RE: UKNM: Banner Ads (was Search Engines)

[Marcus Exall]

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:

ownerchinwag [dot] com

 [

ownerchinwag [dot] com]On">mailto:ownerchinwag [dot] com]On

 Behalf Of Chris

Meachin

Sent: 26 September 2000 16:08

To:

uk-netmarketingchinwag [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

value.


> 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

all.


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

spareanychangechinwag [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

helpchinwag [dot] com