Advertising Is Content; Content Is Advertising
from the took-'em-long-enough dept
There's been a bunch of buzz this week over an Ad Age report suggesting that firms are finally realizing that no one pays attention to online banner ads. For all the hype about online advertising, this one point should have been obvious from quite early on. That doesn't mean that banner ads haven't been lucrative for some publishers who place them on their sites -- but it does call into question how long that sort of advertising will last. Sooner or later the advertisers will recognize that they're not getting much bang for the buck. For publishers (us included, mind you), that could mean that an easy vein for revenue goes away -- but the end result should be better. Companies will start to learn that there are better ways to achieve their goals than banner ads.There are a few key points in the discussion that shouldn't be surprising to most folks around here, but apparently have just hit the consciousness of ad execs on Madison Avenue:
- The captive audience is dead. There is no captive audience online. Everyone surfing the web has billions of choices on what they can be viewing, and they don't want to be viewing intrusive and annoying ads. They'll either ignore them, block them or go elsewhere.
- Advertising is content. You can't think of ads as separate things any more. Without a captive audience, there's no such thing as "advertising" any more. It's just content. And it needs to be good/interesting/relevant content if you want to get anyone to pay attention to it.
- Content is advertising. Might sound like a repeat of the point above, and in some way it is -- but it's highlighting the flip side. Any content is advertising. It's advertising something. Techdirt content "advertises" our business even if you don't realize it. Every bit of content advertises something, whether on purpose or not.
- Content needs to be useful/engaging/interesting. This simply ties all of that together. If you want anyone to pay attention to your content (which is advertising something, whether on purpose or not) it needs to be compelling and engaging.
Other posts in this series:
- Advertising Is Content; Content Is Advertising
- On Content, Promotions, Basic Economics... And Loutish Statements
- Content Is Advertising... In The Newspaper Industry
- Content Is Advertising... On TV
- Newspaper Content Is Advertising For More News Content
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ads, banner blindness, captive audience, content, marketing, techdirt feature
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
=)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Help me money problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
www.justindowneymarketing.com
I hate to 'advertise' in comments but the guys website totally exemplefies what the article was talking about. The site serves to prove to potential customers that he knows his ish using a 'market leader' play but also has a lot of great tips for small businesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
HACKED BY > ant07alya TURKHACKTEAM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banner ads need to go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Banner ads need to go
I have to wonder how much bandwidth these ads use, and if it's contributing to net neutrality efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kind of like the "pull out advertising" sections we see in magazines, disguised as editorial stories... the problem is there is often no disclaimer on websites to tell you the content has been paid for by an advertiser. Are there rules and/or laws about this online?
Admittedly, erasing the line between content and advertising is the only way advertising is going to survive; but the problem of knowing when you're reading truly unbiased content is going to become an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not about erasing the line between advertising and content... it's about recognizing that there never was a line.
Any advertising has always been content. It's just that it's been bad content.
Any content has always been advertising -- it's just not always clear for what. In many cases, it's been weak "advertising" for an ad banner.
I'm not talking about more "advertorial" content at all. I'm talking about recognizing the basic facts that any content is advertising and that advertising has always been content. So an advertorial is, by its very nature *bad* content. It's not content that people trust or want to read. For this to work, content needs to be *good* content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice Banner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice Banner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice Banner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, in some esoteric way you can say a story about the latest find from the Hubble telescope is some form of advertising for NASA, but your article is not esoteric, it's about how advertisers are going to survive when no one pays attention to banner ads and other obvious forms of selling a product.
Advertorials, where an ad is disguised as content, is the only way around this. How do you suggest "good" content that is advertising based? The bottom line will always be that said content is biased and "rigged" towards a point of view that benefits the advertiser and sells a product.
Your blanket statement that all content is advertising and vice versa is cute and catchy but you need to back that up with something concrete.
I find it disturbing that I thought I knew what you were talking about, a very real subject worth discussing (advertorials) but you actually had nothing in mind other than a vague statement!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it is true that all content is advertising for something. I disagree that there's a line between the two. Point me to any content and I'll tell you what it's advertising.
if Paramout pays you to write a "story" about a new movie on DVD and you put the article up with a link to Amazon that is advertorial, plain and simple.
Yes, that's an advertorial. I don't deny that. But my point is that's BAD content and therefore BAD advertising. I'm not saying advertorials make sense. This is not a defense of advertorials at all. It's the reverse. An advertorial is about tricking someone. That's not what I'm talking about at all.
Sure, in some esoteric way you can say a story about the latest find from the Hubble telescope is some form of advertising for NASA, but your article is not esoteric, it's about how advertisers are going to survive when no one pays attention to banner ads and other obvious forms of selling a product.
