[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject: Re: UKNM: Advertising might actually be dead
From: Mark Dolley
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 16:49:43 GMT

Tom Hukins,tomateborcom [dot] com wrote on 2/19/98 11:43 AM:
>>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?

Tom, you are being disengenous. As you you full well, 468x60 is the
standard. Change the standard to something else and it remains just as
vulnerable, because of its very nature as a standard. And without
standards for advertising, the Web will never be more than an opportunity
for guerilla marketing. And we'll certainly never make a dent in TV ad

>>All that is required is for the idea to be planted in people's minds (and it
>>has been) and we will see banner eating browsers. Most people probably would
>>not even realise it was being done.
>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.

Far more sensible. The publishers need only point out that without
advertising, their content wouldn't be there *at all*. Furthermore, I am
sure there are copyright issues at stake here. After all, Solid Oak is
modifying other people's intellectual property for its own commercial

Mark Dolley z a p w o r k s !

vox:(+1) 415 551 1800

have you read the news? http://www.zapworks.com/pan

  Re: UKNM: Advertising might actually be , Tom Hukins
  Re: UKNM: Advertising might actually be , Galal siksik

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]