[thelist] C|Net's Redesign / Interesting argument...

[martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com]

Memo from Martin P Burns of PricewaterhouseCoopers

-------------------- Start of message text --------------------





Please respond to thelist at lists.evolt.org
To:   thelist at lists.evolt.org
cc:


Subject:  RE: [thelist] C|Net's Redesign / Interesting argument...



>Like you, I have strong reservations about the blurring, but increasingly I
>believe it's only a problem when ads are specifically disguised as content.
>Everything has a context, a slant. On my satellite system, CNN sees (say)
>the Israeli elections in a different light to that of BBC World.

And BBC World views the news with the influence of the UK government
who part-fund the World Service.

>Sad, but true - the ads that win awards have rarely delivered a meaningful
>ROI to the people who payed for them. The ads that make the chattering
>classes smile because of their audacity have a startling ability to turn off
>many more real people than they turn *on* artistic, sensitive types.

So, I might add, do 'clever', 'arty' websites. If you want to do groundbreaking,
breathtaking, beautiful art on your site, sure. If you're doing it on my site
(or one where I'm supporting a client) it will deliver ROI. If that means it's
ugly as sin, then it'll be as ugly as sin (I do believe that effective sites
can be beautiful, but only when and if it supports the commercial objectives).

>A`waste of resources? It costs a *lot* to produce a newspaper. It costs more
>than most people are willing to pay for an advertising-free paper.

But you're thinking in terms of a static (or at best editionalised), one-time,
everyone gets the same paradigm. With personalisation, this is not necessarily
true. There's absolutely no reason why you couldn't have 2 versions of the
information: ad free (but the user has to bear a fair, economic cost), or ad-
supported (and therefore very cheap or free).

>Nope, it's why it's called "media" - a medium for selling, in short

Nope. Media for *communication*, of which media for selling are a large
subset. Unless you're thinking that the BBC isn't a media organisation...

>I'm inherently *for* advertising, because it lest me get stuff I otherwise
>wouldn't be able to afford.
I come back to the element of choice - I'm inherently for the choice to receive
the content
I need either free (via advertising) or at an economic cost. And you have to be
clear that
the chinese wall between advertising and content is there - in many magazines
(the beauty
industry being a chief culprit, but the computer industry is also guilty), it
isn't:
<http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2001020522064.gif>

Cheers
Martin


--------------------- End of message text --------------------

The principal place of business of PricewaterhouseCoopers and its associate
partnerships is 1 Embankment Place, London WC2N 6NN where lists of the
partners' names are available for inspection. All partners in the associate
partnerships are authorised to conduct business as agents of, and all
contracts for services to clients are with, PricewaterhouseCoopers. The UK
firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers is authorised by the Institute of Chartered
Accountants in England and Wales to carry on investment business.
PricewaterhouseCoopers is a member of the world-wide
PricewaterhouseCoopers organisation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Any
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action
in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.