Yes. But advertisers don't have to do BAD content or TRICKY content or ADVERTORIALS to survive. They can make GOOD content that people WANT and that they SEEK OUT on purpose. That's what I'm talking about. It's about recognizing that they're media players in their own way.
Advertorials, where an ad is disguised as content, is the only way around this.
Why do you think advertorial are "the only way around this?"
If the ad is "disguised" as content, then it's wrong. It will piss people off and do the exact opposite. I hope that's not the lesson you're reading out of what I wrote. I'm talking about creating REAL content that people WANT. Not hiding an advertisement in content.
The bottom line will always be that said content is biased and "rigged" towards a point of view that benefits the advertiser and sells a product.
Yes, if it's an advertorial. But that's not what I'm talking about.
Your blanket statement that all content is advertising and vice versa is cute and catchy but you need to back that up with something concrete.
Concrete? Point me to any content and I'll tell you what it's advertising.
I find it disturbing that I thought I knew what you were talking about, a very real subject worth discussing (advertorials) but you actually had nothing in mind other than a vague statement!
It's not vague at all. And I'm not talking about advertorials, which are exactly the wrong point. Advertorials are bad content. As you yourself point out, it's tricky content that is biased and not what people want. That's not good for anyone.
I'm talking about creating real content that people want and that they seek out. Not content that tricks people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes ok fine advertisers need to provide content that people want to read. Great idea. But if "good" content provided by an advertiser is NOT a clever diguise to sell a product then it's not an ad!!
How can you say advertisers need to provide good, true, worthwhile content if they want to survive but that content cannot be an advertorial? If Coca-cola hires a journalist to write stories about endangered species and he is instructed in no way, shape or form to mention Coke or say anything that is geared towards making Coke look good, then yes, Coke has provided "good" content - but how is that still advertising?? It doesn't help them.
I don't see how you can suggest that advertisers will survive by providing good content that is devoid of any attempt to sell their product.
And yes I agree that all content is selling something, but only in a vague, esoteric way. A story about endagered species could be said to be selling tickets to the rainforest or panda bear dolls, but that would seriously be reaching.
Please give us an example of "good" content from an advertiser that is not an advertorial but still helps them sell their product. I can't fathom it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um. ANY CONTENT advertises something. I said, point me to any content and I'll tell you what it advertises. EVERY PIECE OF CONTENT is an example.
As I said in the post itself, every blog post here is an "advertisement" for Techdirt. Yet, do you think it's an advertorial?
You need to stop thinking of advertising and content as being two separate things.
But if "good" content provided by an advertiser is NOT a clever diguise to sell a product then it's not an ad!!
Bingo! We have a winner. That's the ENTIRE POINT. You can't make ADS any more. They don't work. Advertising is a dying business. These days, you just need to make content.
How can you say advertisers need to provide good, true, worthwhile content if they want to survive but that content cannot be an advertorial?
You seem to be confused again. I didn't say that the content doesn't advertise. I just said that it's not an advertorial.
Perhaps we should define more carefully since I get the feeling we're talking around each other:
Advertorial is content that's DISGUISED as innocuous, but is really designed solely as an ad.
Good content isn't DISGUISED as anything. It's good content that people want and find useful. In some cases it may be explicit about what it's advertising, in some cases it may not be. But it's designed first and foremost to be good content.
If Coca-cola hires a journalist to write stories about endangered species and he is instructed in no way, shape or form to mention Coke or say anything that is geared towards making Coke look good, then yes, Coke has provided "good" content - but how is that still advertising?? It doesn't help them.
Well, it depends on how you think about it. At Techdirt we rarely mention the business side of what we do, yet the content helps show off what we're able to do.
Do you consider Eepy Bird's experiments as an advertorial for Coke?
http://www.eepybird.com/dcm1.html
I don't see how you can suggest that advertisers will survive by providing good content that is devoid of any attempt to sell their product.
It's not devoid of any attempt to sell their product. You can sell your product in them, if the content is good and desired.
BMW started making films -- good films, mind you -- that didn't make any attempt to sell BMWs. But they did have BMWs in them and people liked watching them. Those weren't "advertorials." That was making good content.
And yes I agree that all content is selling something, but only in a vague, esoteric way. A story about endagered species could be said to be selling tickets to the rainforest or panda bear dolls, but that would seriously be reaching.
I'm afraid that we're talking past each other. You seem to think of advertising and content as two totally separate things, so I can see why this is confusing.
Give me any company. Any industry. And I'll try to come up with an example of the type of content they should be focusing on.
If I sell car insurance, I'd create a USEFUL widget that gives drivers better traffic info and better routes that they can use to drive safer and shows them how they can save money on their car insurance based on how they drive.
If I sell credit cards for small businesses, I'd create a forum for discussing small business topics, and how they can better achieve their goals as a small business.
