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

Subject: UKNM: Re: Online advertorial
From: Andrew Warner
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:43:30 +0100

To suggest that all advertorials are a con is ridiculous, and I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that Emap (and other major publishing houses) are actively conning their readers through advertorial. In fact with any magazine with a strong brand, advertorial is more closely vetted than advertising. For example a magazine such as FHM, would never want to risk pissing off its readers by associating itself with a dodgy brand. However an offer, say to introduce a new shaving product from Gillette, with a free sample for readers and a competition with a great prize would be clearly flagged as advertorial, would inform readers and would drive sampling and datacapture for Gillette. Advertorial is not a replacement for advertising but can work well within an integrated and well planned marketing plan.
With regard to TV, product placement, masthead TV, infomercials, product placement and advertiser funded programming are alive and well. As the traditional ad break becomes eroded by multi-channel interactive TV platforms, these will become more prevalent than they are currently. Yes there are regulations, which have many contradictions and idiosyncrasies in them, but most responsible advertisers have no desire to con their potential/customers and work within them. Yes if a website presents something as editorial, but it is actually paid for then that may be considered a con. But a responsible approach e.g. Smirnoff on http://www.beachbeats.com
can work well for the site, the users of the site, and the advertiser.

Andrew Warner, andrew [dot] warneratemaponline [dot] com
Head of Marketing, EMAP Online,
Priory Court, 30-32 Farringdon Lane,
London. EC1R 3AW
tel. +44(0) 20 7309 2780
fax. +44(0) 20 7309 2718

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:54:51 +0100
From: "Richard Bailey" <RBaileyatgodado [dot] com>
Subject: RE: UKNM: Re: Online Advertorial

The reason they are banned on the TV is they are seem to the masses (who it
seems have been deemed unable to think for themselves) as a real persons
personal view. The TV regs say that if this view is paid for then it is an
advert and should be clearly stated or understood. The difference in the
law is number of users and government regs. I feel a con is a con and
giving a con a big wordy name and putting it on the net does not make it
right. Who cares if loads of magazines do it, does that make it right to
con if other companies do it? Newspapers seem to police themselves quite
well on this matter. The whole point I was making is that it will devalue a
site and I can never escape the feeling that it is wrong because it is
masked as a real balanced 'human' view.

Richard Bailey
Internet Sales Executive
RBaileyatGodado [dot] com
Tel: +44 (0)20 7236 7722

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The biggest, best Chinwag Networking party...ever... **27th September 2000** put it in your diaries now RSVP to http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing/party.shtml To sponsor the event email spareanychangeatchinwag [dot] com
generously supported by... *** DoubleClick *** http://www.doubleclick.net The leading provider of comprehensive global Internet advertising solutions for marketers and Web publishers. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing or helpatchinwag [dot] com

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