It's Not Ad Standards That Have Killed The Online Ad Business
from the it's-crappy,-annoying-ads dept
We've been pointing out for some time that any business that relies on traditional display advertising to make money is in for a world of hurt because almost no one pays attention to those ads. There's a simple reason for this: they're not at all relevant or useful. They're often annoying. And, most importantly, they're not what anyone is on a page to see. When people surf to a web page, they're looking for the useful content -- and most advertising is not useful content.This seems rather obvious, but it hasn't stopped some folks who tend to rely on such bad display advertising from trying to rationalize why that market is rapidly shrinking. The NY Times quotes MSNBC.com's president, Charles Tillinghast, who says the real reason that display advertising is drying up is because the IAB agreed to standard sizes for display advertisements earlier this decade. To him, that meant that the display ads were distributed everywhere via ad networks, creating over-supply and commoditization, driving down prices.
While I don't deny that there may be an oversupply -- I doubt that a more limited supply would have made a big difference. The problem isn't with the supply. It's with the demand. Most people don't want such useless advertising, so they ignore it (sometimes with help from Adblock). If you want to make advertising work, the issue isn't getting rid of standardization, or worrying about commoditization, it's about making the advertisements into good content that people actually want to participate with, rather than annoying "ads" that they want to avoid.
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, advertising, content, display ads, standards
Companies: msnbc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What proliferation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The people who install those add-ons are so put off by ads that they cannot simply ignore them. I know that I have trouble reading text next to a flashing, moving, or even just a brightly colored static ad. They are distracting, useless, and a waste of my bandwidth. If I'm in the market for a product, I'll look for reviews, not advertisements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: 1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ads? what ads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ads? what ads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And yet...
We've said it before: if companies want to give us money for ineffective ads, who are we to turn them down? But, it represents less than 10% of our revenue, and if (when) it goes away, we're fine.
Companies that rely on display advertising, however...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are ineffective now...
Some interesting ones include the apple ads previously found on nytimes, or the site take overs (using standard ad sizes) on sites like 1up.com
disclaimer: i am in the display ad business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are ineffective now...
Do they get my attention? Sure. But I'm just as sure the emotions they inspire aren't the ones your clients wish to be associated with their brand and products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trad vs online
with online ads, web analytics and such, i think success is based on user clicks which i dont feel accurately portray the impact of directed advertising. users don't go to news sites to buy a sprint phone and contract. but they might go with sprint when their contract is up and they want a new phone because it suits their lifestyle (websites they visit).
the nature of advertising is kinda hokey; there aren't solid numbers to back it up but that's what business types are trying to do with user-clicks and web analytics. it's the wrong model for the industry so of course the market will shrink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Text Ads are OK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance is bliss.
Once again, the bigger picture is lost. Ignorant remarks like this points out the supporters of a model which is slowly dying.
To refrain from the ads=content argument, I'm going to coin a new term called "content switching", because that's exactly what it is. I'll do my best to refrain from using the word "ad" as I continue.
Consumers are getting tired of being subjected to content switching, regardless if it relates or not. Applications such as Adblock (Mozilla's top add-on) and services like DVR fast forwarding are being utilized to stop this content switching.
And surprise! It doesn't matter if the content switch request is entertaining or not! If the content switch is entertaining, a consumer is likely to watch it once. But after that, the content request becomes annoying, not entertaining.
Rarely are these content requests optional, most are forced. We see this happening every day, with banner messages on websites or television shows, to billboards and magazine insertions. Consumers are just getting tired of it.
Why? Because most content switching requests rarely, if ever, relate to the original content to which the consumer wanted to see.
Even if it did relate, the problem then turns to repetition. Once, fine. Twice, pushing luck. Over that, and annoyance sets in.
Consumers are finally pushing back by using tools and services to stop the requests for content switching regardless of "entertainment" value.
Isn't it about damn time advertisers listen and just go extinct?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They work for me
I'll never get rich like this, but I don't see this business going away anytime soon. It's growing quite nicely, in fact. As long as I can keep lots of useful, up-to-date content on the site, there will be a place for graphical ads. But NOT for some random casino or online dating site my visitors don't care about...
My graphical ads usually end up being more relevant than the google AdSense ads that I display as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But he's right!
I think we should go back to the days when all companies made their own bottles of what ever size they want so people will want beer again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Content?
I think advertisers know this, but the problem is simple: if you're looking to make "easy money" then it is much easier to just spew out annoying "ads" than to go to the trouble of making "good content".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ads Are White Noise
Ironically, for many companies looking to be noticed, they're too lazy to target, monitor, and maybe drug-test the ad agencies and so appear in stupid places or come up with Ads that make me want to NOT do business with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example, a positive review of a product, display various stores trying to sell that product or keywords matching said product. If I'm on a page reviewing heat-sinks it'd be nice to see ads related to that class of heat-sink.
Less intrinsic solutions might be advertisements for media on pages of interested and such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]