If I have a book store, I bring in writers for readings and hold events at my store.
If I sell music players, I give away music to increase the demand for music players.
If I'm an accountant, I start an online forum for accounting questions.
Name some more... It's not hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eepybird.com dancing baloney lost me
Also, I don't need Coke as a refreshing drink nor as an entertaining explosive. I guess your "good/bad" is in the eye of the beholder, as always, but I have no reason to ever return to eepybird.com - they lost me at "hello".
Finally, thanks, tony, for the term "iADD" - new to me. But, I do have it, and I have it honed to a fine weapon. Years ago, I used to count to 10 before nixing a bADD web page, and now I hardly get to 3 before moving on. As Carl Sagan said, there's "billions and billions of start stuff" out there, so I figure, why not immediately move on to continue the search for someone who is ready for prime time, instead of waiting for someone to s-l-o-w-l-y slice the dancing baloney?
My dancing baloney has a first name,
it's C L O S E
My dancing baloney has a last name,
it's W I N D O W ...
Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BMW is making these films to sell BMWs. Of course they are. They bring attention to themselves with "oh look, BMW is contributing to the arts" and I am sure the films are wonderful, but they are still very eloborate commercials for BMWs.
The site from an auto insurance company that shows current traffic conditions and helps you figure out lower rates based on your driving is STILL there for the sole purpose of having you decide to buy their insurance; the sole purpose of having bands and writers in your bookstore is to sell more books and coffee.
I agree that it's great to have good content and advertising CO-EXIST in the same form, but let's not kid ourselves - content that is designed to promote good will towards a company or put you in a position to experience the company's product is still there to ultimately SELL THE PRODUCT.
If the bands and book signings did not help the bookstore increase revenue, they would stop. And who could blame them?
I agree that companies should stop just making blatant ads and try to provide useful content to go along with that ad, but we're still talking about a new age of advertorials.
I know I might be sounding cynical, but it's just reality - these companies exist to sell you a product, we're just talking about shifting over to a soft-sell, almost subliminal model as opposed to screaming in your face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As I said, I think we just disagree on the definition of an advertorial.
BMW is making these films to sell BMWs. Of course they are. They bring attention to themselves with "oh look, BMW is contributing to the arts" and I am sure the films are wonderful, but they are still very eloborate commercials for BMWs.
What if (and, yes, this is an "if") one of those films eventually wins an Oscar? What if any company made a film that was so good that it was considered the best in the field... even if it also helped sell a product.
Is that a problem?
I agree that it's great to have good content and advertising CO-EXIST in the same form, but let's not kid ourselves - content that is designed to promote good will towards a company or put you in a position to experience the company's product is still there to ultimately SELL THE PRODUCT.
What's wrong with selling a product?
I know I might be sounding cynical, but it's just reality - these companies exist to sell you a product, we're just talking about shifting over to a soft-sell, almost subliminal model as opposed to screaming in your face.
But I'm not saying it's subliminal. BMWfilms is quite blatant. It's made by BMW. Obviously they want to sell cars. But they're not tricking you into watching the film. They're not intruding on you. They're making good content that ALSO happens to sell cars.
So, no, it's not subliminal. It's quite blatant. But it's not about deceptive practices. In fact, it's about being a lot more open about it. We're quite open about what we do at Techdirt. Do you feel like we're tricking you? You read our content because you value it (I hope!). Do you think we tricked you because we also make money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not talking about the specific policies, but the way they address problems, the way they talk to people, etc. Think about the differences between old/new school.
That (i think) is a very good example of content and advertisement (sadly frequently disguised). They all want to rule the world (as companies want to make money, etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about...
Furthermore, most of these companies know nothing about Internet advertising. I own a web design company aimed at created and hosting sites for small to medium local businesses and most of these people are experts in thier field - but clueless in mine. So they end up paying me lots extra to handle thier online advertising. Do I advise them to put up annoying as hell banners? Nope, tht's right up there with websites that have sound effects and no off button. (Or sound effects at all for that matter.)
Advertising on the Internet is absolutely crucial. The big boys are just going entirely the wrong way about it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ADVERTISING IS DRIVING ME CLINICALY INSANE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
content is the ad
sure right on that Mike.
I've been pounding this for over a year. Bout time they realized it. I know you guys do.
Not many people do but it's good that they are. It just might be too late agencies are dying.
http://furrier.org/2008/01/23/again-video-ad-model-its-microcontent-not-pre-rolls/
Trad itional agencies are dying..
http://furrier.org/2008/03/18/are-ad-agencies-dying/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too Idealistic
First, I don't think any of these are BAD ideas. They are good ideas. But here' s what they have in common - they all require a new investment in technology and/or know-how and/or personnel to pull it off.
