
Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet - vaksel
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/22/why-advertising-is-failing-on-the-internet/
======
axod
Just _slightly_ biased.

Also fails to understand how internet advertising is completely different.

>> "Consumers do not want to view advertising. Think of watching network TV
news and remember that the commercials on all the major networks are as
closely synchronized as possible. Why? If network executives believed we all
wanted to see the ads they would be staggered, so that users could channel
surf to view the ads; ads are synchronized so that users cannot channel surf
to avoid the ads."

TV advertising is an annoyance. It stops you from watching the program you
were watching. Advertising on the net is just extra data you can choose to
take advantage of, or ignore. Add to that the fact that much of the internet
advertising is commission based on sales which is completely trackable.

For a start, why would something like the Amazon affiliate program 'fail'?
Will people stop buying things from Amazon? Will they suddenly stop buying
them through affiliate links? I'd say probably not.

Don't believe the hype.

Also:

>> "My own research suggests that consumers behave as if they get much of
their information about product offerings from the internet, through
independent professional rating sites like dpreview.com or community content
rating services like Ratebeer.com or TripAdvisor"

Doesn't really make sense, since TripAdviser gets a cut of each reservation -
so it may be 'community content', but it's all still just advertising links.

~~~
erso
>Advertising on the net is just extra data you can choose to take advantage
of, or ignore.

Huh?

When I'm reading an article and there's big flashing graphics on either side
of the text, that's an annoyance.

~~~
axod
You might find it an annoyance, but it doesn't stop you reading the article.
If you're one of those people that can't just ignore it if it doesn't interest
you, you can block it pretty easily - small minority do.

I obviously disagree with the article, I find interesting things from adverts
all the time - competitors, services I didn't know about, products I might
think about buying some day. I _want_ to see adverts. Unobtrusive, targeted
adverts that show me stuff I want.

Obtrusive flashing banner advertising makes up a tiny proportion of
advertising, and isn't that effective at all.

------
billydean
Not really worth the time to read, same stuff that's been said before. Showing
a user an ad while they're searching for something works amazingly well -- any
other time it's a crap shoot.

For the foreseeable future I think the best way to advertise any web app or
other online service is with a blog and as many helpful, informative, thought
provoking posts as you can find the time to write. There are plenty of
examples of successful companies that have used this model -- building a brand
and a network simultaneously -- and there's no reason to think it's going
anywhere.

~~~
critic
> There are plenty of examples of successful companies that have used this
> model

Do you mean they used their blog as the main marketing effort? I'd like to
hear more about those.

It seems if the users are looking at your blog, they've found you already. Or
perhaps those companies created thousands of other blogs that were only used
for search engine optimization (linking back to their money blog)? That I can
understand.

~~~
brc
You're assuming that a purchase is done the instant a company/person is found.
What a blog does is build trust, familiarity and credibility in a particular
field. So there's two scenarios : one is a reader becomes familiar with you
and purchases a new offering (creating a channel and selling into it), the
other is a reader finds your product, skips through some of your blog posts
and decides to purchase based on the fact you appear to know what you are
talking about. (creating credibility)

Of course this only works if your blog posts are related to your product
offering.

------
andrewljohnson
I don't think all internet advertising will fail - there is often an ad that I
want to see on Google. I agree that obtrusive, tricky, seizure-inducing
display ads are no replacement for anything, but I don't buy the basic premise
that advertising on the internet is flawed.

I also don't like when academics ramble for pages and pages, without being
able to succinctly express their ideas. This guy should do a tour in writing
ad copy - I think that would have a very positive effect on his writing.

------
zaidf
Silly rhetoric lacking a clear argument and evidence to support the argument.

------
jrockway
Another problem with advertising is that usually I don't want the things that
are advertised. (At least in the case of non-contextual display advertising.)

For example, when I read the NYT I see ads for Target. This is a bad deal for
Target, because I already know they exist, and I buy toilet paper there every
week anyway. I don't shop there more often because they don't sell anything I
want, not because I don't know about them. (Other display advertising is
similar. I know Pepsi exists, but I think it tastes like shit. So wasting
money advertising isn't helping them; but improving their product would.)

~~~
brc
Advertising is not always about convincing you to buy, or convincing you to
change. A lot of brand building is simply to make you recognise the brand and
keep it in your mind. This has obviously worked in the case of Target and
Pepsi. There will always be a place for this type of advertising.

