> Advertising works in traditional magazines because they are extending the content. It is part of the content itself. It provides editorial value.
The magazines shown are pretty much advertisements themselves -- the editorial value of the content is very low. Look to magazines that aren't about shilling product and I suspect the difference is minimal.
> Traditional advertising extends the content, and enhances the value. Online advertising disrupts the content, clutters up the page, and lowers the value.
On a site I used to work on, we handled our own advertising and only allowed ads that matched the subject area of the site. We had an unprecedented click-through rate on our ads. In many cases, users considered the ads as valuable as the content.
So I agree with the author in that ads related to the content do better than ads which don't. However, his conclusion is completely wrong -- there isn't anything specifically online or offline about it.
I agree that the mechanisms behind lower success aren't specific to digital, but they do often apply more.
Much of it is about honesty and trust. Beyond relevancy, most of us have learned to distrust and ignore ads. Certainly even in traditional media, the U.S. has had lower standards as far as claims and truthfulness go. So the credibility value of ads has declined. Of course trust for vendors online with no physical address or phone number (not that a phone means much anymore) will be even lower.
It really hit me a while back when talking to someone dealing with selling hardware and landscape supplies. He went on and on about the great results he got advertising on Spanish speaking radio compared to other stations (rural area in California, not a major station). The audience, much of it illegal aliens, regards the station as a trusted friend compared to the rest of the world around them. Some of the trust rubs off on the advertisers. (This was a long time ago, I'm sure the trust has eroded some) Looking at Spanish radio was a bit like looking back in time at English speaking stations and earlier days in media.
We're in an era where the public sees through most online sites as being there solely to make money by nearly any means, not out of any love for a particular skill or interest and desire to make a living from it.
The shift from local owners to large corporations or VC groups has accelerated the shrinkage of trust in broadcast media. The anonymous or corporate behavior of most online sites is even worse. Unless you've acted in a way to make people love you, you're more apt to be ignored. (There's a major lesson to learn from Apple here!)
How many sites actually care if their advertisers are a good thing for their readers? How many sites don't support data-mining of their viewers?
If you treat your readers as hog bellies to sell to advertisers they'll grow to hate you. Look at how many people feel towards broadcast tv. (NBC stands out)
(To whom it may apply) Your ethics are showing and you're paying the price.
It's interesting to see results from the strategy the author said "worked" in the article.
I've also noticed something similar in television ads. On a golf telecast, for instance, many ads are about golf products, but not all. They are about products that demographic might like, such as luxury sedans or investing. Does the same thing apply to online ads?
Indeed, you are quite right. We frequently target specific artist pages and their related artists and also specific genre and have been for many years. It is a major selling point in a cut-throat industry.
Over the entire history of the site, one of our more clever types of ads has a 1.54% click through rate on 41 million impressions. The general subject area of the site: Coffee.
> Advertising works in traditional magazines because they are extending the content. It is part of the content itself. It provides editorial value.
The magazines shown are pretty much advertisements themselves -- the editorial value of the content is very low. Look to magazines that aren't about shilling product and I suspect the difference is minimal.
> Traditional advertising extends the content, and enhances the value. Online advertising disrupts the content, clutters up the page, and lowers the value.
On a site I used to work on, we handled our own advertising and only allowed ads that matched the subject area of the site. We had an unprecedented click-through rate on our ads. In many cases, users considered the ads as valuable as the content.
So I agree with the author in that ads related to the content do better than ads which don't. However, his conclusion is completely wrong -- there isn't anything specifically online or offline about it.