Another example given was BMW's new vestment into the movie biz. And with that case, I don't think BMW engineers all went to acting classes and film production schools. No. These are not the kind of skills which BMW's advertising personel could have "acquired". On the contrary, they probably made a sizable investment in an already existing movie firm. So again, we have a new investment.
So taking it to it's logical conclusion, can one imagine every car company investing in the movie business to meld their advertising with content? Or what about all the other products in the world? Are all the kitchen appliance companies, furniture companies, toilet paper companies, (you could take this out to infinity) all going to push their products into movies now?
And on yet another point, there's no way BMW is going to drop all their standard advertising such as magazines, tv, radio, etc., and put all bets on their movies. Their movie venture, for them, simply amounts to a complementary business which contributes to the effectiveness of their automobile advertising efforts.
In the widget example:
Does anybody really think that every insurance company is going to develop such a widget (or something competitive)? And even if they did, or even if they all purchased the widget from a 3rd party, what you end up with is - once again, just as with current display ads - a level playing field. And to the target audience, 100 different insurance-sponsored widgets will probably appear just as annoying as 100 different insurance display ads.
So I believe it's never going to be a 100% "all content is advertising" and/or "all advertising is content". There will be some cases that come close to being one-and-the-same, but there is not enough room or resources or time for every company in the world who wants to sell a product, to try to migrate to - or even complement their current advertising with - that "ideal". I agree with what I think you are partly claiming - that advertising CAN be more effective if it melds itself with content - but I don't believe ALL advertising WILL get there, CAN get there or necessarily SHOULD get there.
A movie comes to mind that illustrates my last point above (that not all content/advertising SHOULD be melded). In the movie "Demolition Man" (1993), the people of the future listened to and sang along to the commercial jingles played through their car radios. Not so strange, right? But the scary part was that the commercial jingles WERE the program content! ALL of the songs (content) played on the stations were also commercials - one and the same. Needless to say, it was a very bleak vision of the possible future of advertising and content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not the future...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i think advertising as a revenue model for online content will die very soon...
more walls than ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not the future...
Muahahahahahaha! Welcome to... The Twilight Zone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ads = content? no... ads=software (with content mi
Fifteen months ago we started a new startup focused on creating branded online destinations that actually have value - Jackson Fish Market.
The only issue I take with this post (and the original adage article) is the focus on content as the new ad. I believe the new ad is primarily software (with content mixed in periodically). I don't say this to make a geeky semantic distinction. I genuinely think it's important.
The internet as a medium is fundamentally about interactivity. Yes, UGC is key, but that's not what I'm talking about. Interactivity is about having software (literally code) that solves problems for users. Meeting their needs can be in the form of making them more productive, more informed, more communicative, or more entertained. But software as a medium has power in this regard like no medium before it. And while there's tons of content on the web, it's software that fundamentally makes it come to life.
Baby Center (an example cited in the adage article) is essentially a big magazine (with tons of user contributors) with very little unique software that makes it engaging. Nike's offerings have a much stronger emphasis on software.
When marketers start to fully understand this final wrinkle in this evolution of internet advertising, they will get even more excited when they realize that content (even on the internet where sometimes users make it) is expensive to produce. And software is relatively cheap.
Our response to the AdAge article is at: - http://www.jacksonfish.com/blog/2008/03/18/note-the-date-and-time-the-ad-industry-has-finally-starte d-to-get-it/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha ha! Good one, Mike!
But do you really think advertisers will understand this? No, they won't. Their job is to throw things in your face to interrupt what you're doing, just what this thread did.
You interrupted my reading by placing an ad in it. Cleverly done, but also deceiving, which is exactly what advertising does.
IT SHOVES SOMETHING DOWN A CONSUMERS THROAT REGARDLESS IF THEY WANT TO SEE IT OR NOT!
This does not make an ad content.
Moreso, you must think about this line of thinking because I can promise you that people will become pissed that their "content" is really nothing more than an ad.
Try it out. Make an entire month's worth of "content" which are nothing but ads. See how well people respect the site after that.
And if advertisers think this deception will work, they'll use it to their fullest advantage so that the next time you watch the SuperBowl, you're actually watching a 3 hour ad show interrupted by a stupid football game.
Personally, I believe it's time that regulation be placed to limit the number of ads placed in any medium because it's getting so damn annoying, true content is turning into a thing of the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ha ha! Good one, Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ha ha! Good one, Mike!
If they do that, it will not work very long and they will go out of business. It's that simple.
Try it out. Make an entire month's worth of "content" which are nothing but ads. See how well people respect the site after that.
I've done 10 years of posts that are nothing but ads.
