a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by iamfight
iamfight  ·  4640 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: John R. MacArthur: Internet con men ravage publishing
hah. he basically said that a tastefully done full-page advert opposite an article in newsweek, etc, would be more likely to draw a positive/favorable response than a banner-ad, a pop up ad, or even an animated flashing banner pop up.

frankly, i agree with him. and just in case youre still skeptical: why does adblock exist, if not to bypass the obnoxiousness of the google model?

that being said, i agree with your "go directly to the consumer" point. thats a newish idea that has worked out well on several fronts, but requires a certain amount of several other factors to work successfully... the standard seems to be google ads, and i agree that print ads were much less obnoxious, and therefore much more likely to get done whatever the advertisers had in mind.

and finally, i hate ads. on tv, in mags/comics, before movies, and anywhere else; but the google model (much like the billboard) has out-shouted any interest i could have possibly had in any product, to the point where i specifically AVOID said products.

edit just for fun: my favorite part was "inability to hide derision", followed by the rest of your point. heh.





dublinben  ·  4640 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I would argue that Google's targeted text advertising has always been the least egregious advertising anywhere on the web. They've never (to my knowledge) used colorful graphics, moving images, sound, popups, scantily clad fantasy women, or malicious programs to deliver their advertising like so many other internet advertising companies have.

I would much rather live with intelligently targeted, non-offensive, plain text advertising than the insultingly stupid, full color advertising that fills print and broadcast media. I'm right with you in hating advertising in all its forms, but you must give Google credit for dramatically redefining what online advertising meant. Their enormous success is the perfect testament to the power of tasteful advertisement.

ecib  ·  4640 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I'm all for paying for content that is quality that can't be duplicated elsewhere for a cheaper cost :) That's the problem for content creators. The internet = a lot more of them. As much as high production cost, high quality content creators wish to believe otherwise, they are often selling a product that their customer does not want or need. The internet is riddled with non-profesional content that people love to consume.

    frankly, i agree with him. and just in case youre still skeptical: why does adblock exist, if not to bypass the obnoxiousness of the google model?

Ah, but that says nothing about the viability of the model itself. Is advertising online a sustainable business model? Of course it is.

    and finally, i hate ads. on tv, in mags/comics, before movies, and anywhere else; but the google model (much like the billboard) has out-shouted any interest i could have possibly had in any product, to the point where i specifically AVOID said products.

If there are enough of you to matter, this sentiment represents exactly the business opportunity that the author implies does not exist.

    edit just for fun: my favorite part was "inability to hide derision", followed by the rest of your point. heh.

I was referring to the personal attacks and gross mischaracterizations :

| that I found myself trapped in a corridor at Harper's, surrounded by a small mob of what I can't help but refer to as "young people."|

    because the Internet salesmen claimed, in sly mimicry of the indigenous tribesmen,

    I've recently come to realize that the Internet huckster/philosophers are first cousins -

| In the long run, I think I'll be vindicated, since clearly the advertising "model" has failed and readers are going to have to pay (in opposition to Google's bias against paid sites) if they want to see anything more complex than a blog, a classified ad or a sex act.|

    doesn't make "Zuck" any more attractive

Like I said. He comes across as extremely elitist and upset. I think he would have better served himself by arguing his points for the various business models on the merits.

    that being said, i agree with your "go directly to the consumer" point. thats a newish idea that has worked out well on several fronts, but requires a certain amount of several other factors to work successfully... the standard seems to be google ads, and i agree that print ads were much less obnoxious, and therefore much more likely to get done whatever the advertisers had in mind.

THIS is where the change is happening. Here is the tremendous opportunity for content creators, as well as their biggest pitfall if they get it wrong in this changing landscape imho.

iamfight  ·  4640 days ago  ·  link  ·  
i think youre mixing up your (and for that matter, my) image of "what it should be" with his arguably accutate observations of "what it is". the article was obviously biased, but its description and criticism of the google model, which unfortunately seems to be the standard lately, was relatively accurate; ads on webpages are obnoxious to a fault, and it wasnt always like that. you have to admit, its a valid observation. and cmon, dont mix my quotes with his in the reply...thats just...misleading?
ecib  ·  4640 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Hmm. I actually have to disagree strongly with Internet adds on web pages being worse nowadays. Back in the web 1.0 days and before, landing on a web page often meant a cascade of pop ups that often would be coded to be unable to click away, or pop back up when you closed them. In today's world with modern web browsers, I have not had to deal with even a minor instance of that behavior in over 3 or maybe 4 years.

I wasn't trying to mix your quotes up. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I thought I prefaced his quotes clearly and your words are right above for context since i was replying. I was in a bit of a rush when I wrote that though.