What people are willing to pay for....

External Link

I personally am thinking about a web site for myself. It would be nice to put what I believe in, community wise as well as business wise, on line and make some sort of money for the work I and others are putting into the site to provide the data your looking for.

I have been thinking of how advertising should actually be more profitable because of the fact that so many people see your ad and quite frankly that is what it is really about, as oppossed to a click through. Much like news papers or billboards, it is about being seen. But on the net, that stategy seems so far fetched for some reason even though being seen is what happens. (But that is another news story for later)

There has been talk of subscriptions for web sites. A possible money maker? Perhaps... but much like advertising basically in screwed up by lack of real design, strategy, placement, and over all thought (flash is not the end to be all in design for ads OR web pages), subscritptions can be the same without a strategy, design, placement and so on.

Then there is internet dateing (which is the main reason why I am writing this). People pay for it, and they basically get from 10 to 20 dollars a month. Talk about a subscription that works!!! But I want people who want to use subscriptions to see that there is a design to it. A newspaper or infomation site might not be able to do the same thing, not so much becuse there is so much free infomation or data out there, but because if I have to buy it, it better be worth it.

So haveing a subscription HAS TO BE WORTH IT!!! It has to do something more than just be a portal to all content on your site (much like what the dating sites do but they are different).

My personally hope is that there can be a consensus of sites that will come together and try to provide a way of unifing a strategy for beter design of sites as well as how to use subscritpions (and not over kill it, once again that is waht happened with ads). Maybe this consensus of sites can also form a better stategy for advertising (and getting paid for advertising by advertisers instead of getting stiffed for thier money).

What do you think?

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sort of like the "Century 21" of web portals?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Advertising isn't working on the internet because far too much is expected of it, far more than print or television. For some reason the expectation online is that each time a banner is loaded, it is going to equal a site visit, or even a sale.

Does Chanel expect you to rush out and buy a gallon of expensive perfume the moment you crack open Vogue magazine? No, they don't. They expect that very, very expensive advertising to cement their BRAND, i.e when you want perfume, you'll think of them without trying very hard. Brand recogition works, period. Advertisers should understand that a really good banner, seen a thousand times as someone clicks through every damned skin on WC, would cement their brand like nobody's business.

On television and print, advertising as become an art. We have shows that actually spotlight commercials, and a great many people watch the superbowl simply to see the commercials. Advertising in high-end magazines feature the best art and photography that there is, anywhere. When online advertising is given the same benefits, and held to the same expectations as other venues, it will work, and work well, I think.

The only other way to make money is the same as it has ever been. Products and Services. People won't buy what they can get free elsewhere. Sites that charge subscription fees have to have something that other people don't have. People point to sites like Salon and say "See, I can charge people just for style!". Have you seen the people that contribute to Salon? pfft. You literally can't buy that kind of content, at least not until you are attractive enough for such people to want their content on your site.

Anyhoo, I don't mean to drone on and on. If you make it easy for them to get your products and services, make it easy to pay for them, and above all give them things they really, really want and can't get anywhere else, you'll do okay. Just don't forget what the internet was originally intended to do. It isn't easy to use something for a purpose beyond what it was designed to do.

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

bakerstreet

Join Date 03/2001

+7

Reply #3 September 20, 2002 4:20:47 PM
from WinCustomize Forums

ugh... i was sure i closed that bold tag...

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

Sign Up or Login and this ad disappears!
There are many great features available to you once you register. Sign Up for a free account and browse the forums without ads.

joetheblow

Join Date 12/2001

0

Reply #4 September 20, 2002 5:39:44 PM
from WinCustomize Forums

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

joetheblow

Join Date 12/2001

0

Reply #5 September 20, 2002 5:51:15 PM
from WinCustomize Forums

I agree with some of what your saying bakerstreet. I personally think that not only will a person not pay for something that they can get free somewhere else, some people are inclined to not pay at all if it cost to much or not worth buying even though they can't get it anywhere else.

The bottom line is that if web sites can get together (for once) and actually force a way of advertising to work (better ad designs, better placement, more about the ad being seen and not so much a click-through or magical on-mass increase in revenue for the company represented by the ad) it might actually be possible to change the way business is done on the net. Advertising can actually make money and subscription could actually make profit (as long as they too, are designed, placed properly, and give specail site specific content the inhances the life of the purchaser)

It can be done. I believe only when websites come together and also stop thinking about there profit and start thinking about how they will be helping others nd making the world a better place to be in for all. Once you believe that the content your giving, sharing, or selling is worth more to the person than you and helps make the person a better person, that is when both parties come away with something worth more than money ever will represent.

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

bakerstreet

Join Date 03/2001

+7

Reply #6 September 20, 2002 6:05:37 PM
from WinCustomize Forums

Ad placement is an iffy issue, and the one thing that makes them hard on the internet. If you place them well, people claim that you are obscuring content, or at least distracting from it. I have seen commercial style ads, i.e. you load a full page ad for 10 seconds or so before it continues on to the content, but they go against the original intent, distributing content quickly and efficiently. People expect commercials on tv. It would take a lot of getting used to on the internet.

If they simply make ads good enough that people are *happily* distracted by them, no one will complain. I don't get mad about ads in magazines, and the layout isn't that much different than websites. The ads are very different, though...

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

grayhaze

Join Date 07/2001

0

Reply #7 September 21, 2002 8:58:02 AM
from WinCustomize Forums

Funny that you should mention subscription dating sites. I've been working on a new UK one for a few months now, and hope to launch it soon. All of the issues you discuss are ones that I've had to take into consideration, and I'm probably lucky to have a web agency background to learn from.