Again you seem to miss the point. I'm saying EVERY bit of content is an advertisement already. Already. Every blog post you read here is an advertisement. It's content, yes, but it's also an ad.
You seem to incorrectly think I'm saying that every bit of content should "include" some promotional statement. That's not what I'm saying.
And if advertisers think this deception will work, they'll use it to their fullest advantage so that the next time you watch the SuperBowl, you're actually watching a 3 hour ad show interrupted by a stupid football game.
You say you understand the point I'm making, but then you claim that this is about deception. It's not. I'm talking about the opposite of deception. If you use deceptive practices it will not work.
You read Techdirt, and clearly, it's because you think you get something out of the content. It's not because we're being deceptive. It's because you get value out of that content -- and we get value out of it as well, because you continue to associate Techdirt with the type of analysis we're able to provide.
That's not deception.
Personally, I believe it's time that regulation be placed to limit the number of ads placed in any medium because it's getting so damn annoying, true content is turning into a thing of the past.
Again, you have totally missed the point. EVERY bit of content is advertising. You cannot "limit" the number of ads. That is impossible. You are still thinking of content and ads as being two separate things. As for "true content" again you are confused. What I'm talking about is having more USEFUL content that IS NOT deceptive or annoying.
Deceptive content. Content that is annoying DOES NOT WORK. That's the point.
Please read what I wrote again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ha ha! Good one, Mike!
Given the TechDirt site was used as a huge "advertisement", I'm going to have to agree to some parts.
The headlines (content identifiers of Techdirt) are ads, but I have to disagree that the content is an ad.
To drive home this point, please read the content of the page. Notice those heavy bolded blue links? Those are ads.
Like all ads, they're shoved in our face regardless of how tactfully they're done.
Let's look at it from a different perspective. We'll use a television show as an example.
You're watching The Big Bang Theory for 15 minutes. Then, a commercial (content!) for Mt. Dew. Then the remainder 15 minutes.
Question: Where's the ad in this scenario?
If you said the Mt. Dew commercial, you'd be wrong. The commercial itself is content. So where's the ad?
The next time you're watching television, notice the fade out between the two content transitions. That is the ad.
So, we can clearly define an ad as this:
A notification that content is about to change, regardless if it's related to the current content or not.
Now re-visit the content on this page and look at the heavy bolded links.
I try not to be verbose online given that most people don't really read. When I said that Techdirt should fill its pages with ads, I can see how I mispoke. But I won't need to give examples because Mike clearly agrees that deceptive ads won't work.
The problem I have with these "Ads are content" blogs is that ads are not content. They can't be strictly due to the very definition of what they are.
Let's review the blog statement that ads are content, because it seems that I'm not understanding per the reply Mike left.
Two examples:
I'm watching a show and get the fade to commercial. I can clearly see where the two contents change. While many would say the commercial is the ad, I get Mike's stance that it really is content. The ad, however, isn't the commercial.
Now let's say I'm watching a show and this time, product placement is used. The plot of the show does a fantastic job of including the product. From a content "readers" perspective, they'll recognize the product but won't feel it as intrusive.
So, was this show an ad or content? Content, of course. We, as consumers, can easily recognize name brand products, which may be a more effective way of pushing the product onto consumers rather than intruding on their content.
And this brings me to the reason why I'm debating Mike on the whole "Ads are content" statements. The two can not be combined as one.
Here's why. If you've been watching any television lately, you'll notice the new "pop up" ads which display the content of either the show you're watching or one that's coming up. TNT (et al), Discovery (et al), and many other stations are now utilizing these ads.
Mike, this is where I stand that ads cannot be treated as content because in the example above, the ad itself isn't part of the original content but instead is forced OVER the original content.
It's no different than those Flash ads you seen on websites now (and increasing daily). And it was my stance that this be done by Techdirt to show how pissed off people get about ads being thrown in their face ineffectively. If Techdirt hired Flash programmers to pop up ads every 15 seconds, the respectability of this site WOULD drop.
Because the ad is annoying despite any content the ad would display. Hell, even if the content points to slashdot.org, it would irate readers because of the way it was delivered.
Maybe I'm getting too literal over the "definitions", but I would like to think that by now, my point's been made about the differences and that I truly do understand the point of the blog.
Where I fail to understand is how you're trying to tell us that it's possible to effectively merge two contents into one seamlessly. The product placement example can be done, but it would instantly fail if additional products are brought in and consumers get the notion they're watching an "ad" and not necessarily the content they thought they were watching.
So you may be asking why I'm so dedicated to making sure you understand the difference. I've described the television (given the station is offering free content, the ads are something I just need to tolerate no matter how intrusive they are.) aspect, but now we'll go into a new one: Video games.
Eidos, a very prominent game publisher, announced last year they were going to start including "ads" in their video games. Of course, this outraged many consumers but Eidos fired back to say the ads "wouldn't be intrusive".
