Apple Tries To Patent Annoying People With Intrusive Advertising That Requires Attention

from the only-good-if-it-stops-everyone-else-from-using-such-a-thing dept

The NY Times is discussing a patent application by Apple (20090265214) for putting really intrusive advertising into products that would require users to respond to prove that they're paying attention to the advertising. First, there's a fair amount of prior art on very similar ideas. Not all of the prior attempts were quite so draconian -- but that's not because they needed some special new invention or "spark of genius." Instead, the reason why this hasn't been implemented fully is because most people realize it's stupid and would only serve to piss off customers. But it's hardly a new, unique or non-obvious idea. Hell, I remember discussing a nearly identical scheme around 1995 as a joke because it was so ridiculously stupid. Hopefully, the Patent Office realizes that this is an obvious concept and doesn't grant the patent.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Content Is Advertising: Free Local Commercials, Sponsored By Another Company

from the get-yourself-a-home.-or-don't.-i-don't-care. dept

Via Adam Savage, I heard about a fun project that highlights the advertising is content, content is advertising concept in multiple ways. It's a site called ILoveLocalCommercials.com, which features two filmmakers going around the country making (free -- and awesome) TV commercials for local businesses that are nominated on the site. As mentioned, the commercials are really quite impressive, such as the "brutally honest" commercial for Cullman Liquidation ("get yourself a home, or don't, I don't care") or for Ray's Midbell Music that involves a rap about how being in the school band is cool:

The commercials are really entertaining in their own way, and have garnered hundreds of thousands of views -- again, demonstrating how good advertising is content. The guys making the videos also put up a short "behind the scenes" version of each video as well, to explain the backstory a bit more. The backstory on Cullman Liquidation is pretty entertaining as well.

But why are these guys doing this? Well, the whole thing is actually part of a promotion from another company, MicroBilt, that's trying to promote its own line of small business services. So it's paying for the whole thing -- showing how content is advertising. None of the videos are actually about MicroBilt, but in sponsoring the entire site and the whole process, it's helping to get its name out there in a fun (non-intrusive, non-annoying, non-sneaky) manner. It's not about product placement or trying to "sneak" a brand into something. Everything's totally upfront. But it's a fun project, with highly entertaining content that shows both how advertising is content and how content is advertising.

Oh yeah, and it appears that Cullman Liquidation has also picked up on the whole "looooooooooots of t-shirts" concept. On the Cullman Liquidation website, the company is selling t-shirts based on the commercial...

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T Sues Verizon Over 'There's A Map For That' Ad Campaign

from the doesn't-like-the-maps dept

Recently, Verizon came up with a rather clever ad campaign, mocking the iPhone ads that claim "there's an app for that" with ads that showcase Verizon's wider 3G footprint, claiming "there's a map for that," and showing the two services' 3G coverage maps side by side:

It does a nice job poking fun at one of AT&T's weaker points: its mobile network infrastructure. But apparently, AT&T is not happy with the ad campaign and has sued Verizon over those ads, claiming that it uses an unfair comparison. That's because the maps only show 3G coverage, and Verizon has significantly greater 3G coverage. However, AT&T feels that the map showing its coverage implies, falsely, that AT&T has no coverage outside of its 3G coverage areas. While you can see why AT&T would make this complaint, it does make you wonder if it's really worth the effort to sue. All it's really doing is attracting a lot more attention to the original ad, which does accurately state that it's talking about 3G coverage, not overall coverage, though you can see why some people might not realize that AT&T's network also includes non-3G areas.

