But internet advertising is a relatively lousy form of advertising. Compare to print and radio ads.
I hear a radio ad. It is interesting. I write down the number and call the person. Not ideal, but I am reminded by the medium that I must act now or else I lose the info of the ad. Same with tv ads. But even to ensure people can follow up you have to have the ad repeated over and over.
With print ads, I can cut them out and save them. Less urgency, and a lot of durability.
Online advertising, with the possible exception of advertising on search engines, provides the illusion of durability without delivering it. So it's an inferior medium.
I am not saying that online advertisements are doomed. I think we haven't figured out how to do it, and borrowing print analogies isn't sufficient. Or perhaps, if we are going to borrow print analogies we ought to take them all the way (selling ad space on specific pages on a non-rotating basis for example).
I agree that there are a lot of advancements to be made. However, my experience is that Internet ads are already more effective.
But forget all that, are you ready to bet me $1 over the future of online ads? Go ahead and formulate the terms. I'll take the optimistic side and you can have the pessimistic side of whatever you come up with.
I will say that in my experience, depending on audience, I have found radio ads and general PR efforts to both be more effective at reaching consumers than I have found internet ads. Speaking strictly of ROI.
I am willing to say that the following forms of advertising are doomed:
* rotating banners
* rotating in-content image ads
* pop-up ads (whether div- or window-based)
* side-bar ads in content
The real challenge I think is to replicate the success at search engine advertisement (which seems to be good) elsewhere. For this reason I think that whatever ends up working will be very different than what we have now.
I'm asking for a bet on the future of Internet advertising generally. Not to take a collection of the shittiest known implementations of advertising and bet on them.
I'll interpret your response to mean you think Internet advertising (considered broadly) will be successful, and I agree with you. In contrast with the technology review post which predicts some sort of bizarre general "collapse" of the Internet (presumably of advertising as a business model).
If not please reform your bet accordingly.
ps, love to engage in an email discusion to hear more about the radio and pr(?) campaigns you have run that have worked better than Internet media.
I hear a radio ad. It is interesting. I write down the number and call the person. Not ideal, but I am reminded by the medium that I must act now or else I lose the info of the ad. Same with tv ads. But even to ensure people can follow up you have to have the ad repeated over and over.
With print ads, I can cut them out and save them. Less urgency, and a lot of durability.
Online advertising, with the possible exception of advertising on search engines, provides the illusion of durability without delivering it. So it's an inferior medium.
I am not saying that online advertisements are doomed. I think we haven't figured out how to do it, and borrowing print analogies isn't sufficient. Or perhaps, if we are going to borrow print analogies we ought to take them all the way (selling ad space on specific pages on a non-rotating basis for example).