But this is my beef (pay attention Mike): Eidos is going to capitalize on the revenue from the company's "ad" but offers nothing back to the consumer for it. The game isn't free to consumers. There's no "free but at a cost" in this example. Now, consumers are forced to deal with the "ads" in a game they've just spent $60 for. While Eidos says the ads won't be intrusive, it still doesn't excuse the fact they're screwing over the consumers.
By understanding the blog's initial point, the two contents are effectively merged but done so at the cost of the consumer, while BOTH content manufacturers rake in the profits. Not a good thing and prone to failure when "everyone" starts doing it.
In sports games, it's quite common to see real life ads in banners displayed around the arena, just as you would in real life. Many gamers don't seem to care if it's in a sports game but definitely would argue to see them in "real life", especially if the game tries its best to focus on the ad (such as a video zooming in on a billboard for Mt. Dew).
As a consumer, I can not accept these infiltrations of my content without some benefit to me. It's no different than those DVD manufacturers who place preview videos before the true content that we can't skip over!
If I still missed something, please enlighten me. I can see why the banner ad is no longer effective but I can't see any way of introducing its content in a non-evasive way which wouldn't change the scope of the original content. Examples would be effective here.
Oh, and one more thing before I go. I'm sure many of our readers here remember what the web was like just a few short years ago. Remember the cost of trying to host your own website? Ah, the "good ol' days". Luckily, the costs have dropped significantly but have you noticed that sites no longer offer their "Premium Membership" accounts anymore?
You know, the offer, that once paid, all ads would disappear from the site. Back in those days, ads were consistently used to help offset the cost of hosting the site, especially when bandwidth wasn't "unlimited". Banner ads were the most effective way of making it stand out against the more-often-than-not bland website.
But times change and "banner ads" are no longer effective because many websites now understand it's more important to display their logo and navigation than it is to sell something, especially since there's no heavy cost burden of hosting the site.
In this world of "web 2.0", the only reason ads still remain while costs are low is because people tolerate (expect) them.
In truth, it's the business model of the media world (web, tv, radio) that needs to change. As ads continue to grow, consumers are definitely starting to take notice of the amount of ads (commercial break lengths).
Soon, a 1 hour program will have 30 minutes of commercial interruption. Is the answer product placement? Doubtful*.
Commercial-free TV? Hmmm... but how does one generate revenue then? I believe this is what needs to be answered.
Sorry for the very long post, but I just had to get this off my chest. :)
*Two weeks ago, Smallville used Stride gum as a product placement for nearly the entire show. Maybe it was an attempt to try something different, but I can definitely state one thing: If Smallville takes this path for future episodes, I'm done watching.
And I'm sure I won't be the only one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ha ha! Good one, Mike!
Every bit of content on Techdirt, despite what you say, is an ad. It's an ad for Techdirt. My posts are an ad for me. That is the point.
To claim otherwise is incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing is a Drug Addiction
My residual concern is that we do not live in a rationale world. When people become desensitized to advertising, the Pavlovian response of the marketing department is to advertise more, not to rethink how to re-capture the reader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Marketing is a Drug Addiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising is= Content. Content delivers Links
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Become an issue? You'd have to be fairly foolish to believe that any content is truly unbiased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Twinrova
You point out that adding content in a "product placement" type of way can be annoying, and Mike agrees, that makes it bad content and as you said, you'll stop watching. Same with the unskipable dvd previews, the video game, and the 30 minute commercials on TV. whether or not they pass the savings on to you with cheaper games, dvd's, or however doesn't change the fact that if you get pissed off, they made bad content. Bad content looses viewers in an "attention economy" and won't thrive as you pointed out.
I think the thing you missed (and maybe disagree about) is that Mike thinks (and I am beginning to agree) that there is an unlimited number of ways to get your "ads" watched with actual useful content in the way that techdirt does (with blog analysis "advertising" their knowledge and driving customers and courting potential talent), or the Dove "real beauty" campaign, or the aforementioned BMW videos.
All of these examples are not forcing people to watch (like putting those awful flash adds up) but actually encouraging people find your content because it adds value to their lives. Ever heard of Terry Tate Office Linebacker? I actually visited the Reebok site to watch some of those, and I visit and respect Techdirt enough that I might use their services if I ever needed them, and I had friends show me the "real beauty" video online.
