Television Commercials Come to the Web
By BOB TEDESCHI
TELEVISION commercials, in all their big, loud glory, are coming to the Web.
Beginning tomorrow, more than a dozen Web sites, including MSN, ESPN, Lycos and iVillage, will run full-motion video commercials from Pepsi, AT&T, Honda, Vonage and Warner Brothers, in a six-week test that some analysts and online executives say could herald the start of a new era of Internet advertising.
"It's TV, without the television," said John Vail, director for digital media and marketing for Pepsi-Cola North America, a unit of PepsiCo.
…Mr. Vail, of Pepsi, said he would monitor online viewers' reactions through a tracking study conducted by the research firm Dynamic Logic, to determine how much use Pepsi will make of such ads in the future. "Yes, it's intrusive," he said. "But I think customers will like it, because it will be so far superior to anything they've seen online." [P6: he must mean technically; if the content is TV commercials it will still, for the most part, suck]
James Nail, an analyst with the technology consulting firm Forrester Research, agreed. "This is the best full-motion, full-video TV ad technology that I've seen," he said. "I expect big demand from advertisers for this."
…With so many people surfing with broadband connections already, and with many more expected to switch to high-speed connections this year, publishers may be tempted to run video ads with much greater frequency, Mr. Nail, of Forrester, said. "The question is, do they understand the need to exercise some restraint, or will they just see this is as the way to make money, and just grab all the cash they can?" [P6: what do YOU think?]
Posted by P6 at January 19, 2004 10:50 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/46
Comments
Should I be outraged?
I have encountered some of these commercials myself mostly on a major media website where reading an article is conditioned upon watching a brief commercial.
It does not bother me much, because I know that it costs money to run a high-traffic website. The revenue must come from somewhere. If they didn't have the commercials, then they would charge subscription or membership fees, or worse, simply shut down. Additionally, these ads have links on them allowing you to skip it, and go directly to the article.
I think the strongest objections come from those who have come to expect something for nothing.
Posted by Brian at January 21, 2004 10:34 AMAnd this is where the free market works best too. If some sites are oppressive in their use of ads to make money, then people will go elsewhere. I always avoid the sites with too many pop-up ads. If I can read the same article elsewhere without the ads, then I will.
Posted by Brian at January 21, 2004 12:33 PMNot everything I post is sociopolitical commentary. Sometimes I just bitch about things that suck and sometimes I just point out things I find amusing.
I would hope you're not so one dimensional as to view EVERYthing through a Libertarian lens.
Posted by P6 at January 21, 2004 01:17 PMOh.
I see.
It isn't that I see everything one way, but that I thought you saw things only one way.
Posted by Brian at January 21, 2004 01:22 PMYeah, uh huh, right.
TV commercials suck. TV commercials on the web that you're stuck watching over a dial-up connection suck more.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at January 21, 2004 08:52 PMBandwidth is still expensive enough that when they get no more response from this than they do from popups, they will go back to the cheaper static images.
Posted by Phelps at January 22, 2004 02:38 PMSpeaking of things that suck, pop-ups are high on my list, especially when a site pops up two or three windows. I have pop-up blocking software on my computer which is the only thing that makes surfing endurable sometimes.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at January 23, 2004 08:33 PM