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


Subject: Re: UKNM: More webwashing
From: Talbot & Nagel Advertising
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 15:32:12 +0100

>let's take the situation of magazines. in many, if not most, cases ads in
>magazines add value to the content. vogue wouldn't be vogue without
>high-gloss fashion advertising, and computer shopper would lose its
>compelling sales-point if it wasn't a telephone directory of PC prices.
>when have ever seen an ad banner that added value to a site?

You can't stop there! The Sunday Times magazine wouldn't be the same without
adverts for "limited edition samurai swords'" & sofas. And FHM simply
wouldn't be the best selling magazine in England without ads for shampoo.
Oh, and lets not forget The Sun - it may not be a mag, but I'd never get
past Page 3 if it weren't for the Comet Price Index in the Home Front
section.
:-)

Generalisations are one thing, but don't make them just because you can't
think of other examples.
Ads are placed because the spot/page/insert/whatever fits the target
audience for the product/service. It's a very good idea to make advertising
that adds to the content of a media. Some does. Most doesn't. Banners should
do more. But that's about all you can say, generalising.


Kyle.

________________________________________
T A L B O T & N A G E L A D V E R T I S I N G

121 van Leyenberghlaan 1082 GD Amsterdam
T +31 (0) 20 661 0691 F +31 (0) 20 661 0697
postattan-advertising [dot] demon [dot] nl

----- Original Message -----
From: jim smith <jimatflenser [dot] co [dot] uk>
To: <uk-netmarketingatchinwag [dot] com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: UKNM: More webwashing


glad to have you on board, Ray.

i think, however, you are missing the point of the argument
(understandably, given your position). no-one is arguing for less marketing
on the web (except for stef). the point about ad banners is that they are a
dead-end solution: they have failed to mesh with their medium in the way
that your other examples have succeeded to do.

let's take the situation of magazines. in many, if not most, cases ads in
magazines add value to the content. vogue wouldn't be vogue without
high-gloss fashion advertising, and computer shopper would lose its
compelling sales-point if it wasn't a telephone directory of PC prices.
when have ever seen an ad banner that added value to a site?

as for TV advertising, high production values help capture eyeballs (nuff
said there, i think) and the slots are paid for on the assumption that many
people simply won't see them (otherwise why are the first and last lots in
a break more expensive? - because people might catch them from returning
for a piss). add to that the entertaining spectacle of people paying for TV
channels that don't run ads during the football or the movie, and it's
clear to see that TV advertising has to struggle hard to keep our
attention.

<generalisation>ad banners by contrast make no attempt to mesh with their
medium: most don't even seem to have been designed by people who aren't
aware of what site(s) they're going on. they steal users from the site.
they have low production values. they slow down site access and they can
lead to crappy effects like reconnecting your browser unbidden. and, to
make matters worse, the industry is actively encouraging tiny banner sizes
and ad servers that just spew out untargetted ads to whoever
subscribes.</generalisation>

ad banners are the wrong solution to a fairly simple problem: how do we
market on the web?

i'm in favour of more web-based marketing - it, occasionally, pays my
wages. but the medium is just naturally shaped in favour of inclusive,
involving techniques like community and sponsorship.

you have to sell to the whole person, not just the eyeball...



At 5:57 pm +0100 on 17/5/99 you said:
>Yeah, let's ban all advertising on web sites. But why stop there?
>Advertising reduces TV viewing time by around 20%, takes up valuable space
>in a magazine, hides interesting building sites along roadways, and
>transforms an otherwise pleasant twice daily social experience for London
>commuters into a mind-numbing exercise in avoiding everyone's gaze in order
>to read the tube ads.
>
>Let's get back to wall-to-wall black and white TV, black and white
>magazines, and concentrating on the traffic jam, not the billboard. We
don't
>need advertising to support media, we just need a state news agency and
more
>BBC sitcoms (single camera, mono, sound and laughter optional).
>
>And as for newspapers, if everybody had to pay 10.00 a day for their daily
>read we would have less of those bloody awful recycling points popping up
>all over the place.
>
>Ray Taylor
>NMC/Adplan - the online advertising agency
>2,000,000,000 greenbacks can't be wrong

--//--------------------------------------------------------------------
jim smith - jimatflenser [dot] co [dot] uk - http://www.flenser.co.uk 0961 319040
everything has been said, provided words do not change their meanings or
meanings their words -- alpha 60

********************
UKNM is sponsored by Excite UK, visit us at http://www.excite.co.uk.
Email Khalil Ibrahimi khalilatexcitecorp [dot] com (mailto:khalilatexcitecorp [dot] com) to advertise on Excite.
********************
Change your UKNM subscription use http://www.chinwag.com/uknm.html



Replies
  Re: UKNM: More webwashing, jim smith

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