~~~
jrockway
But without advertising, I wouldn't forget about it. I walk past Target
everyday. I see Pepsi on the shelf at the store (actually, I don't... but most
people do). Etc., etc.

Advertising doesn't bother me at all, but I would really appreciate it if they
made a product I wanted isntead of spending their money trying to make me want
something I don't.

~~~
panotpon
"... made a product I wanted" = red ocean "...make me want something I don't."
= blue ocean (some what) I believe that most minds are easier to nudge than we
(non-marketers) classically believe.

------
jorgem
Google is really no better than adware from the old days. Sure the service
they provide is useful, but it's still adware in another package.

~~~
shard
I've always found Google's business model vaguely insidious, like they're
using my data against me.

~~~
jrockway
It's kind of like walking in a store, the sales person asking "what are you
looking for", and then the sales person trying to sell you that thing you're
looking for. This may be "insidious", but it's generally helpful for both
parties. Google ads are usually the same way. Google knows what sort of things
I want, and it reminds me from time to time. They make money, some random
advertiser makes money, and I get the thing I want.

~~~
shard
For me, it's closer to walking in to a library, the librarian asking "what are
you looking for", and then the librarian trying to sell me that thing I'm
looking for (which she gets a commission for).

~~~
trjordan
This model seems to work well for cars, high-end stereos, real estate,
insurance ...

------
rudyfink
I would argue advertising is doing just fine, perhaps better than ever. I see
sites like Engadget, Techcrunch and The Boy Genius as really just advertising.
I'd argue I have RSS feeds that are effectively entirely advertisements for
products and services: web services news, hardware news, software news, design
(eco), tshirts, design (3d and architecture), and local performance events.
Frankly, a large portion of the RSS feeds that are web content filters turn
out to be products/services too.

That is just in RSS land. In Twitter/im land, I have things that are
effectively advertising too.

------
colortone
The overall positive sentiment towards [semi-traditional] ad-based business
models in this conversation is very alarming.

The game isn't "improving advertising"; it's "reinventing communication
between buyers and sellers".

Those two things are way different.

Think about it this way: the less we all focus on making ads better, the more
polluted the mediascape becomes, _shrinking the pie for everyone_ ...instead
of growing it.

(that last insight via @umairh)

------
vinutheraj
Why can't advertising work on the internet if such intrusive advertising can
work through television ( atleast the companies think it works )

~~~
critic
I bet TV ads stopped working as well when TV remotes became popular.

~~~
anamax
Remotes don't help that much if commercials are synchronized. You might as
well just go to the bathroom.

HBO and movie channels break the synchronization.

~~~
critic
> if commercials are synchronized

Are they? If there are 9 synchronized channels and 1 that's not. I believe
that 1 wins, because everyone else switches there out of boredom.

~~~
keenerd
In the States, PBS does not run commercials. Yet the scarcity of people who
watch public broadcast may be evidence against that claim. (Maybe average
people prefer commercials?)

~~~
anamax
PBS does run commercials in the US. They're just in a different form.

However, it is true that PBS commercials are not synchronized with commercials
on the "standard" channels.

The reason that PBS doesn't win is that many folks prefer commercials to
PBS....

------
amichail
Currently, advertising only works on the Internet when people don't know it's
advertising either because it is not labeled as such or because a confusing
term is used (e.g., "Sponsored").

If you don't want to deceive users in this way, have ads about clever products
(NOT clever ads, but clever products such as the Segway, Rubik's Mirror
Blocks, etc.).

~~~
unalone
That's not true at all. Advertisements succeed or fail based on the nature of
the ad. I've clicked Google ads before despite the fact that they're very
obviously ads (different-colored backgrounds, text saying ads are ads). I've
clicked Facebook ads, which are put in a special Ad Zone of the page.

Clever ads don't make me buy things, but they get my attention. Clever
products? It's not a matter of clever, it's a matter of what I WANT. I would
never buy a Segway because of an online ad.

There is one tried-and-true method of making an ad work, and it works every
time: you make something people want, you find where you can put an ad that
the right people will see, and you make sure your ad describes your product
well. There's nothing "clever" to that, and there's no "confusing term"
tricking people. It's a simple matter of finding a customer.

~~~
amichail
_I've clicked Google ads before despite the fact that they're very obviously
ads (different-colored backgrounds, text saying ads are ads). I've clicked
Facebook ads, which are put in a special Ad Zone of the page._

What percentage of Google's revenue comes from people clicking ads that they
don't know are ads?

~~~
jacquesm
not as much as the amount that comes from fraudulent clicks.