50 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Making The 'Significant Objects' Project... Even More Significant

from the recycling-for-profit dept

Back in July, we commented on the Significant Objects project where 100 authors are writing up 100 stories involving 100 various trinkets -- and then selling those stories along with the associated items on eBay for a tidy profit. (The project originally struck me as an experiment to see if the one red paperclip stunt could be mass produced in some way as a sustainable publishing business.) Now, just a few months later, Slate has teamed up with the Significant Objects folks with a contest for Slate readers to submit their own 500-word stories about a cheap tchotchke -- a BBQ sauce jar bought at a thrift store for $0.75. The contest attracted over 600 stories to be judged by Slate and the Significant Objects founders, and the winner gets the honor of being picked as well as the proceeds from its eBay auction -- which has a current bid (and profit) of about $20.

This contest is brilliant in that it not only highlights the concept that every product is a bundle of scarce and infinite goods, but it also demonstrates that content can be used to engage with an audience as a form of entertaining advertising. For the price of a bauble and some editorial judging, Slate connected with its fans and gathered a bit of demographic information on its readers who sent in a story (submissions had to be accompanied by an email address and location). Imagine if Slate had instead put a banner ad on its website with a form to fill out for personal information, the response rate for that would likely be much much lower. But with this contest, the cost of the BBQ jar was negligible, and Slate editors spent their time reading stories and got a peek into the creative minds of its readership. Okay, the drawback is that the submission judging process is actually not a trivial task, especially when there are more than a handful of entries (and more than a couple judges). Even Google hasn't exactly figured out how to judge its own Project 10¹⁰⁰ contest. However, the search giant opened up the judging to let anyone vote on winners to help narrow down the selection. (And there are other examples of crowdsourced judging processes like Threadless's tshirt designs.) So I envision the next generation of advertising contests reaching out to audiences, calling upon more volunteers, and trying more and more creative campaigns to produce scarce goods out of thin air.

77 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Crowdsourcing Doesn't Guarantee Quality... But It Can Be Great Advertising

from the to-crowdsource-or-not-to-crowdsource dept

Earlier this month, BBC Audiobooks America started an audiobook project based on Twitter messages where Neil Gaiman kicked off an exquisite corpse process of stringing together about 1,000 Tweets to forge a storyline. Dozens of Twitter users contributed tweets to be edited into a coherent plot that will be released as a free audiobook download. From this publicity stunt, an approximately 50-page book (or 2-hr audiobook, actually) has been created from Gaiman's fans. And presumably, the collection of tweets could also be remixed and edited -- and improved -- to possibly gain further participation from Gaiman (who contributed the first line of the story and will read aloud the completed audiobook) and the attention of any number of other authors. It's not exactly a brand-new idea to compose a story in this way, but it's a very interesting way to advertise and connect with fans to whet their appetites for more content to come (and even pay for).

However, the crowdsourcing aspect of this particular audiobook has been criticized in detail for exhibiting the worst of literary clichés as well as a meandering plot with too many characters and unresolved arcs. But generalizing this crowd's apparently unsatisfying result to all possible collaborative-author processes seems a bit disingenuous. Perhaps it's one of my pet peeves, but the schadenfreude surrounding crowdsourced works that aren't "as good as Shakespeare" seems to focus too much on some artificial failure, and not the potential or the realized successes. Maybe fiction isn't the best target for collaborative authorship, but the suggestion that collaborative writing won't ever work for good storytelling is far from proven. In fact, many popular stories (TV shows, etc) are written by teams of authors. (So the question could be posed: where does the optimal number of authors arise?) Conversely, the overwhelming number of unsuccessful stories written by single authors should not discourage writers from working alone, either. Bad stories happen.

The real triumph of this crowdwork is that this experiment engaged with its audience and promoted Gaiman and BBCAA for future works. From the BBC's perspective, a ton of content was generated largely for free, and a promotional audiobook was created in just a few days. Had the BBC commissioned a single author to compose a similar work, there wouldn't be any guarantees of a compelling book in the end. And working with a single author might require more complex licensing rights and royalties. So crowdsourcing this project sounds like an advertising coup -- generating a promotion appropriately disguised as free content. It's not Shakespeare, but it's a whole lot better than a banner ad, right?

