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

Subject: RE: UKNM: Banner Ads (was Search Engines)
From: Marcus Exall
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:56:21 +0100

Yes, of course, crap banners that are poorly targetted will be many or all
of the things that you suggest (but creatively restrictive - what do you
want - a billboard? - the size of screens in general means that all web
marketing is restrictive). Blaming banners per se is ignoring the fact that
any type of marketing, badly done, will get you a poor response. People are
still learning about how to get the best out of banners.

The banner is here to stay - the only question is how will it develop. The
advertising for revenue model (maybe not wholly supportive of cashflow) is
also here to stay - or are you the sort of person who rips the ads out of
the magazines that they read?

How about a UKNM forum on how the banner (and online advertising in general)
should develop.

I'm with you Mr Taylor.

Marcus Exall

-----Original Message-----
From: owneratchinwag [dot] com [owneratchinwag [dot] com]On">mailto:owneratchinwag [dot] com]On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: 26 September 2000 16:08
To: uk-netmarketingatchinwag [dot] com
Subject: UKNM: Banner Ads (was Search Engines)

> Of course not! But what is your _opinion_ on the Agency.com / British
> Airways campaign? Was it a success? Did it achieve anything or
> did it suck?

As I said quite explicitly before, I have not been involved in any banner
campaigns at AGENCY.COM, and am therefore not prepared to second-guess their

> You expressed an opinion ("Banner advertising (though not
> necessarily *all*
> placement advertising) sucks and will go the way of the dodo") which I
> assumed was somehow based on experience or insight. Was it?

Yes, it is based on extensive experience (and insight, naturally), but if I
must quote you case studies to prove the point, then it shall remain
unproven. I'm afraid this argument (and indeed, convincing you) is not
important enough to me to warrant bad-mouthing past employers or clients on
a public list.

> what leads you to believe that banner advertising "sucks." I am sure you
> will enlighten me.

Banners <sigh> are dull, they're ugly, they're creatively restrictive,
they're ignored by most people, they significantly cheapen the look of most
host sites, they're relatively ineffective, they're stale, they're stagnant,
they're boring, they're irritating, they're intrusive, they will be (and
have been to some extent already) overtaken by better, prettier and more
effective forms of on-site, linked advertising.... oh, and they're just SO
Q4 '97 Daahling.

And then there's the issue of advertising as the default revenue source for
web businesses being challenged almost daily now by VCs and the like, but I
won't go there now <carefully replaces 'can of worms' back onto shelf>.

Please explain to me why I had to explain that. I mean, surely the onus
should be on the banner-lovers to justify the use of their dead art form at

The most sensible argument I've heard yet for their perpetuation is simply
that it keeps unimaginative production houses in business. But of course,
that wouldn't include anybody reading this ;o)

I am all ears (or eyes, or whatever). Show me the banner light!

Best wishes, C

Disclaimer: I don't mean it really.

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

  RE: UKNM: Banner Ads (was Search Engines, Chris Meachin

  UKNM: Banner Ads (was Search Engines), Chris Meachin

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