| LED Digest 1732: Consumers Revolt to Pop-ups |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Reg. from a Trusted Leader pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest adam,led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com ................................................. January 20, 2003 Issue #1732 ................................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= <Moderator Comment> ~ Consumers Revolt to Intrusive Ads --== Web Ad Trademark Laws ==-- ~ Barry Wood ~ Roy Williams --== Gaggle Chasing Google ==-- ~ David Yancey --== Ad Blocking Software ==-- ~ Jill Whalen ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Third-party Fulfillment Services ==-- ~ Peter Warnock ===== CONTINUING ================================= <Moderator Comment> Some great posts today. I also found this of interest and would love to hear your thoughts: As Consumers Revolt, a Rush to Block Pop-Up Online Ads http://snipurl.com/3xil [nytimes.com] "The New York Times' Saul Hansell reports on pop-up advertising and the consumer backlash against intrusive advertising. It's worth noting that pop-ups and pop-unders are the most effective, lucrative and annoying online advertising form. "The article discusses the boom in ad-blocker software, with AOL, Yahoo and Google getting into the game. Microsoft says that it will include pop-up blocking in IE when it releases WinXP SP2. According to one pop-under ad agency, 20%-25% percent of Web users have pop-up blocking enabled, double the rate of a year ago - Earthlink's numbers bear that out, with 1 million of its 5 million customers using its ad-blocking software 18 months after release. "DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software.' Why isn't that surprising?" [snip courtesty of slashdot.org] ----------------------- From: Bradley Wood Subject: Trademark ads > ... a federal appeals court has reopened a lawsuit > challenging the unauthorized use of trademarks in > ads linked to search engine keywords... > Playboy Enterprises can pursue charges that Excite > and Netscape Communications violated its trademark > by selling banner advertisements triggered by the terms > "playboy" and "playmate." As a Euro-Brit that legal ruling doesn't really apply to us in the EU (although I do recall an interesting vaguely related breach of copyright case involving a major producer of cartoon and wildlife DVD's and video tapes in Estonia shortly after Estonia's entry to the EC was confirmed). However, I really must suggest that "playmate" is what we have in school playgrounds, and "playboy" is usually regarded as a rich feckless individual with more money than sense. And then again there's also Hugh Hefner ... (note the "also") Perhaps reference to the definitions in the Complete Oxford English Dictionary would be the best way of deciding what is right and wrong. After all American courts still have to revert back to English law from the days prior to the War of Independence, and what could be a better source of deciding how a word is defined other than that august set of tomes. I would not be surprised to see reference there nowadays to the words with capital initial letters, but not as the principal definition. If the banner adverts used the word string "Hugh Hefner Playboy Playmates" that would be a different matter, although I notice that "Bill Clinton" never worried too much about the use of his name in keywords. If this case is allowed to stand then fairly soon anyone with the family name Warner, Disney or Fox will be compelled to pay a copyright fee whenever they want to put their own name in a classified advertisement just to sell their car. It's corporate identity gone mad. And it doesn't just stop at media companies. The court should knock this one on the head right now. Regards, Barry Wood Group MD, Bradley Wood Group of Companies www.thesatellitecouk.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Roy Williams Subject: Trademark ads I read about people trying to 'trademark something of the internet'. It is NOT possible to have a global trademark. Trademarks are registered on a country by country basis (it's possible to have an EU registration now). Additionally, trademarks are registered according to the type of business and there are many different divisions. Sure, a US company can sue another US company over a website, but if the sued company re-locates its server to Mexico, what then? Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, I've just spent a lot of money with trademark lawyers! Real gone, Roy Williams Nervous Records www.nervous.co.uk ------- new post - new topic ------- From: David Yancey Subject: Google gaggle > According to Kelsey Group program director Greg Sterling, > "2004 is going to be the Year of the Search. There's a lot > of innovation ahead, and that's going to prove to be a big > challenge for Google. Adam and fellow LED readers, FYI, Greg Sterling's recent comments are designed to promote the Kelsey Group's latest private report on the battle between search companies and Internet Yellow Pages (IYP) providers. Sterling and his colleagues are leading consultants to the IYP industry. Almost anything written about Google is newsworthy, given the common (if incorrect) perception that they can do no wrong in the search marketplace. Now, with their rumored IPO due soon, stories that describe the coming mighty struggle between the giants of online search are a sure bet for headline-grabbing. And why not: huge amounts of money are at stake, not just bragging rights. People, even many of the most sophisticated among us, love to debate and gossip about big-time winners and presumed losers in business - or, for that matter, Hollywood, the pop music biz, even (for a few anyway) the Democratic presidential candidate crawl - er, race. Speculating about who will be the ultimate 800-pound gorilla in search is fun and faddish, so we can expect the gusher of mostly ill-informed commentary about Google and the gaggle to increase in volume - and, sorry, silliness - as the IPO nears. Then, as the tech and investing worlds hold their breath to see how many months Google manages to maintain its industry lead, we can expect an even greater flood of comments and rants, depending, at least in some cases, on how many Google shares the writer happens to hold. ;) None of this is new, folks. The more things change; the more they stay the same - or so