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

[Mike Hardaker]

> I have big reservations about blurring the line between ads and
> content  Yeah, it might make the ads better, and the navigation more
> seamless, but what does it do for the idea of free speech?

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. Both "free
speech" views are filtered through the editorial policies of the companies
in question. An ad is also filtered, and, as long as you know the ad is an
ad (rather than, say a review), it isn't important if the ad uses the same
format as editorial.

In Web terms, I guess I'm suggesting that a page of HTML is often a better
way of reaching potential customers than a flashing "click here" banner. It
can be obviously commercial, but it can use the tools traditionally reserved
for "content". Or are they "traditionally reserved"? Microsoft.com (to pick
a frequent top-10 site) is, in essence, MS's corporate brochure. It's full
of text, of "facts"... In short, it's content-rich. Banners, generally,
aren't.

> I don't understand the claim that TV ads can "enhance" viewer
> experience.

In that case I think you are falling into the trap of mapping your tastes on
those of others. Lots of people like ads. That you don't is, frankly,
irrelevant. Knowing that you don't (and recognising that good advertising
works for advertisers) should make you recognise that your career future is
probably not in advertising. And that knowledge is a Good Thing. I, for
example, don't know why people like most modern Country music. That doesn't
make it bad - it merely suggests that I should not apply for a job as Chief
Evangelist at Big Hat Records Inc. I'd be *very* bad...

> There are only two situations where I feel my viewing
> experience has been enhanced by ads:
>   1. when an ad takes a risk that the shows will not: for
> example, I saw an
> ad recently that pictured a white American couple caring for their Asian
> child.  This is an everyday segment of middle-upper middle class America,
> but it took a cough medicine commercial to bring it media consciousness.

The risk that you enjoyed may well have been a turn-off for much of the
intended market (even those whose demographic profile maps on to the people
presented on screen). Risk-taking ads are almost guaranteed winners when
shown during, say, arts programmes. During prime-time they are, well, a
risk. And those risks rarely pay off.

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.

This is because, not wishing to be overly technical, there are a lot more
dumb people in the world than smart people. Since the people on this list
are almost by definition in the "smart people" category, they should be very
cautious of mapping *their* tastes/views on to their commercial products.

> 2. when the commercial is more entertaining than the show itself.
>
> I guess I'm unusually in that I hate being interrupted by commercials to
> the point that I rarely watch commercial TV any more.  I canceled my
> subscription to the local paper because I was offended by the fact that
> over 75% of it was devoted to advertising, if only because of the
> waste of resources.

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. And those
that are left don't generate enough revenue to make an ads-free paper. Sadly
(for you, and - yes - me) the media business is not about content. It's
about bringing potential buyers together with potential sellers. The
businesses that can do that successfully, make money. And thus produce more
mags/newspapers/TV shows/Web content.

The editorial is merely there as an inducement to the consumers, to bring
them in front of the advertisers' offerings. Well-designed editorial makes
sure that it attracts exactly the sort of consumers that will probably be
interested in the customers' (i.e. profit-generating) products. That way,
the adversts really do enhance the editorial, because they are seriously
relevent to the consumers.

Of course, I'm now speaking with my Publisher hat on. When I was an Editor,
I believed truly (and, when well-managed, was encouraged to believe) that
the consumer was King. Which (I digress) is why good publishing companies
have a Chinese Wall between the editorial and advertising departments, and
enforce it rigorously.

> I think it is an interesting and maybe even sad scenario when
organizations
> that are supposed to be informing us in a semi-objective manner, for
> example, news organizations, are so deeply dependant on
> advertising revenue.
> But anyway, that's why it's called "corporate media."

Nope, it's why it's called "media" - a medium for selling, in short.
"Publishing" (which includes books and other paid-for content) is a much
broader church. And the media is not paid-for content.

You must realise that the cover price of a magazine (for example) is not
primarily there to generate revenue for the publisher. It is there to
*qualify* the consumer-base. As only dedicated PERL fans will pony up $5 for
PERL Hackers Monthly, you can be pretty confident that you are selling a
meaningful product to your advertisers. And the product, in media, is
people. Also, the cover price helps to restrict the distribution which, in
many publishing companies, is essential. As only a few thousand people are
likely to pay the $5 for Perl Hackers Monthly (a title I have invented -
usual disclaimers apply), you can keep your print-bill down, and that's your
biggest expense. You can therefore offer ads at a price that suppliers of
PERL-related products are willing to pay, while still making a profit. A
PERL magazine with a Time/Newsweek-like print run would have to charge
Time/Newsweek-like page rates - and would find no takers.

> I'm not inherently for or against advertising, but I do tend to (almost
> unconsciously) avoid web sites, TV/radio stations, and publications that
> are ad-heavy.  And I find it disconcerting when I am not sure
> whether what
> I'm reading (or viewing) is an ad or not.  (example: the
> Webmonkey/Hewlett-Packard Flash splash of  Christmas 1998.)

Marketers will always try to pull the wool over our eyes. And, like you, I
sneer when greeted by this. However, content costs money and someone has to
pay. The media gets advertisiers to pay. In book publishing, the consumer
pays. A paper such as the London Times would cost maybe 5-10 times as much
if it had no ads. So fewer people would buy it. So revenues would drop. So
staff would be laid off and the product would be less good. So fewer people
still would buy it, and so on. (or, maybe, the cover price would go up
further, and fewer people would buy it and...)

I'm inherently *for* advertising, because it lest me get stuff I otherwise
wouldn't be able to afford. But I believe that *intelligent* advertising is
a welcome addition to the product I recieve/buy. Because if it's
inappropriate and offensive (and that can be nothing more than "irritating")
I will feel that it's not worth ploughing through the chaff to get to the
wheat.

To get back to the core topic, I believe that banner ads are pushing the
envelope of offensiveness (merely, in many cases, by being inappropriate or
an irritant) for many users, and that a better advertising model must be
found for the Web, one that delivers the equivalent "user experience" of
good print, radio or TV advertising. And I belive that this will not only
benefit advertisers (who will get a better response) but also the poor
content-providers who are going broke...

Mike

(And I swear this is on-topic, as viable advertising models are, ultimately,
going to pay for many of our car-loans) :-)
-------------------
Mike Hardaker
Founder & Publisher
AngloINFO
www.angloinfo.com