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Yes, The CPM Is Holding Back Online Advertising

from the time-to-get-rid-of-it dept

Last week, Shelby Bonnie, former CEO of CNET wrote a great guest piece for TechCrunch, where he suggested killing off CPM as a measurement for online advertising. I'd go even further, and suggest that the obsession with CPM has seriously harmed online advertising. The key point is the one that Bonnie makes first: if you pay for impressions, you create incentives to get impressions. But impressions, by themselves, are not particularly useful, especially when everyone making those impressions ignores the advertisement itself.

We've experienced this first hand. While we do offer some CPM-based advertising on the site, we've made it clear that such display advertising is a waste for most companies. Our audience doesn't pay much attention to it at all. Ad blindness is the rule. Instead, we always suggest to companies who approach us about advertising that they would get a much better and much more valuable bang for their buck by engaging our community via the Insight Community. Doing so isn't strictly "advertising," but it actually gets the attention and engagement of the smart folks who hang around here. And, on top of that, beyond just getting people to see your brand, the company actually gets something of value back -- insightful analysis from our community.

And yet... some of the people we speak to can't even comprehend how getting people to engage is smarter than just pushing annoying banner ads that will get ignored. You can always tell when you're dealing with that sort of person when they start focusing on how to calculate the CPM value of an Insight Community case. They ask how many impressions it will get. These are people who would much rather one million people totally ignore their ad, though it gets loaded in the background somewhere, than have a committed group of targeted individuals actually engaging with the brand. It makes no sense at all, but it's the type of conclusion people come to when they focus so much on CPM. When the CPM rules all, then all you get are impressions -- and there are all sorts of games sites can (and often do) use to boost impressions with totally worthless traffic.

Hopefully advertisers really are waking up to the pointlessness of CPM as a an ad measurement system, and really are interested in exploring true engagement. That would be a huge step forward in taking online marketing and advertising from the level its at today (which is mostly just replicating print advertising, but online) to where it belongs tomorrow: taking real advantage of the interactive nature of the medium.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Content Is Advertising: Twitter On Broadway

from the tweet-the-play dept

We've talked a lot about how content is advertising, and we still get pushback from people who seem to think that we mean underhanded marketing or "product placement" is what we're talking about. But that's not it at all. We're talking about how good content is almost always advertising for something, and it need not be explicit at all. A great example of this is this NY Times article looking at how the Broadway play Next to Normal successfully used Twitter to promote itself. Rather than just setting up a feed to hype up the play, or to announce discounts, they actually had the playwright adapt the play for Twitter. And, from there, they ran the adapted version on Twitter, which built up a huge following, while specifically choosing not to go with a hard sell.

But it appears to have worked. The number of Twitter followers has ballooned, and there's been a nice correlation in ticket sales (admittedly, there may have been other factors as well, but there appears to be a lot of evidence that many attendees were drawn to it via the Twitter campaign). None of this was surreptitious. None of it involved "tricking" people. None of it involved "product placement." All it involved was making good use of good content to draw more attention -- and from there, people figured out what they wanted to buy. That's the point of content as advertising, and it's great to see it put to use so creatively.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Slap Chop Remix Being Used As A Real TV Ad

from the fantastic dept

Back in May, we wrote about the amazing remixed autotuned "rap remix" of the infamous Slap Chop infomercial. In the post, we noted that the ad was almost certainly infringing on basic copyright, but it was actually doing an amazing job attracting more attention to the product. It's much more entertaining than the original ad itself. And, amazingly, it looks like the folks behind Slap Chop (no slouches when it comes to recognizing viral ways to get their message out to the world) have embraced the remix. Details are minimal, but Lee points us to the news that the remix is going to start airing on TV as a real commercial for the Slap Chop:

Once again, it's great to see the convergence of a few different things we talk about here, including how advertising is content and content is advertising, along with a better way to respond to "infringement," by recognizing how you can take advantage of it, rather than breaking out the lawyers and threatening to sue.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Would Amazon Offer Up Free eBooks With Advertising?

