**************************************************************
* *
* CYBERSPACE *
* A biweekly column on net culture appearing *
* in the Toronto Sunday Sun *
* *
* Copyright 1999 Karl Mamer *
* Free for online distribution *
* All Rights Reserved *
* Direct comments and questions to: *
* *
* *
**************************************************************
A few weeks ago a user noted on news.admin.net-abuse.misc that
the best argument that unsolicited commercial email (UCE) and
spamming newsgroups simply don't work is that large companies
that advertise heavily on the net, like IBM and Microsoft,
don't spam.
The advertising method of choice by companies that don't want
to piss off potential customers is the banner ad. While
opposition to UCE approaches unanimity, a study sponsored by
Wired Magazine's HotWired cyberzine found that only ten percent
of netizens are opposed to banner ads.
HotWired should know what it's talking about. The E-zine
introduced those colorful inch-high, screen-wide billboards in
late 1994. Yes, I do remember a time when Yahoo didn't have
banner ads.
Banner ads have found general acceptance because they are
solicited. No one forces you to read web pages. Most highly
useful sites wouldn't exist it if it weren't for ads. The
primary opposition to banner advertising is they hog common
resources. A page might be 10 K of text. An ad can triple the
amount of data that has to be borne by the Internet's backbone
networks.
It's a valid argument ... from 1992. It carries little less
weight today. Half a decade ago netizens were hyper-conscious
about bandwidth because the vast majority of net traffic was
carried on publicly funded networks. Netizens, most of them
ultimately dependent on the public purse, were all too aware
that government funds are a finite resource. Today the
backbones are in commercial hands, Sprint's a biggie, and
commercial interests are more than willing to meet demand.
Probably the biggest opposition to banners ads is from
advertisers themselves. Like many things netish, business made
a quick rush to the net expecting massive profits, and
retreated when the mega-bucks didn't materialize. Companies
snapped up prime ad spots on high traffic sites, expecting to
siphon that traffic to their own sites. Advertisers experienced
rates of what is known as "click through" as low as 1%.
Sites and advertisers trying to reach a theoretically money-
and time-laden audience had to rethink the paradigm. The notion
of click through has given way to the concept of the
"impression" -- a fancy way of saying the number of users who
view the ad. Many web sites sell space based on impression, not
click through. After all, is it a billboard company's fault the
advertiser has a lousy ad?
Click through is important to many webvertisers. A number of
strategies have been devised to increase the likelihood of you
getting caught up in the company's web page. A banner ad with a
simple "click this" can increase traffic. Really.
The advent of the animated GIF standard has been a boon to
webvertisers. Animated ads can increase click-through rates by
40%.
Ads that relate in some way to the material viewed can triple
or quadruple response rates. Many search engines like Yahoo
allow advertisers to purchase words and phrases users might
search on. Yahoo charges $1000 per month per word. For example,
one particularly enterprising extermination company has
purchased the word "hantavirus" on Yahoo. In case you're not
familiar with the hantavirus, it's the current "in disease",
spread by deer mice. It wiped out 26 people in the American
Southwest in 1993. It's probably going to be the lyme disease
of the `90s. Anyone who searches on Yahoo for information on
the hantavirus, will always an ad for a product called the "Rat
Zapper".
If you ask me paranoia, not webvertising, is the hot marketing
trend for the end of the millennium.
               (
geocities.com/lapetitelesson/cs)                   (
geocities.com/lapetitelesson)