Effective Internet Advertising: It's the Content, Stupid
Internet advertisers appear to be engaged in the next step of suckifying the web with intrusive advertising. Not that this is new.
The advertisers gave us blinking animated GIF banners that took forever to download over our dialup lines. We blocked them, using hosts file hacks and HTTP stream analysis and modification (ah, System 7, how we miss thee) and eventually browser hacks. And advertisers created Flash banners, which slipped through filters designed to look for GIF/JPEG filters. We blocked those, too. And the advertisers created popups, and we blocked those. And popunders, and popafters. Also blocked.
Today, every major browser includes some sort of intrusive advertising blocking, and there are about seventy thousand FireFox extensions to block the remaining ads.
And the advertisers? They keep finding more ways to intrude.
Today, I noticed an ad at Boston.com on a coworker's screen (screenshot). A bottle of wine superimposed itself over the page content, poured its contents into a sidebar ad, then went away – preventing her from actually reading the content for several seconds while they ran their ad.
Imagine countless thousands of hours of time sucked from the world's productivity because advertisers want attention.
The problem here is that these ads suck.
Good advertising will attract attention to itself without being intrusive. Want to see a great example? Check out ZipCar's ad on The Onion. It's funny, it's short, and it makes its point.
Or this clever, outside the box (literally) vodka ad, also at The Onion.
At the end of the day today, I remember being annoyed by Boston.com, and a really funny Smirnoff ad. Guess what brand of vodka I'll buy next time I go to the store? And what newspaper I won't pick up?
In a nutshell
If you want to produce a compelling internet advertisement, don't jerk the user's attention around – it just annoys us.
Instead, give us truly good content. Funny, informative, attractive – all three, if you can manage it – and we'll click your ad.
Update: Penny Arcade discusses advertising. Coincidence, I swear.
Comments
For some reason, I don't mind it in print newspapers. Some of these look cool:
The other day I was on Boston.com and this Skier came across the screen and snow started falling everywhere followed by a promotion for an early ski pass. At first I thought it was kinda cool and I wondered how they did that but I was a little annoyed that I couldn't find the close button.
I agree with General User #2,567, I bet the advertising money is to good to pass up and with actual print subscriptions dwindling I bet we're going to see more creative ways to pay the bills.
General User #2,567 is correct that most websites would run the ad. I'd be inclined to take the advertiser's money if I were running such a site. On the other hand, he/she missed Robert's point entirely. Advertising is supposed to make a FAVORABLE impression on the reader. I am personally very annoyed by these ads. They cover over the content I'm trying to read. I close them as soon as they come up. I rarely notice who the ad is for, and when I do I make a mental note not to buy anything from them in the future. Advertisers would be well advised not to spend their marketing budgets on ads that annoy potential customers.
Read something more recent.
Statements and opinions expressed in this blog and any comments made are the private opinions of the respective poster, and, as such, iMarc LLC is neither responsible nor liable for such content.
Visitors
I'd find it hard to believe that if you were offered approximately $20,000 to run that ad on your blog for a month that you would turn it down in favor of producing compelling content.
Boston.com, like any other Internet publisher, relies on advertising dollars to pay its employees. If an advertiser wants to do something -- for a given price -- most sites will gladly comply.