from the and-does-that-deserve-a-patent? dept

A bunch of folks have sent in a MediaPost story about a recently granted patent and some patent applications by Amazon that suggest the company is at least considering offering free ebooks with contextual advertising mixed in or possibly the ability to get a free ebook with the purchase of a physical book. To be honest, the idea doesn't seem all that surprising -- and ebooks supported by ads is something that's been talked about for ages (after all, once it's digital, it's effectively the same thing as a web page anyway, right?). So I'm a bit confused as to the reason for a patent. The basic process doesn't just seem obvious, but with tons of prior art, unless you suddenly want to pretend that an ebook is somehow different than any other digital file.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Should Safe Harbors Apply To TV Advertising As Well?

from the seems-reasonable dept

Paul Alan Levy alerts us to an interesting situation (and question raised) involving General Motors appearing to suppress speech that it did not like, and wonders if Section 230 safe harbors should apply in broader media, as well. The case involves a consumer group that was concerned that the bankruptcy restructuring that General Motors is going through would protect it from certain liability claims from owners of cars with defects. So, they took their case to the public by creating a TV commercial and buying airtime via Comcast. GM, rather than refute the content of the ad, simply told Comcast that the ad contained inaccuracies, so Comcast pulled down the ad. However, as Levy notes, this allows GM to suppress the ad at the moment when it would be most effective, without ever needing to prove the inaccuracies (or respond to the "accuracies" of the ad).

In the last few months, we've seen some claim that Section 230 safe harbors should be scaled back because it's somehow "unfair" to treat online different than offline. I've taken issue with that line of reasoning, because in most cases the situations are quite different. The purpose of the safe harbors is to prevent the platform for being blamed for the actions of a user. But in a traditional newspaper, we're talking about content that has been approved and put in place by an editor.

Levy takes that point into account, but suggests why expanding (rather than limiting) Section 230 might make sense here:

There are, of course, significant differences between the burdens that a cable company like Comcast faces with respect to assessing ads and the situation facing an Internet host (such as Comcast, wearing a different hat) that enjoys the protection of Section 230. There are only so many hours on which ads can be shown on cable; and when Comcast receives a proposed ad, it must take the step of placing those advertisements amidst its programming. Thus, Comcast is in a position to perform pre-broadcast review of the text. This is very unlike the situation facing the provide of an online interactive computer service, which allows thousand or even millions of users to place content online with not opportunity for review. And equally important, Comcast earns significant revenues from each broadcast of a single ad, and hence is able to offset its profits from those broadcasts against the cost of review. This is unlike the situation for most statements posted online, with respect to which the host earns tiny sums, at best, either through a modest monthly fee for web server space, or through advertising on the web page.

But the potential impact on speech is the same -- the sponsor of a message on an important issue of public policy sees its message suppressed merely by claims of inaccuracy. Why should the broadcaster face the prospect of secondary liability for carrying the ad, and why shouldn't the opponent of the speech be put to the burden of responding in the marketplace of ideas and, if it really wants to suppress the speech, why shouldn't it have to go to court and persuade a judge that the speech is both false and defamatory before it gets the relief of suppressing the speech?

This makes a rather compelling point. While I still argue the entire concept of safe harbors like this shouldn't be needed if common sense worked, since common sense isn't so common these days, it does make sense to include safe harbors for situations like this where the company that acts as the "platform" has no reasonable expectation to thoroughly research the content first.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Tricking People With Fake Content Isn't Good Advertising

from the that's-sleazy dept

One of the things that gets people upset when we talk about advertising being content, and content being advertising is that they think this means advertisers tricking users into viewing their ads. That's not true at all. It should be totally upfront. People who pass along a cool commercial are doing it because they know exactly what it's advertising and they know that it's still cool. The idea is to create content that's so good that even though everyone knows it's advertising, they don't mind. If you have to "trick" people into viewing your ad, then it's bad content.

