Re: Re[2]: UKNM: so net marketing types?

[Ray Taylor]

Well stone me, and I thought we were arguing about whether the banners

looked good or not. Just goes to show how easy it is to misundertand the

written word.


I will therefore try to make my point a bit clearer.


1. I think the banner ads used as part of the promotion of Sky Digital were

among the best UK-designed banner ads that I have seen. I found them

amusing, creative, eye-catching and absolutely clear in the point they were

trying to make.


2. As someone with a long-standing appreciation of art and many forms of art

I found nothing offensive in the manner of their design. I am of the opinion

that form and function are inextricably linked and that to try to elevate

art (or even design) as some kind of higher ideal is the kind of elitist

crap that should have been abolished with the Victorian era.


I am moved by beauty, compassion, humanity, courage, wisdom and many other

high ideals. But I am NOT moved by web site design any more than I am by

toilet paper design, but I appreciate when both jobs are done well and

irritated when either is done badly.


Am I in the wrong business? That's my bloody business and nobody else's but

my shareholders' and clients'. Or have I missed someone's attempt at

imposing some kind of cabal on membership of the kewl net community?


I thought this list was about net marketing. So why all the moany groany

when we talk marketing?


3. As a buyer of banner advertising impressions, and sometimes of banner

creative, my professional opinion is that these banners ought to have

created a positive response both in terms of building brand equity and also

of generating response. I can't vouch for how honest the people behind the

campaign are, but they tell me the response (by click-through rate) exceeds

5%. Seems like a good result to me. As to the brand raising, don't suppose

it has been measured.


I did not look at the campaign as a whole in any detail as I have better

things to do with my time. None of the parties involved are clients of mine

so I have no particular axe to grind. Others can venture an opinion on the

campaign as a whole if they so wish.


Does the campaign damage the reputation of capitalfm, express, lycos or any

of the others? Not for me to say. Site owners must define their own criteria


for managing their relationship with their users and for ensuring the

quality of their offering is not diluted by advertising campaigns. I was a

business press editor for many years, strongly defended the editorial

product from advertising incursions, and never had any particular problem in

doing so. At the same time the magazines I edited also provided excellent

promotional vehicles for our valued advertising customers. I see no conflict

between the two aims, just a balancing exercise and one I performed

particularly well, perhaps because I don't walk around with my nose in the

air, my head in the clouds, etc.


Again, I hate to be the source of anyone's depression. I few hours spent in

the real world, or experimenting with a sense of humour, might help any

others afflicted.


Love and kisses,


Ray Taylor

Planet Philistine

Old Media Universe


0181 639 0015


-----Original Message-----

From: Phil Gyford <

philgyford [dot] com

>

To:

uk-netmarketingchinwag [dot] com

 <

uk-netmarketingchinwag [dot] com

>

Date: 06 October 1998 14:28

Subject: Re[2]: UKNM: so net marketing types?



>I think the trouble is that we're arguing about completely different

things.

>

><vaguely balanced and objective>

>Ray and others are arguing about whether it was an effective ad (in terms

>of people noticing it).

>

>Myself, Cait, and others were arguing about whether it's something we'd

>want to happen to our site in terms of pissing off users.

>

>I'm coming to the depressing conclusion that these two sides will never

>agree on this kind of thing, that we see the Net entirely differently. The

>first group see it as an exciting new medium with different opportunities

>for building brands in lots of new ways. The second group see it as an

>exciting democratic medium which should have more to it than the pursuit of

>money.

></vaguely balanced and objective>

>

>I find it incredibly depressing to hear points of views like Ray's. If you,

>Ray, find it "difficult to be personally moved" by anything you see on the

>Net, then please go and find something that does excite you, rather than

>pushing depressing marketing schemes on the rest of us. This is far from

>wishing to "restrict its use to those qualified" - As someone who lives far

>too much of their life on the Net, I can't wait for friends and relatives

>who know next to nothing about computers to come online, but I'd prefer it

>if they didn't have to suffer marketing concepts which hinder their

enjoyment.

>

>You say "The thing I find sad is that so many people in a supposedly

>revolutionary new medium are so set in their ways and blinded by prejudice

>that they feel they must always knock companies such as Sky." Ray, this has

>nothing to do with the advertiser being Sky. The interstitial page could

>have been for something I really love and I would still feel it gets in the

>way of people actually using and enjoying the Web, and detracts from the

>host site's own character. This is also nothing to do with people being set

>in their ways and blinded to revolutionary new ways of doing things. Part

>of the reason most of us are in this industry (although I'm beginning to

>wonder if we're in the same one) is because of the exciting pace of new


>ideas. But something being new doesn't mean it's good.

>

>There are too many people enthusiastically promoting the "new medium",

>while still decidedly set in an old media state of mind, willing to sell

>anything if it'll earn them a bit of cash, and not giving a shit about

>their own sites or the end user.

>

>Phil

>

>

>