Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet | Hacker News Reader

Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet

techcrunch.com

46 pointsvaksel35 comments

Just slightly biased.

Also fails to understand how internet advertising is completely different.

>> "Consumers do not want to view advertising. Think of watching network TV news and remember that the commercials on all the major networks are as closely synchronized as possible. Why? If network executives believed we all wanted to see the ads they would be staggered, so that users could channel surf to view the ads; ads are synchronized so that users cannot channel surf to avoid the ads."

TV advertising is an annoyance. It stops you from watching the program you were watching. Advertising on the net is just extra data you can choose to take advantage of, or ignore. Add to that the fact that much of the internet advertising is commission based on sales which is completely trackable.

For a start, why would something like the Amazon affiliate program 'fail'? Will people stop buying things from Amazon? Will they suddenly stop buying them through affiliate links? I'd say probably not.

Don't believe the hype.

Also:

>> "My own research suggests that consumers behave as if they get much of their information about product offerings from the internet, through independent professional rating sites like dpreview.com or community content rating services like Ratebeer.com or TripAdvisor"

Doesn't really make sense, since TripAdviser gets a cut of each reservation - so it may be 'community content', but it's all still just advertising links.

>Advertising on the net is just extra data you can choose to take advantage of, or ignore.

Huh?

When I'm reading an article and there's big flashing graphics on either side of the text, that's an annoyance.

You might find it an annoyance, but it doesn't stop you reading the article. If you're one of those people that can't just ignore it if it doesn't interest you, you can block it pretty easily - small minority do.

I obviously disagree with the article, I find interesting things from adverts all the time - competitors, services I didn't know about, products I might think about buying some day. I want to see adverts. Unobtrusive, targeted adverts that show me stuff I want.

Obtrusive flashing banner advertising makes up a tiny proportion of advertising, and isn't that effective at all.

That is true. Most users (at least me) install ad-blocking software because of moving advertisements (flash/gif). Why do every site want to give you an epilepsy attack?

Not really worth the time to read, same stuff that's been said before. Showing a user an ad while they're searching for something works amazingly well -- any other time it's a crap shoot.

For the foreseeable future I think the best way to advertise any web app or other online service is with a blog and as many helpful, informative, thought provoking posts as you can find the time to write. There are plenty of examples of successful companies that have used this model -- building a brand and a network simultaneously -- and there's no reason to think it's going anywhere.

> There are plenty of examples of successful companies that have used this model

Do you mean they used their blog as the main marketing effort? I'd like to hear more about those.

It seems if the users are looking at your blog, they've found you already. Or perhaps those companies created thousands of other blogs that were only used for search engine optimization (linking back to their money blog)? That I can understand.

You're assuming that a purchase is done the instant a company/person is found. What a blog does is build trust, familiarity and credibility in a particular field. So there's two scenarios : one is a reader becomes familiar with you and purchases a new offering (creating a channel and selling into it), the other is a reader finds your product, skips through some of your blog posts and decides to purchase based on the fact you appear to know what you are talking about. (creating credibility)

Of course this only works if your blog posts are related to your product offering.

I don't think all internet advertising will fail - there is often an ad that I want to see on Google. I agree that obtrusive, tricky, seizure-inducing display ads are no replacement for anything, but I don't buy the basic premise that advertising on the internet is flawed.

I also don't like when academics ramble for pages and pages, without being able to succinctly express their ideas. This guy should do a tour in writing ad copy - I think that would have a very positive effect on his writing.

Silly rhetoric lacking a clear argument and evidence to support the argument.

Another problem with advertising is that usually I don't want the things that are advertised. (At least in the case of non-contextual display advertising.)

For example, when I read the NYT I see ads for Target. This is a bad deal for Target, because I already know they exist, and I buy toilet paper there every week anyway. I don't shop there more often because they don't sell anything I want, not because I don't know about them. (Other display advertising is similar. I know Pepsi exists, but I think it tastes like shit. So wasting money advertising isn't helping them; but improving their product would.)

Advertising is not always about convincing you to buy, or convincing you to change. A lot of brand building is simply to make you recognise the brand and keep it in your mind. This has obviously worked in the case of Target and Pepsi. There will always be a place for this type of advertising.

Not simply to recognize the brand and keep in mind, but to be the first brand or the first product that comes to mind.

But without advertising, I wouldn't forget about it. I walk past Target everyday. I see Pepsi on the shelf at the store (actually, I don't... but most people do). Etc., etc.

Advertising doesn't bother me at all, but I would really appreciate it if they made a product I wanted isntead of spending their money trying to make me want something I don't.