Witness, for example, this story from Wired, about a company advertising a "work from home" scheme. To advertise it, they built a series of fake news sites that look incredibly realistic -- just look at this example from a site called News5Alert or The Miami Gazette News, that look an awful lot like real news sites. As Karl notes, they even show that the "comments are closed due to spam."

But the whole thing is fake. It's really an ad. And, to make it worse, the company behind it is taking out ads on real news sites and trying to make it look like news -- thereby tricking people into reading their ad. The whole scam is to get people to sign up for info on how to make money from home -- for which they're charged $2... but then suddenly many claim they started finding additional "surprise" charges on their credit card, which the company says they actually agreed to in the fine print. That's an old scam, but using real-looking news articles is the new twist. So, while content is advertising, misleading or sneaky advertising is bad content.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NY Times Discovers That Advertising Is Content; Content Is Advertising

from the about-time... dept

For many years we've been repeating the idea that advertising is content and content is advertising, and if you think one is different than the other, than you're not going to understand today's content business models at all. More and more people have been figuring this out over the years, and it's nice to see the concept finally warrant a mention in the NY Times, where it covers a recent T-Mobile ad that aired on TV only once, but spread like wildfire online. You can see it below:

The NY Times focuses on how this kind of advertising is "free," but that only gets part of the point. Yes, if others are passing along your content it's "free" advertising, but in order to get others to pass along your content for free, it needs to actually be good -- and you have to make sure it's actually advertising what you want it to advertise.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

News Corps.' Jon Miller Continues His War Against Free; Wants Hulu To Charge

from the that-will-go-over-poorly dept

Just last week we were talking about how News Corps' "chief digital officer" was claiming that free doesn't work, though his reasoning was incredibly weak. It was also incredibly ironic, because Miller's previous work included convincing Time Warner to turn AOL's walled garden into an open and free platform... which was the right move, but got him fired. Perhaps because of that, he now has an aversion to free and is trying to put up garden walls wherever he can, not realizing that the animals won't go back into a walled garden very easily. His latest suggestion, as sent in by robert, is that Hulu should start making shows available by paid subscription only. In other words, take all the good that Hulu did to get people to watch TV online with ads, rather than downloading unauthorized versions... and put it behind a paywall, to drive people right back to unauthorized downloads where there is no ad revenue.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

News Corp. Digital Boss Says Free Doesn't Work, Doesn't Bother To Explain How Pay Will Work

from the good-luck dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in various versions of the fact that News Corps. digital media boss Jon Miller apparently said that "free doesn't work," though that isn't quite what he actually said. He said that ad-supported content doesn't work. Now, it may be true that he's making the (false) assumption that the only way to make money off of free content is advertising, but that's not the same as saying "free" doesn't work. Either way, I'd argue he's wrong. Ad supported free content has been shown for ages to work in various different ways if you do it right. Perhaps the problem is that he's not doing it right. Either way, his suggestions for where News Corp. is heading don't sound very promising:

"It's pretty clear that there has to be some recognition of value," said Jon Miller.... Miller noted that Web companies will have to figure out a way to charge consumers for content they have grown accustomed to getting for free, noting that cable television service providers learned how to charge for television shows. Miller also said he expected to see the rise of Internet micro-payments.

If there's one nearly universal truth out there, it's that you can never go back to charging for content people were used to getting for free. You may be able to charge for new content or services, but never what they're already used to getting for free.

But the real root of the problem is Miller's opening statement. That there needs "to be some recognition of value." There is a recognition of value. Otherwise people wouldn't consume your content. But that doesn't mean they'll pay for it. Notice what he doesn't say. He never says that they need to give people a reason to buy. He's talking about putting up a paywall, not providing a reason to buy. That's destined to fail.

