Comments on: Why online advertising sucks, and is a bubble

By: Deception : Contact Media

Deception : Contact Media — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:17:11 +0000

[...] Searls has an interesting post about online advertising that demonstrates why deceptive advertising gimmicks not only do not work, [...]

By: David Havard

David Havard — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:43:51 +0000

Fortunately there has been so much money wasted on irrelevant ads resulting in wasted ad spend that advertisers are starting to see sense, and put the user experience first. Outside of the spammer world they are increasingly focusing on making sure ads are highly relevant. This is largely being driven by a desire for increased conversions but also by google charging more for ads that it does not deem relevant. Each ad now has a relevancy ratings and this heavily impacts how much the advertiser will pay for each click.

When advertisers start paying over the odds for ads that do not convert, we can be pretty sure they will start to get their acts together!

This is certainly a move in the right direction – lets hope it’s a quick one.

By: Doc Searls Weblog · After the advertising bubble bursts

Doc Searls Weblog · After the advertising bubble bursts — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:38:50 +0000

[...] and has been since it was invented more than a century ago. I’ve been saying this for many years, including last month right [...]

By: Doc Searls

Doc Searls — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:53:56 +0000

James, my post wasn’t about the good advertising, but the bad. If all of online advertising were done your way, that would be way cool. Alas, too much of it is not.

Another way of putting it: you’re configured to survive the bursting of the bubble. Hats off.

Meanwhile I’ll keep working on approaching the market from the demand side. Symbiosis at work. Cheers.

By: james dunford wood

james dunford wood — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:48:18 +0000

Contextual advertising does not have to be irrelevant or intrusive. My site http://www.worldreviewer.com is both publisher and advertising network, and I think is an example of where content does not need to be trash. We run our own text based ads (in addition to the usual banners, and some google ads) from travel company partners, and clearly we want people to click out on our partners ads. But if they click too quick, and are irrelevant, my partners will not renew, so my job is to drive them, relevant, contextual traffic – if you are reading a post about the ’serengeti migration in Tanzania’, chances are that you might want to know how to get there and see it, and who is running tours to there.
It’s a healthy balance. No different from a print magazine – they won’t survive if they don’t deliver readers who are interested in their advertisers.

By: links for 2008-10-25 :

links for 2008-10-25 : — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:02:58 +0000

[...] Doc Searls Weblog · Why online advertising sucks, and is a bubble Annotated link http://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.law.harvard.edu%2Fdoc%2F2008%2F10%2F21%2Fwhy-online-advertising-sucks-and-is-a-bubble (tags: industry economy online advertising) [...]

By: Jim Bursch

Jim Bursch — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 21:28:24 +0000

Ad-supported media is corrupt and corrupting and deserves to die.

The solution is to separate advertising from media, which will allow each to fully realize their full potential. In the case of advertising, it is as information about what is available in the marketplace. In the case of media, it is as information that serves its audience.

For media, the only legitimate business model is paid content, mostly in the form of subscription (Netflix is my current favorite model). For journalism, I think it would be a combination of subscription and patronage, along the lines of public broadcasting (sans government subsidy). Community journalism has to be treated as a public good, not private property.

For advertising, the solution is to treat mindshare/attention as private property that can be bought/sold/traded by the owners — which would be you, me and everybody else who has a mind. The demand comes from advertisers, the supply comes from consumers.

My Mindshare 10-point Declaration

1. My mindshare is mine.

2. My mindshare has real monetary value.

3. I have a right sell, trade, or keep my mindshare as I choose.

4. Nobody is entitled to take my mindshare without my permission.

5. Unsolicited and intrusive advertising amounts to mindshare theft.

6. Mindshare theft is wrong.

7. I have a right to resist mindshare theft.

8. I demand media that does not deal in stolen mindshare.

9. I support media that respects my mindshare.

10. The world is better when individuals control their mindshare and their media.

By: Doc Searls

Doc Searls — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:05:28 +0000

Chip, the kind of advertising you do is a perfect example of what Google and its best advertisers do right.

What CCH does in the example I gave is to devalue advertising, and to devalue Google along with it.

I think there will always be a place for good advertising. But in the long run newer and better ways will be found for demand to find supply, as well as vice versa.

IMHO, etc.

By: Deception « ContactMedia

Deception « ContactMedia — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:15:02 +0000

[...] extreme example but there are plenty of instances where the deception is subtle. Doc Searls has an interesting post about online advertising that demonstrates why deceptive advertising gimmicks not only do not work, [...]

By: Chip

Chip — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:20:58 +0000

Doc
Quick 2cents
Background – I’ve used adwords since about the first 3months of launch.
But selling food products, targeting food buyers.

“Dried Morel Mushrooms” and Earthy.com comes up.
Very targeted, specific.
Beauty is that you can be “granular”

As a matter of fact, in my mind, the more granular the better.
I don’t like generic terms “Gourmet Baskets” – nope but Fresh Chanterelles, not only do we hit the search term, but we advertise next to the term.

Note that I’ve passed all upkeep to staff.
Ciao
Chip