Let’s Go Big For The Right Reasons

Brian Morrissey, who I think has some really interesting insights about where advertising is going, writes that maybe there’s a case for interruption on the Web.

Here’s my comment to his post:

-
Brian,

I have Troy’s (from VideoEgg) PDF open on making the Web friendlier to brands from his post that you talk about above.

Do you really think this is about interruption? I don’t, and I don’t think Troy does either.

If we’re going to make the Web friendlier to brands, it also has to be friendlier to people. The move has to be one and the same.

Sure, this doesn’t mean people won’t put up with ads that mimic what they’re used to off the Web (like TV). For example, I love the big Apple ads on the NYTimes you refer to, but I simply put up with most of the prestitial ads on ESPN because I want the content.

Every time ESPN does that to me on the Web, it’s eroding its own brand as well as the advertiser’s, just a little every time.

Why not be as committed to me as the consumer as they are to the brand? It’s not even harder to do. Then, if they showed me “a big fun ad” as Troy talks about in his PDF, not only would I accept it, I’d welcome it.

In order to have “a media currency that measures discrete engagement,” which is Troy’s fourth idea to make the Web friendlier to brands, first you have to get people to engage.

Definitely, size and let’s call it “presence” (i.e., the banner does not disappear from the page as one scrolls down) are key to being noticed, but if engaging people is the goal - the very currency it all starts to be measured on (and therefore how the industry makes money) - then an ad’s size and presence has to be an integral part of making it happen, right?

In other words, the way the ad is presented can’t work against the goal of engagement or, really, the distributed, open structure of the Web.

ESPN is welcome to put an ad in front of me in a way that it’s hard for me to ignore, they should realize, though, that winning my full attention is the game. The NYTimes and Apple win this game every time, and the size/presence of the ad helps them do it.

Update: Speaking of ESPN ads that insert themselves between me and my content, T. Rowe Price thought that very thing would be a good idea (larger image, here).

There has to be a better way because just as I was about to enjoy a moment of Lakers battling Suns, T. Rowe Price is literally in my face, leaving me with the distinct feeling that this company doesn’t get me and likely has an old-school approach to investing. As for ESPN . . .

content_block

BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
« Let Them Power It
» Content All the Way

BROWSE / IN Red
« Let Them Power It
» Content All the Way

RELATED / YOU MIGHT FIND THESE INTERESTING

Viewing 4 Comments

Taylor Davidson 1 year ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Interruption is difficult to translate to engagement, unless there is a really, really good reason for that interruption; perhaps the key is for that reason to be very, very obvious and powerful to the person being interrupted.

But that's a flippant response; what we're talking about is such a fine line that it comes down to very small details in how it's implemented, right?

reply edit reblog flag

34 /people/tdavidson/ /people/tdavidson/following/ http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ http://www.facebook.com/taylordavidson in/taylordavidson http://twitter.com/tdavidson trd8n photo_td taylordavidson

brooksjordan 1 year ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

No, actually I think it's a huge difference in outlook (interruption vs engagement), but also in implementation.

Sure, IAB ad units (and their future iterations) will be used in both cases, but what, when, and how, and how that unit is mixed with social media, is/will be completely different when the aim is engagement.

Ads are going to be much closer to content, and so in some cases be less noticeable and in others jump to the foreground.

reply edit reblog flag

9 /people/brooksjordan/ /people/brooksjordan/following/ http://brooksjordan.name http://www.facebook.com/brooksjordan http://twitter.com/brooksjordan brooksjordan brooksjordan

Taylor Davidson 1 year ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

you're right, it is a big difference in outlook; but I don't think everyone sees that: meaning, not many can see the (huge) nuance in the difference.

and by everyone ... since you asked :) ... I mean most notably advertisers, the app builders, the websites. I don't think people care about the difference in meaning at all; as Ethan is fond in pointing out, "If people liked advertising, brands wouldn’t have to pay for it."

reply edit reblog flag

34 /people/tdavidson/ /people/tdavidson/following/ http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ http://www.facebook.com/taylordavidson in/taylordavidson http://twitter.com/tdavidson trd8n photo_td taylordavidson

brooksjordan 1 year ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Advertisers may not see or care, but in the meantime advertising as a 1.0 industry crashes down around their heads.

The new quote is: "When brands pay for advertising in social capital, people like it."

reply edit reblog flag

9 /people/brooksjordan/ /people/brooksjordan/following/ http://brooksjordan.name http://www.facebook.com/brooksjordan http://twitter.com/brooksjordan brooksjordan brooksjordan