The reason that cable providers learned to charge for television shows was because there was a scarcity there... and even then there's a big push to break out of that and move to free television shows online as well. Trying to cram the internet into that dying model sounds like a terrible idea.

The most ironic thing about all of this is that, if anyone should understand all of this, it's Jon Miller. After all, he was the one who realized that AOL's walled gardens were killing the company, and put in place its strategy of opening up and going free. So now he wants to do the opposite for Fox Interactive? Good luck!

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How About Paying Bands $0.50 For Every Free Dowload?

from the can't-make-money-off-free? dept

We were just talking about how there are more and more new startups in the market to help bands do everything they need to do to both make music and make money these days -- and one of the most successful has been ReverbNation, who has created a variety of tools for musicians to help them both distribute music and connect with fans in new and compelling ways. And, now, the company has announced that it not only wants to help bands give away DRM-free mp3 music for free, but it will pay some of them $0.50 per download. Who says free can't pay? Of course, as always, there is a money-making business model involved. In this case, it's that ReverbNation will get to include a small ad in the cover art that appears with the album. Also, it's only open to a 1,000 bands. I'm not convinced this is a sustainable model, as "ad supported" music strikes me as a market where it will be tough to get enough ad revenue to make it worthwhile -- but it's still a neat experiment to watch and see how it evolves. It certainly may help get more indie bands over the fear of putting their music out there for free on purpose -- and hopefully some of those bands will recognize the other benefits of doing so, beyond just the $0.50 per download from ReverbNation.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Techno Slap Chop Informercial Remix... Infringement Or Brilliant?

from the welcome-to-the-world-today dept

Xanthir writes in to point to this Guardian article about viral videos that highlights the "Rap Chop" video that's currently got over a million views on YouTube. If you haven't seen it (and I hadn't), it's basically taking a silly infomercial for an "as seen on TV" chopping device, which you can see here:

... and remixed it into a techno tune, with some music, cuts and (of course) Autotune to turn the guy's voice into music, and you get this: As both Xanthir and the writer at the Guardian note, after watching the remix, they felt like buying the device. Either way, once again, we're seeing the convergence of a few different topics we tend to talk about here, including the creativity of remixed content and the benefits of making advertising into really good and desirable content, so it doesn't even feel like advertising. And, of course, there are copyright questions. The video is almost certainly infringing on the original, but it's yet another example where it would be a bad idea to try to enforce the copyright (and it doesn't look like the company has even tried to do so, which is good).

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Casio Aiming For The Sexter Market With Its Latest Phone?

from the serious-questions dept

"Sexting," or kids taking nude or provocative photos of themselves and sending them around, is one of the moral panics du jour. While some people are working themselves into a lather over it, one can't help but wonder if Casio is trying to pitch its latest mobile handset to the teen sexter market with a couple of YouTube videos called "Sexy girl in the shower" and "Money shot." The videos have since been yanked, but the former touted the handset's waterproofing and 5-megapixel camera by showing -- no prizes for guessing -- a girl using it in the shower to talk and take a photo of herself. We won't get in to the content of the second ad, but suffice to say it's not something very many companies would be too comfortable with. Sure, showing somebody using a phone in the shower sounds like a great way to promote a waterproof handset, but given the sexting uproar, perhaps Casio's timing (and/or judgment) was a little off.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Journalism Could Be Funded By Advertising... If The News Organizations Gave A Reason To Advertise

from the disconnect dept

Mathew Ingram draws our attention to a thoughtful analysis of the journalism business model question, where it's noted that even a smaller amount of online advertising could clearly support journalistic endeavors -- especially if you take out the costs of printing newspapers and delivery. The problem, according to the analysis, is that advertisers have been way too slow to move from print advertising to online advertising. If there were a way to speed up the process, there would hardly be any complaining at all.

