SOME RANDOM DUDE

For many, the internet symbolizes innovation, creativity and unique expression. Why then is internet advertising so unoriginal, uninspired and uninterested in the people it is targeting? Online advertising symbolizes all that is wrong with the current state of the web. The basic model of advertising bombardment and sensory overload can ruin a site’s reputation while rarely giving the financial return expected. Why have site creators and online advertisers settled for such an unbecoming system? For many site creators, the allure of making income from their site outweighs the needs of their audience. This approach can ultimately cause much more bad than good.

Over the next few weeks, I will be writing about online advertising. This article will focus on what is currently wrong with the most common advertising model used online, the second will discuss my opinions on a better alternative and the third will flush out those ideas into pragmatic examples.

Where Internet Advertising Currently Is

This is ESPN’s site after you remove all of the ads and promos. Not too much left…

Advertising online is at an all-time low. Users are constantly bombarded by advertisements that seem to be getting larger and more visually obtrusive by the minute. Online advertisements seem to have little or nothing to do with the site’s content and lack any sense of respect for the user. Even though it is a well-known fact that internet users detest ads, the same horrendous model is shoved down their throats. It is as if site creators have just accepted that the advertising status quo is the only way to generate ad revenue and they expect that the users will have to “deal with it”. ESPN.com is a perfect example of such a site where advertising has gone wrong. There are literally ads everywhere, the video player automatically starts playing ads with the audio on, there are annoying Flash ads everywhere and, every once in a while, I would have the pleasure of being re-directed to full-page ads instead of the home page. I do not go to ESPN.com anymore.

Contemporary advertising online many times results with a site looking like a content/advertisement checkerboard. Some sites try not to cluster too many ads together so as to give the impression that they are not bombarding the user with ads. Savvy users realize what is happening nonetheless. I would argue that the sheer number of advertisements some of these sites have on their site is evidence that the current ad model is not working. Instead of thinking of more original, symbiotic and user-friendly forms of advertising, most site creators have subscribed to the “more ads means more revenue” philosophy. This current relationship between the site creator and advertisers is much like a building landlord and a renter. Space is offered to the advertiser and other than the exchange of money, there is little to no relationship between the two. Under this model, the landlord attempts to rent out all the space to whoever offers money. The problem with this model is that if the landlord just rents out rooms to anyone without any discernment, the landlord’s property could be quickly destroyed by the renters. Meanwhile, the apartment building is in shambles and no one is interested to look at the space, much less rent it. Similarly, if a website does not carefully choose its advertisers, the web site could shortly be a ghost town. An interest in short-term gains can ultimately disenfranchise a site’s users to the point that they do not come back. Guess what, advertisers are going to drop you like a bad habit once you are not giving them what they want - click-throughs and revenue.

ESPN takes up almost 60% of go.com’s traffic. So it is safe to say that ESPN takes a large chunk of this traffic slide. I do not find it a coincidence that with ESPN’s more aggressive ads (full-page intro ads, auto-play video ads, etc) their numbers are dropping.

It Is Not All About the Benjamins

The root of all these problems obviously is money. Most of the businesses that advertise on the internet approach it strictly from a business angle. From my position, this is mistake number one. For many site creators, money is not the bottom line for their site and see advertising as the very essence of what they do not want. Advertisers for years have done an amazing job of cultivating distaste and distrust in the way they peddle their product. Some of the most popular sites have become popular by keeping advertisements to a minimum. In short, advertisers have become radioactive - green in appearance, but deadly to anyone that gets too close. Mistake number two is that many site creators accept this model, willingly or with hesitation, knowing how this will affect the users of the site. Obviously, one needs money to keep the lights on and the servers running, but how long will those servers be needed if no one is showing up anymore? The third mistake is that the lack of dialogue between site creator and advertiser usually ends up with both parties trying to maximize their own best interest. Cheating or gaming click-through ad models is quite a common tactic for certain unscrupulous site creators. Meanwhile, advertisers create obtrusive and abrasive ads that intentionally pry the attention of the user from the site’s content to their ad. Most advertising is not through the culmination of a relationship between two groups but rather a advertising agency “renting” space on some site. Without a direct, working relationship that goes beyond just the exchange of money, there really is no interest in the a mutual, symbiotic partnership. No one really wins in the model - especially the most important group, the user. Eventually, this can end up with site loyalty diminishing. Meaning, as long as a site has something that cannot be found anywhere else, users will continue to visit, but as soon as another site offers the same content with less obtrusive ads, users will begin to migrate.

If money was a smaller part of the advertising equation, site creators would most likely make the advertiser’s business model, the advertiser’s willingness to collaborate and the potential benefit to the audience a higher priority when choosing ad partners. In addition, by paying less for ad space, advertisers would (or at least should) be more willing to work with the site creator to institute an ad strategy that does not clash or interfere with the site’s design/experience while still delivering the message the advertiser desires. Sure, less money swaps hands but better and more cohesive relationships could potentially be formed. Not to mention the audience almost surely would be grateful for the lack of popups, and blinking Flash banners. Some things are just worth the money (or lack thereof).

With the current money-driven model, some of the most worthy organizations and businesses for advertising are left out as they either cannot afford the cost of advertising online or they are unwilling to mar their reputation on a fairly tainted system. From my perspective, there are many small businesses, non-profits and other progressive/forward-thinking organizations that I would be wiling to support or partner up with for little to no money at all just due to my belief in their goals. As you can see, I already do such a thing for Terrapass and I make very little money from it. By ‘very little money’ I mean nothing - personally I could care less because it helps out what I feel is a good organization and I feel my audience benefits from it. I would much rather get very little money and form an advertising partnership with an organization that I believe in and is willing to work with me than a big advertiser that is willing to pay me 20 times as much for ’space’ on my site. It is like dealing with the devil.

CNN is notorious for invasive and just plain horrid advertising. You do not build any loyal visitors with that tactic… Here is a simple example of cause and effect.

It is safe to say that many internet users have built up an immunity to most internet ads. These people basically can block out such content like it did not even exist on the site. If you take that to be the case, then there is a fairly large percentage of your audience where a certain portion of your site has just lost its revenue generating purpose. With some sites, this can be up to 30% or so of the home page. How is that acceptable? On top of that, many times those very ads have very little to do with the content of the site and basically never follow the visual style of the site. Traditional online advertisements are, in form and substance, nothing but appendages that are inefficient revenue generators for either party and are even more likely to frustrate a user’s experience with the site. However, users are taking matters into their own hands and it was bound to happen. Communities have taken action to find their own solution to advertising. There are now loads of plugins and extensions which will aid in the removal of ads from a site. My personal favorite is the Firefox extension Adblock Plus which has become one of the first add-ons I put into a new Firefox install. Users are sick of waiting for site creators and advertisers to figure out that what they are doing is neither working nor acceptable. Ultimately, it is the user that determines the success or failure of a site. It is not common for the community to be given the level of credit they deserve for this success, if any at all.

Final Thoughts

This article is not intended to make advertising a dirty word. However, poorly planned or only-for-the-money advertising is not beneficial for the advertiser, the site creator or the user. A more sustainable model with less money on the table will still bring in revenue for the site creator while not alienating the audience and allow advertisers to market their product without disenfranchising users. It is about time that advertising catch up with the rest of the internet by using a little ingenuity, sustainable thinking and common sense to bring online ads into the 21st century.ad, ad revenue, advertising, article, catering to the user, click throughs, cnn, ESPN, internet, long term goals, marketing, money, online, opinion, revenue, short term goals, traffic, user experience web