"... made a product I wanted" = red ocean "...make me want something I don't." = blue ocean (some what) I believe that most minds are easier to nudge than we (non-marketers) classically believe.

Google is really no better than adware from the old days. Sure the service they provide is useful, but it's still adware in another package.

I've always found Google's business model vaguely insidious, like they're using my data against me.

It's kind of like walking in a store, the sales person asking "what are you looking for", and then the sales person trying to sell you that thing you're looking for. This may be "insidious", but it's generally helpful for both parties. Google ads are usually the same way. Google knows what sort of things I want, and it reminds me from time to time. They make money, some random advertiser makes money, and I get the thing I want.

For me, it's closer to walking in to a library, the librarian asking "what are you looking for", and then the librarian trying to sell me that thing I'm looking for (which she gets a commission for).

This model seems to work well for cars, high-end stereos, real estate, insurance ...

>> Google knows what sort of things I want, and it reminds me from time to time.

Maybe they know what I want. But they don't know if I'm not in the mood to be bothered with ads.

I would argue advertising is doing just fine, perhaps better than ever. I see sites like Engadget, Techcrunch and The Boy Genius as really just advertising. I'd argue I have RSS feeds that are effectively entirely advertisements for products and services: web services news, hardware news, software news, design (eco), tshirts, design (3d and architecture), and local performance events. Frankly, a large portion of the RSS feeds that are web content filters turn out to be products/services too.

That is just in RSS land. In Twitter/im land, I have things that are effectively advertising too.

The overall positive sentiment towards [semi-traditional] ad-based business models in this conversation is very alarming.

The game isn't "improving advertising"; it's "reinventing communication between buyers and sellers".

Those two things are way different.

Think about it this way: the less we all focus on making ads better, the more polluted the mediascape becomes, shrinking the pie for everyone ...instead of growing it.

(that last insight via @umairh)

Why can't advertising work on the internet if such intrusive advertising can work through television ( atleast the companies think it works )

In my personal experience, internet advertising gets more annoying as technology and bandwidth improves. As for TV, it's consistently as annoying as it has always been. (except for the in-show layering on the bottom of the screen) There was a Family Guy episode that made fun of that. Pure gold!

I bet TV ads stopped working as well when TV remotes became popular.

Remotes don't help that much if commercials are synchronized. You might as well just go to the bathroom.

HBO and movie channels break the synchronization.

> if commercials are synchronized

Are they? If there are 9 synchronized channels and 1 that's not. I believe that 1 wins, because everyone else switches there out of boredom.

In the States, PBS does not run commercials. Yet the scarcity of people who watch public broadcast may be evidence against that claim. (Maybe average people prefer commercials?)

PBS does run commercials in the US. They're just in a different form.

However, it is true that PBS commercials are not synchronized with commercials on the "standard" channels.

The reason that PBS doesn't win is that many folks prefer commercials to PBS....

Currently, advertising only works on the Internet when people don't know it's advertising either because it is not labeled as such or because a confusing term is used (e.g., "Sponsored").

If you don't want to deceive users in this way, have ads about clever products (NOT clever ads, but clever products such as the Segway, Rubik's Mirror Blocks, etc.).

That's not true at all. Advertisements succeed or fail based on the nature of the ad. I've clicked Google ads before despite the fact that they're very obviously ads (different-colored backgrounds, text saying ads are ads). I've clicked Facebook ads, which are put in a special Ad Zone of the page.

Clever ads don't make me buy things, but they get my attention. Clever products? It's not a matter of clever, it's a matter of what I WANT. I would never buy a Segway because of an online ad.

There is one tried-and-true method of making an ad work, and it works every time: you make something people want, you find where you can put an ad that the right people will see, and you make sure your ad describes your product well. There's nothing "clever" to that, and there's no "confusing term" tricking people. It's a simple matter of finding a customer.

I've clicked Google ads before despite the fact that they're very obviously ads (different-colored backgrounds, text saying ads are ads). I've clicked Facebook ads, which are put in a special Ad Zone of the page.

What percentage of Google's revenue comes from people clicking ads that they don't know are ads?

not as much as the amount that comes from fraudulent clicks.

Please don't spread that idea and take all the fun out of advertising. One of most rewarding aspect of being in advertising business is the creativity of coming up with clever ways to shove boring products down the consumers' throats. Broccoli and spinach are sure good for the body,but somehow, Mommy's airplane trick is still around.

I appreciate an entertaining advertisement as much as anyone. On the other hand, the most clever way of shoving a boring product down the consumer's throat in recent years seems to be ads like "HeadOn: Apply Directly To The Forehead" and their online equivalents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com