From a numerical point of view, this sounds right, but it may be missing a big piece of the puzzle. Throughout all of these debates, no one has explained why those advertisers should support newspaper websites. Those newspapers have done little to add real value over the past few years, while plenty of other online sites have actively embraced their communities, and done so in a way where advertisers can derive much more value putting ad dollars towards those communities, than the "hands-off" communities created by so many newspaper sites. The problem isn't that advertisers have been slow to switch to online advertising, but that the newspapers have done a terrible job building sites where it's worthwhile to advertise, and haven't done much at all to provide advertising options that are valuable. Instead, they treat it like a backlit version of the newspaper, where they'll show display ads. Yet, advertisers are quickly learning that display ads are ignored, and they also recognize that newspapers have done little to nothing to cultivate true online communities. So why should they advertise on a newspaper site when they can get much better returns elsewhere?

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Once Again: Making Search Results Better Isn't An Antitrust Violation

from the at-least-it-better-not-be dept

And, here we go with more ridiculous antitrust lawsuits -- this time against Google. You may recall last fall, the NY Times ran a silly article focusing on one small company supposedly as evidence of Google's monopoly power. But that was hard to support when you looked at the details. Basically, this company was a pure search arbitrage player. It was buying ads on Google, sending people to a page full of links... and a bunch of Google ads. These pages are often considered spam by users for good reason: they don't provide value. They're a pass-through on the way to where you actually want to go. Because of that, people began to indicate to Google that such links were poor uses of their time, and Google's algorithm properly corrected for that, lowering the prominence of those ads. That's all about making the product better for end users.

However, the company in that NY Times profile, TradeComet, still isn't satisfied, and has now sued Google for antitrust violations claiming that it purposely tried to destroy its SourceTool site (and, of course, it should come as no surprise that there's a Microsoft connection for all you conspiracy buffs). There are numerous problems with this argument. First, it was TradeComet that made the decision to rely almost entirely on Google to send it traffic. That was a strategic decision (and a bad one). Second, Google has every right to make its search results better, and getting spam-like pages out of sight is one clear way to do so. Third, it's almost laughable that Google would "target" SourceTool as a site to be "harmed." It's not like SourceTool was a threat to Google in any way. Fourth, even more ridiculous: since this was a search arbitrage play using Google's ads on the results page as well, Google was making money from sending traffic to SourceTool. All in all, it seems unlikely that TradeComet will get anywhere with this, other than making people think that it picked a really bad business model, almost entirely reliant on one channel partner, and then performed poorly for that channel partner. So Google isn't violating antitrust laws -- it's just doing business.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Content Is Advertising; Advertising Is Content... On SNL

from the blurring-boundaries dept

If you're in any business that relies on "advertising" for revenue, you need to stop thinking of it as advertising -- and start realizing that advertising and content are the same thing. All traditional "advertising" is content -- and if you want anyone to pay attention to it, it had better be good content. At the same time, all traditional "content" is advertising -- it's just a question of what it's advertising. But as more companies recognize this, we're going to see an increasingly blurry line between advertising and content. While some purists decry this situation, they shouldn't worry so much. It will improve both the overall quality of the "content" that you see all the time in two ways: it will allow for better financing of that content and it makes sure that the formerly "bad" advertising content isn't sustainable and goes away.

Reader James Thomas sends in an example of this blurring of the lines that occurred recently with Saturday Night Live. Apparently, on the SNL the night before the Superbowl, there were three skits "MacGruber" skits (a parody of the popular classic TV show MacGyver) each of which had a totally over-the-top promotion of Pepsi. That part may seem like traditional product placement (though, oddly over the top), but the interesting part was that the next night, during the Superbowl, NBC actually showed one of those sketches during a commercial break. In other words, the sketch itself was then repurposed as "commercial" content -- thus blurring the lines completely. I'm not sure how effective this was (personally, I don't find the MacGruber skits funny at all), but it does demonstrate some of how things are changing. If you did the same thing with content that actually was enjoyable, I could see it getting a much better reaction.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..