Of course bad content will fail, but where you and Mike are talking through each other is simply that he is assuming (correctly or not)that there are enough ways to create meaningful value and get an "advertisers" word out in a way that is not intrusive, but the opposite, wanted! This looks nothing like what marketers think of, but works just as well (or better), and means that eventually, ANY in your face advertising (Eidos included)is going to disadvantage itself against other content which could/would be created by others which is ACTUALLY valuable rather than pretending to be (like the stride gum which added nothing valuable to the story line and obviously detracted from it)
I could be wrong about this, but I think that Mike is looking ahead beyond the immediate future when shows/movies/games can trade a little bit of their credibility or worthiness by annoying in-your face placements. Eventually, however, those efforts will be drowned out because people won't watch the shows (as you threatened) because there are plenty of things more valuable to watch (and if you do watch them, it's because it actually give you more value than alternatives even with the IYF ads)
Come to think of it, it's not that far away! You pointed out you wouldn't accept it on your shows, and I don't know about you, but I remember the web addresses that use the most annoying flash adds and avoid them next time I'm clicking. If you don't by Eidos's games because with adds it's not worth $60 anymore, they go out of business, the flash adds sites lose readership, and shows loose ratings and go off the air.
Contrast this with the examples I gave, or with apple's adds which people actually look up and view online because they think they are funny, or silly, or whatever, but they watch them despite being REALLY blatant. It is in these ways that Mike is saying that advertising is content, and viewed that way it really does seem to be an infinite number of ways to "advertise" non-forcefully (as infinite as content is anyway!).
If there are an infinite number of ways to do it, then you won't have the problem of all marketers trying to make BMW style movies, or tv shows being nothing but product placement, or the internet being so full of banners that you can't see the article. Anytime marketers push it to far and make the content less useful than alternatives, say by interfering with the objectivity of game reviews, or too many product placements, or to many commercials, or anything else that is not actually useful and wanted by consumers, then viewers will not choose to watch, and thus the ads won't work.
Advertisement and consumers need not be mutually opposed, despite what current marketers think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
plz send me the banner of advertsing companies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
plz send me the banner of advertsing companies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing new here
In my eyes, Banners will become much more interactive incorporating videos and other types of media which will allow the user to get mosre information without clicking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely correct!
Since Google rolled out Panda algorithm, content even getting more important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
advertising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising
Sure, content does advertise. But any content of any value also does much more. Much, much more than an advertisement can ever aspire to. It informs, educates, shapes opinion, entertains, awakens the faculties, and is BENEFICIAL TO A READER/VIEWER IN AND BY ITSELF and in ways far better.
A banner or billboard that advertises, say, Apple's laptops doesn't quite measure up to the info, specs, and presentation of those laptops on Apple's site, relevant manuals, or even online reviews. Ads and content only share the function of promotion. That does NOT make them the same thing.
That's what's different about content, in fact. It's just way better than advertisement. No need to confuse readers by putting the two on the same pedestal. They are totally, irrevocably, and decidedly different. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There isn't much new on the internet
If they didn't serve some basic purpose, they wouldn't exist. At their most basic level, they are the start of all marketing buzz. They inform people who are otherwise unaware of your product or service. Sure you can target customers, but if they aren't even aware of your existence then they aren't going to even notice your focus on them.
Advertising is marketing, but marketing is not advertising. The internet may be a level playing field, but if you don't understand the game in the first place then you are hopelessly outmatched. This counts for those who are on the internet and don't understand marketing and those who understand marketing and don't understand the internet. Tactics aren't strategies and strategies aren't tactics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing is Content and Content is Marketing
As an Education Marketing enthusiast, I personally view Advertising as Marketing...as Yes, I know, there is a different between the two technically...however, the basic premise of promoting a message remains the same.
I appreciate the "Captive Audience is dead" point you mentioned because we do live in a somewhat of an ADD type of society. Everything happens so fast in today's world that finding a captive audience is quite tough. Which is why at our firm, we focus on our Education Marketing as a vehicle to be creative, appealing, and relevant to a targeted group of people that are interested in what we have to say. Thanks
- Rob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ads, content public media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What ads?
Adblock Plus
Ghostery
CookieCuller
BetterPrivacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zeitgeist can't come soon enough..
I came to this conclusion years ago when I was reading an article in the NY Times about yet another pitiful drought/starvation cycle in Bangladesh and right next to it was an even more disgusting ad for a five million dollar house in the Hamptons and Tiffanys, right next to that. Talk about cognitive dissonance...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its not content, its just trying to sell us shit you can even stand behind..
Nice that you want people to do what you say, but not what you do.. Hypocrites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising is content???
we need less bullshit advertising.I swear the money spent supporting this uneeded bullshit.even if i like something if i see it at 2am in an infomercial i refuse to buy it!f***,ads,f***the commercial! they need to split the internet.commercial/non-commercial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising Is Content; Content Is Advertising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How internet advertising should work
As you can tell, I'm not the typical customer, so probably I have bad advice. But I doubt I'm truly more clueless than the social phenomena I see, so do advertising right, I would suggest:
1. ADVERTISING IS PART OF THE PUBLICATION. The ads should be marked, of course, but they should not use any scripts that are different from the publication itself (which defeats adblocks, but also prevents viruses and obnoxiousness). A print publication should strive for good old print ads that would look right at home in a 1960s newspaper.
