Joe Duck

Have Blog. Will Travel.

Will Internet Advertising Fail?

Dr. Eric Clemons from the Wharton School of Business has written a provocative post over at TechCrunch called ” Why Advertising is Failing on the Internet“.      It’s a very interesting perspective even though – very surprising to me – Dr. Lemons has really missed the boat in a major way on this issue.

Clemons argues that both offline and online advertising are failing because people are rejecting  deceptive, unwanted intrusiveness of ads pushed at them during their experiences ….

Continued over at Technology Report

March 22, 2009 - Posted by JoeDuck | Web 2.0, advertising, research | ,

10 Comments »

  1. Who says this guy Hasnt missed the BOAT. Who’s SPIN is that ? Prove It. Show me HIS last 4 or 5 Predictions ON THIS TOPIC , as you say: “Dr. Lemons has really missed the boat in a major way on this issue.” So since you are Bragging about this bozo, Show US his past opinions and what happened ON THIS ISSUE of Internet advertising as you say he is so Correct on them. Stop the BS. get real !

    Comment by Steven | March 22, 2009 | Reply

  2. sorry I thought you said: Rarely Missed the Boat.

    so as Gilda Radner used to say So Sorry.

    Comment by Steven | March 22, 2009 | Reply

  3. No problem and thanks for apology. I’m anxious to review the data he used because none of what he said jives with my ideas about how things will shakes out – namely that Social stuff will never monetize well and keyword advertising will continue to be the main online revenue generator for years with the exception of gaming and entertainment which will keep morphing and explode as a revenue source.

    Comment by JoeDuck | March 22, 2009 | Reply

  4. Dr. Eric Clemons from the Wharton School of Business is absolutely correct in his observations of push and unwarrented intrusive advertising. However he misses the central point which is syncronicity and contextuality of content. With rudimentary positioning and profiling, the whole concept of advertising will evaporate into content relevance. Just like a James Bond movie promoted a luxury autombile per se, in the context of the movie content, so our reading contextualization will sharpen ads. The only issue remaining is monitization of non paying ads and I believe Pricerunner.com has solved this to the satisfaction of readers. Not rocket science!

    Comment by Edward O'Hara | March 23, 2009 | Reply

  5. Unwanted, intrusive, un-trusted, but needed?

    I’ve always been untrusting of these internet ads. Applebees and Circuit City were famous for frequent popup ads… I stopped even considering doing business with either of them.

    Alot depends on relevance/context stuff. I laugh everytime I go to a site about bar-b-que pits and see that Google has chosen to present me with an ad about Pitbull dogs. I so distrust internet advertising that even if I did happen to want to visit a site about pitbull dogs, I sure would not click on one of the ads that were presented.

    Needed? Yes, perhaps at times we do need ads, but we are perfectly capapble of selecting them. I drive around town with a copy of the yellow pages in my car and if I happen to need a phone number or street address for some business, I reach for the yellow pages; I do NOT ride around with a passenger who continually shoves yellow-page ads into my field of vision as I drive just because it might be of some benefit. Let the advertisers do all the contextual relevance and location-awareness stuff, but let the advertisers put their adds in a clickable box that we might CHOOSE to open in the manner in which I from time to time ask a passenger to open the yellow pages and find the address for me.

    Advertisers keep hurling ads at browser windows and eventually all their customers are just going to add the firm’s name to their personal boycott list.

    Comment by FoolsGold | March 23, 2009 | Reply

  6. (5) FG you are spot on regarding people personally boycotting these vendors.

    One of the main problems with online advertising is they are still pumping O2 into the dead eyeball game of advertising where no accountability exists and pretty much consumers are now rejecting. Viva la tivo!!!

    We need a shift in the online advertising that truly puts the consumer in the driver seat where the consumer can raise their hand and basically tell the “website” that they want to know what advertisers can provide “info” to me about my interests when I want to raise my hand. There needs to be real accountability into the advertiser model where the viewing of the ad actually transforms into some form of action whether it be a bookmark or coupon sent to the consumer’s phone, etc…

    An advertising medium that correctly addresses and responds to the needs and desires of a hand raiser is going to be very effective and much more valuable to everyone involved.

    Comment by glenn | March 23, 2009 | Reply

  7. Whether its an electronically “raised hand” or my passenger physically reaching for that Yellow Pages that I lug around in the back seat, the principle is the same. I’m probably looking for a specific business in a specific location and do not want a generalized ad about Starbucks or coffee shops in general. The problem with online advertising is that it is still trying to broadcast generalized messages to an unwilling and unreceptive audience. Watch a video ad for fifteen seconds before that UTube video I want plays? Sure. I can’t avoid it. But I will spend that 15 seconds taking note of the company and resolving to avoid doing business with it at every opportunity.
    The problem stems from its being the advertising agency that gets to determine if a hand was raised or not and if the agency gets more revenue, its going to see “raised hands” everywhere. Targeted ads have different meanings to the advertiser, the agency and the consumer. A Starbucks ad for a coffee shop in the State of Ohio is considered “targeted” by the advertising agency if I am searching for a Starbucks on Ohio Avenue in Santa Monica, CA. After all, I raised my hand didn’t I?

    Comment by FoolsGold | March 24, 2009 | Reply

  8. (7) FG I love how sites present a landing page as an advertisement and give you the option to skip it…lol. Some even call it a welcome screen.

    They just don’t get it…

    Comment by glenn | March 24, 2009 | Reply

  9. Lots of good comments here.

    FG I’m not saying it’s needed as much as I’m saying it’ll continue. Glenn and your point is excellent about “raising a hand” for ads, but I think we are several years from that model which will eventually replace the “in your face” stuff that still is working for many advertisers.

    The big trend as I see it is that we’ve never measured advertising very effectively and as we start to do that advertisers will begin to see how often they themselves are fleeced by exaggerated effectiveness measures.

    Comment by JoeDuck | March 24, 2009 | Reply

  10. (9) The reason online advertising is potentially going to fail is exactly to your point “fleeced by exaggerated effectiveness measures”.

    It is a total scam and eventually the agencies and brands wake up.

    Comment by glenn | March 24, 2009 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »