Comments on: The future of online advertising A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: Solutiondots Sat, 26 Nov 2011 15:51:30 +0000 I don’t assume that”black hat advertisers” is really a propper identify. See links would be the pretty essence of your web, and you can simply call these back links a black hat linkbuilding tactic in the event the Information doesn’t match a sequence of components which include relevance and originality. Precisely the same goes into the embedded inbound links – when the targeted pages are irrelevant5, than sure! it´s a small stage but still really helpful Web optimization approach. Anyway I similar to this form of post very considerably – any dialogue is best than a cryout from publishers blaming google for their absence of negotiation capabilities.


By: Yosha Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:02:20 +0000 OK, just because the man is a ‘thought leader’, he has to go and use extreme analogies. I mean, calling everyone who clicks an idiot is to put it mildly, excessive. Or to say that we have all trained ourselves to avoid banner ads is equally weird, as the same argument could be used to trash all outdoor advertising too.

Sure, I completely buy the unreasonable obsession with CTR’s, as those are a function of too many factors besides the IQ of readers.

And it’s strange that after such a harangue against clicks and the beauty of brand campaigns on TV, he doesn’t mention the elephant in the room. Google. The comoany is by far the biggest culprit in the move to bullshit measurement, with their metrics. On top of that, the imense power they wield on influencing site traffic means all sorts of unhealkthy practices like content farms etc have come up.

By: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:05:20 +0000 Why would advertisers be interested in promoting others’ content.

I have a better offer for advertisers. Advertise your business with your content, not ads. Instead of investing in ads, invest in relevant, valuable, useful content that readers would love. All good things will follow.

We at created the first AdFree network to deliver relevant and valuable business content to consumers.

Yossi Barazani

By: jburak Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:03:27 +0000 I’d like to better understand why micropayments would thwart online advertising? Is it because you believe micropayments becomes the subscription model and with such a revenue stream, paid advertising is not necessary?

Even if this is your argument I still do see how micropayments threaten online advertising. Firstly, whether print or electronic, media companies prefer multiple revenue channels.

If anything, I think to ramp-up of micropayments would support online growth. More transactional oriented advertising and relevant products would have more clear path and ROI.

Secondly, I don’t see how links thwart online advertising as well. No advertiser will pay for links and revenue runs the internet. In order to manage links you need humans and if you have humans you need revenue.

Your position may solve certain content issues, but does not necessarily mean the demise of online advertising.

By: kimdavis Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:53:43 +0000 You are absolutely right about the appeal of ads in the front of Vogue. Vanity Fair too. What I can’t immediately explain is that, if I saw the same ads online, I’d probably skip them to get to the content. Reading a physical objects like a well-produced magazine is still different from looking at a screen. People underestimate this difference.

By: zachrodgers Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:08:28 +0000 This feels like a straw man argument. Brands have been sponsoring outbound links for years (think BoingBoing, Gawker) without denunciations from the online ad pack. If you want to package a list-o-links ad unit and sell it on a CPM basis, great. Who’s stopping you?

By: IanBell330 Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:14:13 +0000 The difference between online ads and magazine ads is the technology behind the two. CTR, engagement and all the other metrics for online measurement exist because they can. It’s much more difficult in the magazine space to measure the interaction and interest of readers.

So why would advertisers give up on collecting all of this unique and interesting information online just for the sake of blindly placing “beautiful” ads there? It doesn’t make sense.

But I do wish they would give up all of those measurement tools! :)

By: Elrohir Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:07:37 +0000 In Information Recovery Theory (aka search engine design) what you are suggesting is known as hub & authority pages.

The idea is: There are authority pages that contain good info, and hub pages that point to many good authorities. Search engines should return hubs, so as the user can read and access different authorities.

Within this theory, as you suggest, brands could get a lot more attention from surfers by becoming good hubs for the subjects related to their products, instead of trying to become authorities that do not look good to us because of the poor quality of their presence in the main hubs (Reddit and the like)

An algorithm based on this, that is different from google’s, is HITS ( ithm), but i think the H&A idea is still valid as a branding model for results obtained via pagerank.

By: AnimatedWoman Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:32:22 +0000 Thanks for this. You’ve just inspired a new post I’m gonna do…with drawings AND links. Seamless <—love that word.

By: JeffJarvis Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:47:35 +0000 Felix,
Well said.
There’s one further value that ensued: the signal that is generated about a person when he or she clicks on one of those links, which expresses an interest, which enables the links to be better tailored next time. I argue that Facebook and Google see content as valuable not in and of itself but as a tool for signal generation.
Much more here: udying-the-link-economy/
– jeff