2. ADVERTISING IS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ADVERTISER to degrade reader privacy or track his reading. I know degrading privacy, working with the NSA, is what seems to bring the big bucks, but I think long term (judging by Facebook, *really* long term) a publication that isn't spying on its readers and stays simple and true will come out ahead.
3. PUBLISHERS SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO VERIFY AD READERSHIP in any special way whatsoever. No counters, no web bugs, no nothing -- they should put out their publication, see how big a mark it makes, and over time, try to persuade advertisers of what that's worth based on reputation and non-invasive overall readership estimates without trying to prove they had exactly N impressions. Let customers fill out a survey with the advertiser if the advertiser wants more feedback, but not on the publisher site.
4. PUBLISHERS SHOULD INDEX ADS PERMANENTLY because they are a part of their publication. You should be able to look up an ad from five years ago just like an article, and if the product is still sold, you should be able to find and buy it. (Admittedly with the degradation of the "modern" web you are hard pressed to do the latter, if the trendy types have been near a site)
5. PUBLISHERS SHOULD SET STANDARDS FOR ADS to ensure they are useful to the customer. These will vary by site but could involve a requirement to include a direct SPECIFIC product link, a price, or other information, or that they be relevant to the publication's focus, or that they be for "interesting" products. The customer should be given the opportunity and reason to learn that clicking a link to an ad from *your* site will be productive.
6. DESIRABLE/INTERESTING PRODUCTS SHOULD GET A DISCOUNT or even a free ad. The more "cool ads" salted in with the others, the more all boats rise. The publication should work to present itself not merely as a whore for every dollar but as an at least somewhat faithful guide and companion to the reader in the marketplace
Note: none of these things is a truly valid alternative to abolishing copyright and providing a basic income and encouraging non-profit organizations to take over publishing, etc. But maybe it would be an improvement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising is cancer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey,This is really Awesome post.thanks for your suitable tips..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overseas Educational Consultants
'Western Academy' helps you to prepare for the various compulsory tests that you need to clear before you can enroll at any overseas universities. These include tests like IELTS, PTE, GRE, GMAT, SAT, TOEFL, SPOKEN ENGLISH, & GERMAN. Our well-experienced trainers provide immense coaching and take mock tests to ensure that you give your best performance.
We also provide global educational services in some of the preferred countries such as USA, UK, Canada, Germany, Australia, New Zealand & Ireland. Our key activity lies in assisting the students to make the right choice with regard to pursue their education in study abroad institutions.
https:/www.westernacademy.co.in
98509 98509 / 9503125060
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roadrunner email login- Roadrunner login account- roadrunner.com
Roadrunner Email is one of the most significant mailing administrations and is additionally known to be the best. Time Warner Company or TWC gives the Roadrunner Email login ( https://spectrumemail-login.com/roadrunner-email/ ) . Roadrunner is otherwise called RR email. Roadrunner is perhaps the best supplier of the web in the United States.
From reaching companions to settling a negotiation in business Roadrunner webmail has become a significant part. A huge number of web clients utilize this webmail and this is useful for both business and individual purposes. This is fundamentally a free assistance. The organization from the start utilized the name Roadrunner before being taken over by TWC or Time Warner Cable.
Advantages of Roadrunner Email
A portion of the advantages will drag you to utilize the Roadrunner Email. The advantages are given underneath
Correspondence is significant for any business. You can speak with your staff for nothing. Your staff as well as build up correspondence with your customers and expected clients.
The compass of the Roadrunner Email is exceptionally enormous. A worldwide sim is significant for accomplishing different components of the globe through phones and cell phones.
The Time Warner Email login helps in saving the record of exchanges for the organizations. You can without much of a stretch reverify your exchanges and past information just by observing the file and this is useful too.
This Roadrunner Email is a decent spot for putting away the information of customers like the location. Customer's companions, clients, and others. You can undoubtedly recover it whenever in the location book.
Automated assistant is there which will help you in connecting with buyers and clients without checking the mail. This technique is exceptionally fast just as advantageous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Top 10 Gym Equipment Manufacturers in China: The Definite Guide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right clothes improves performance
There are certain Gym Wear that consists of aerodynamic features which eventually multiplies your performance ability. Hence, in this case you need to wear performance oriented clothing that is made with artificially modified fabrics. Apart from that, look out for qualities like compression ability, breathability as well as flexibility of the fabric.
Visit Us and Shop Now at https://neleus.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]