the French remind us (if it is permitted again to quote the French). So what does this latest bubbling over of the great Internet kettle really mean to LED readers? I suggest that we all read these stories and "expert" opinions with hefty salt shakers near to hand. Very little of what happens among these titans of search is going to affect your website, your business, or your future on the Internet. The current underlying trends are going to evolve whether Google's new market valuation is $15 billion, or $25 billion, or, ultimately, half that. Here's the reality, from this graybeard's perspective: 1. If you use PPC in your traffic promotion campaign, the prices per lead are going to go further North. Those who think Yahoo's new strategy, coupled with M$oft's looming entry in search, will result in new competition that will drive per-click prices down, are missing the bigger picture: paid search is in such *increasing* demand by national-level advertisers, that prices will keep going up. It's easy to understand why: after the other two big shoes in search drop, the actual number of searchers and searches in the Big Four (US) search sites will be about the same, so these big advertisers have to pay more to get the attention of this relatively fixed, slower-growing pool of prospects. Conclusion: If your smaller site has been priced out of the paid-lead market in the past year or so, nothing is gonna change for the better any time soon. 2. The coming "war" between the search portals and the Internet Yellow Pages is, basically, over. We'll see the evidence soon, as the remaining IYP publishers who have not already done so make "distribution" deals with one or the other of the search barons. If it should then happen that, later this year or next, a big IYP publisher switches from Google to MSN or to Yahoo/Overture, it matters not - to us. Conclusion: If you have a site that is oriented to local traffic, you will NOT benefit from these moves, since your Yellow Pages prices per lead will probably be going up sharply - while at the same time your "reach" will actually be *limited* - since your particular IYP is going to be in bed with *one* search site that only reaches about 1/3 of the search users out there. 3. Once the big search sites have become gateways to one or another IYP sites, they will focus on trying to integrate the Yellow Pages data into the search results page. This may sound promising - but it is not going to do much for the vast majority of local-area sites and businesses unless they are prepared to pay up for the clickthroughs that result. You will have very little control, I predict, over what your search engine listing says, who sees it, when, or if they are qualified prospects for your services or store. Conclusion: If your plan is to use the Internet to promote your locally-focused business, then you need to find alternatives to "Big Three" PPC fast, because they are NOT going to be of much help once they each have become just a gateway to one or another Yellow Pages group. 4. No matter who "wins" among the search giants, smaller and locally-focused e-commerce and publishing sites who are relying on visibility for their site in the "free" search engine results will see their opportunities continue to diminish. The big sites have little interest in helping you get visitors for free. Google's recent behavior ought to serve as sufficient hand-writing on the wall that this game - never easy to play - is coming to a close. Conclusion: Small-to-medium sized sites and local businesses need to plan *now* for the next era in online traffic building. Just as banners have declined in their effectiveness, "free" search is going the same way. Email newsletters will NOT take up the slack, either. If you don't find alternative "messaging channels" that can reach your target audience or prospects cheaply, your site's days are numbered. If your site cannot pay anything for promotion, then you must either find a new revenue model with enough margins to pay the promo freight, or your site is going to die. Is the future for smaller, newer, and locally-oriented sites really this threatening? Yes. At least for those who don't face it and find creative ways to attract users. And no. Because, while it is true that there are two big guys in the hunt to replace Google - and thereby get more respect on the Street, what may be more relevant over the next five years are the companies that are re-inventing web search, and, in the process, defining "local area search" as a natural part of the process. For example, although just over a month old, our www.vivante.com was highlighted in Greg Sterling's latest Kelsey report as one of the tiny innovators that point the way to a new "hybrid" kind of search, one that integrates local-area listings with true web search. The really significant truth is that few "winners" on the web so far have managed to hold a dominant position for very long. This is as true in search as it was for the various dot-bombs. As the big search sites pay more attention to their stock multiple than to relevance and user satisfaction, there will be plenty of room for specialized, better-targeted, better-value paid search sites to rise and flourish - and at least a few of these will do so in partnership with the smaller sites that comprise the bulk of the LED readership. David Yancey http://www.vivante.com ------- new post - new topic ------- From: Jill Whalen Subject: Ad blockers > Corey Rudl was touting a new product... which uses > Javascript to create the same effect of popup ads > without triggering the pop-up blockers. - Greg Watson, LED 1731 And this is supposed to be a good thing? Why don't we spend lots of time thinking up ways to annoy users! Yay! Seems to me that if a person goes to the trouble of blocking pop-ups, they're going to be anything BUT receptive to a pop-up (and the company shoving them in their face) that thwarts their blocking software. Best, Jill Whalen http://www.highrankings.com/forum ==== BILLBOARD ==================================== From: Peter Warnock Subject: 3rd party fulfillment Can anyone refer a reputable fulfillment house? If there were less than 500 orders, what would an acceptable price range be for the service? Peter Warnock ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2003 Adam Audette. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Time is a moving image of eternity." - Plato |
