser is in the public domain it is awfully difficult

for it to be removed. All publicity will do is to promote it. Also who

exactly would be interested in the story it might be News but apart from

Marketing and New Media Age no one else is likely to be interested.

>

>Alternatively, give people a reason to want to see your adverts. Innovate.

>

>You suggest that any move towards diversification in Web browser software

>is a bad thing. The Web is such an exciting medium because it is the first

>medium which allows viewers/readers to display content in a way which they

>prefer. This is a *strength* of the medium; clueless advertisers who are

>trying to apply the "rules" they've learnt for other media have to adapt or

>fail. Intelligent advertisers are aware of this fact and are exploiting it.

>

No, I've never suggested that and I don't even imply it here. The Netscape

plan is interesting and I am very curious to see how it ends. However, I

don't feel that the vast majority of improvements that will be made will be

interesting enough for it to be worthwhile. Mind you I'll be first in the

queue for the first XML browser that is created.


All I've pointed out is the most obvious problem I can see that will occur

over the next 6 months. Browsers do need to diversify. They also need to

become a lot easier to use as does Yahoo and many of the other search

engines. The WWW made the Internet easy to use in 1994 but 4 years later it

is too complex for the audience that is now coming in.


The rest of your paragraph relates to an opinion that I do not and cannot

agree with. The web merely provides another form of the printed page with

real time access to that information. At some point it might be more than

that but currently it isn't. The idea of sound and video is wonderful but

when I lost my cable modem it rather last its appeal. The web provides

merely a library of information that is sometimes well indexed and at other

times incredible badly indexed. Only if you index (target) your adverts well

will you succeed. As regards to advertising, when you move into a new field

the rules change and most people know that.


>Anyone who would like to read more about what the Web really is, rather

>than hearing more mindless hype about "multimedia experiences" should take

>a look at Jakob Nielsen's work at <URL:http://www.useit.com/>, amongst

>other places.

>

I'm trying to think where this relates to my comments. The last time I

talked about Multimedia was a year ago when I was working on a Multi-country

RealAudio network and before that it was probably while working on a CD-i

title in the early 90's.


The only reason I assume you talk about hype is because of the mention of

XML and ICE in my first paragraph. Now it is perfectly alright for you to

assume that the WWW of today is the same as the WWW of tomorrow but that

will not be the case. XML is not hype, it is an approved standard for the

WWW and was designed by amongst others Netscape and Microsoft. IE4 has an

XML parser available for it (granted its a poor beta) and parser source code

is now available. XML will not take off now but in a year or so, (ie 1

browser upgrade and a year of downloads later) it will be.


True, for the vast majority of advertisers knowing where the WWW is now is

important. But for myself and my clients (as we already know where we are

now), knowing where we are going is just as essential (if not more so).


I've now been in New Media 10 years (and a fortnight) and I fully intend to

be here in ten years time. To do that I need to know what is going on

elsewhere.


yours,


Ben Thompson