To Netpreneur Exchange HomeTo Discuss 
Main Page

AdMarketing | Funding & Finance | Netpreneur Corner | News Center | Quick Guide | Home

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

AM: Re: Full-page force-feed advertising

To:     BilodeauA@aol.com
Subject:     AM: Re: Full-page force-feed advertising
From:     Jim Harmon <jharmon@telecnnct.com>
Date:     Sun, 31 May 1998 22:25:05 -0400
CC:     ad-market@netpreneur.org
Organization:     The Telephone Connection
References:     <6e939824.3571ede9@aol.com>

BilodeauA@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Hi all:
> 
> I've very much enjoyed reading your discussions, which, as far as I 
> can tell are a resounding vote against  the full-screen, 
> forced-advertising concept. Even so, it may be worth further 
> exploration, as some form of that concept could possibly gain some 
> steam as desperate advertisers experiment.

There definitely may be a place for full-page uninterruptible
"commercials".

It's just not prudent to make it a force-fed issue. (IMO)

In fact, I think folks would actually WELCOME such advertising if it's
truly fast in the downloading, and if the user has the CHOICE of viewing
it.

A cultural barrier to any form of "push" technology exists on the Web
from the END USER Point of View.  Advertisers who wish to reach these
people in the best possible mode have to respect that, and work with it.

Not "in your face" it.

> As some of you know, I'm a reporter/editor/researcher specializing in 
> Internet topics.  If any of you have any comments for me, I'd 
> appreciate a note off list as to whether this topic is worth expanding 
> into a story or not.

I think it definitely deserves a published story in the forum that folks
like Amon at IC have direct access to.

It's all well and good to have literature in a field that supportive of
the group that field represents, but if you get too vertical, and too
focused on the insider's POV, you're bound to miss what the outsider's
opinion is.

This is a story that needs to be told in traditional advertising
"insider" rags.

> Just because it seems like a bad idea doesn't mean that there aren't 
> other issues worth researching...

Actually, it seems to me that discussion on what is wrong with an idea,
as long as it's not a "slamfest" has the definite potential for
suggesting new and workable solutions.

> Cheers,
> 
> Anne Zieger

I finished reading all the published information on the IC Web site.

The two founding members of IC seem to be approaching this strictly from
the traditional advertising medium POV.  They seem to believe they can
mold the Web to traditional standards.

I think they're wrong, and >5 years of Web Advertising "lack of success"
stories would tend to verify that.  The success stories cited for
Banners are questionable at best, and the sites that show measureable
increase in actual sales are almost exclusively passive in their
marketting techniques.

Passive in the sense that they let the customers choose to come in, not
dumping unsolicited commercial ads in the user's mail, with signifigant
TRADITIONAL marketing channels supplementing their WEB presence.

(Ex:  Amazon.com has radio ads on most major stations, most corporations
	are adding web-site information to their TV commercials.)
-- 
   Jim Harmon                           The Telephone Connection
jim@telecnnct.com                          Rockville, Maryland

AdMarketing | Funding & Finance | Netpreneur Corner
News Center | Quick Guide | Home

By using this site, you signify your agreement to all terms, conditions, 
and notices contained or referenced in the Netpreneur Access Agreement
If you do not agree to these terms, please do not use this site. Our privacy policy.
Content copyright 1996-2016 Morino Institute. All rights reserved.

Morino Institute