Display ads will never end as they are super annoying and hence it's irresistible to clients.
I think we should adopt a new mantra: "The Internet is only a communications channel." We might add: "It is not magic. It will not, of itself, solve any communications problems we may have." Or even: "Our communications skills, in whatever medium, represent winning or losing."
The breathless faddism of the Internet, which is acceptable for some purposes, such as email, reference and basic search, has blinded us to concepts such as balance, relevance and skill in using any medium.
Well put in 2007, well put today.
The problem with banner ads is of course that not only are most of them not intriguing to begin with.
Unlike in other media which take over the whole screen or the whole page, banners are nothing but elements that clutter the view, trying to disturb the reason for why we are on that particular page.
Interactive has mostly been a mumbo-jumbo of mystery and little of real and intriguing ideas.
tore: "Unlike in other media which take over the whole screen or the whole page, banners are nothing but elements that clutter the view, trying to disturb the reason for why we are on that particular page."
... in other words, they are the Outdoor Boards of the Internet.
Just a thought... Wouldn't banner ads on websites work better if they new how to inspire curiosity? You're looking for a click after all, don't you?
Leave out clever 'concepts' and flashy animation from web banners. Replace them with good, relevant copywriting; place it on pertinent webpages; and give the reader a really good reason to click. (No, "Congratulation! You are the billionth visitor to this page" does not count.)
The Internet simply provides way too many possibilities for us to give up on it so easily.
Mmm... the problem with "Two in a Thousand" seems to be flawed logic. It assumes that "clicks" measures effectiveness.
Which makes sense if your assumption is that a banner can't convey information by itself (and therefore you MUST click it) or that the only use for a banner ad is to drive the last part of a buying cycle.
But why would anyone buy a billboard by the side of the road if that was the case? You can't even click it.
Couldn't a banner be an effective ad in and of itself? Informing someone of the new release of a movie (or model of car or whatever) or reminding people that potionX cures colds?
Why the assumption that it's OK for all other forms of media to be used for awareness campaigns, branding, even tactical information, but online must always be about the user clicking something?
Of course that all leads to a further issue (banner blindness), and there's a rant in that I'm sure, but in fairness I'm not sure the basis of these two linked posts is all that solid.
=) Marc
David,
no it's not quite like outdoor. Even though outdoor can be equally disturbing. Times Square without it wouldn't be as fun to photograph of course.
however, Sao Paolo, Brazil, banned outdoor, and the city is, according to my friends there, now much more pleasant. So yes, in some ways outdoor is like banners. Mostly garbage.
@Marc:
Here's the difference.
Banner ads have traditionally been sold as response vehicles with precise measureability (that a word?).
When it became clear that they were alarmingly ineffective as response vehicle, the sellers change their tune. Now they are being sold as branding vehicles.
Simply because an ad is worthless as a direct response vehicle does not prove it has value as a branding vehicle. In fact, it is my opinion that display ads are even less effective branding tools than response tools.
If you spend time on line -- which I assume you do -- you've probably seen hundreds of banners this week. Can you remember one?
Commenting by HaloScan