Yes, I'm still lurking folks...

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

craeonics

Join Date 03/2001

0

Reply #8 September 21, 2002 9:01:41 AM
from WinCustomize Forums

As soon as adverts are relevant to the issue at hand (read: the site you visit) can they have any chance of being a) succesfull; and not considered annoying. Extremely hard to do so, though.

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

craeonics

Join Date 03/2001

0

Reply #9 September 21, 2002 9:02:41 AM
from WinCustomize Forums

Urgh, grammar fell overboard somewhere up there, but you'll get my point.

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

grayhaze

Join Date 07/2001

0

Reply #10 September 21, 2002 9:05:13 AM
from WinCustomize Forums

As a rule, superstitials (popup adverts) work the best, but alienate your viewers. Interstitials (those 10 second ad-breaks) work almost as well as popups, but if done poorly can totally destroy the flow and continuity of a site. Banners and skyscrapers (large vertical banners down the side of a page) seem to keep the balance between results and user-friendliness, as they're very similar to those magazine adverts bakerstreet talks about.

The real unknowns at the moment are those (sometimes annoying) DHTML adverts which appear in a layer on top of the current page. Some of them move around the page, some of them play loud sounds, and some require user interaction to close them after they're done. I would imagine that they have a similar result to that of superstitials, but if done right could potentially be only slightly more intrusive than a banner.

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

lilaug

Join Date 10/2001

0

Reply #11 September 21, 2002 9:54:56 AM
from WinCustomize Forums

I find pop-up ads extreemly annoying-- and if I get anymore, i'm downloading that "pop-up stop" program!

Also, i hope that this Thread isnt inspired because Wincustomize is considering charging everyone a subscription to download wallpapers, etc.. We already paid enough registration fees for Stardock's products > (i was wondering about that after i saw the "yes, no? for text ads, etc" Vote area ).

If Wincustomize is having financial problems , maybe you guys ought to consider a donations link..,, and those unobtrusive little ads with the arrows you can click on to roll up after your done with it.

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

Colorado 33

Join Date 06/2002

0

Reply #12 September 21, 2002 4:03:44 PM
from WinCustomize Forums

The ads, pop-ups and buy this or that are like the african bees! They keep "stinging you"! I just hate it!

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

Colorado 33

Join Date 06/2002

0

Reply #13 September 21, 2002 4:06:15 PM
from WinCustomize Forums

If people are going to be charged by the download, then most of them will migrate to the free-sites!

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

bakerstreet

Join Date 03/2001

+7

Reply #14 September 21, 2002 6:11:28 PM
from WinCustomize Forums

grayhaze: Those DHTML adverts you mention are absolutly the most annoying thing since "punch the monkey". I seriously will not frequent sites that use them. One of the sites in our commmunity has them periodically and I find that I really don't visit there at all anymore. Their odd shape and movement make them harder to kill, and some of them don't have the close window button at all. That is no worse than the javascript-trick windows that pron sites use, imho. They take control of my desktop away.

Imagine picking up a magazine to read an article, and having the ad next to the words drift over in front of what you are reading and start flashing at you. No magazine publisher in their right mind would *ever* allow that, and yet on the internet... Anything that obscurs the content is out of the question. Pop-UPs obscure the content.

Pop-UNDERs drain resources from my computer by opening extra windows that I don't need, and most of the time don't notice til an hour later. The worst ad scripts don't bother to check if there are any idental windows already open. The other night, after realizing that my taskbar had overflowed, I closed 12 *identical* pop-unders. That, imho, should be a crime punishable by stoning or pressing.

The main point of my previous post wasn't necessarily the technical mode of advertising, but the fact that there is little, if any real branding in advertising. Most of it is obscure, as though the consumer wouldn't click the ad if they were aware of the product or service. That says bad things to me immediately. Where are the ads we get in GQ, Vogue, or any glossy, high-end magazine? Think for a moment about every woman you have ever seen read Voque or Cosmo. If possible, would they buy a magical device that would remove all the ads? Hell no, the ads are as big a draw as the magazine.

Those people pay *insane* amounts to be seen by fewer people. If you don't believe me, go look at the cirulation numbers for a top-of-the-line glossy magazine, and then compare them to the pageviews-per-month of a major portal. I think they don't buy into internet advertising in the same way because they are mortified by the idea of being represented by such filth.

There is no art in internet advertising, no class, no beauty. Until there is, it's doomed to fail.

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

grayhaze

Join Date 07/2001

0

Reply #15 September 22, 2002 9:11:03 AM
from WinCustomize Forums

The main thing to remember bakerstreet is that advertising on the net and advertising in magazines are two very different things, with very different aims.

The main purpose of an Internet advertisement is to attract your attention to the point where it is your sole focus on the page, and to draw you away from the site you're currently looking at by getting you to click on it. If you're comparing to magazines, that's like trying to get someone to drop the magazine they're reading and to go and buy another. The whole aim of Internet advertising is to get click-throughs. If a banner/popup/whatever doesn't get click-throughs, you end up with one very angry client.

Magazine adverts on the other hand usually aim to push a brand or concept into your subconscious, so that you will act on the impulse it hopes to generate at a later date. None of the companies that advertise in Cosmo or Vogue really believe that you'll drop the magazine and go out to buy their product immediately. It's all about suggestion.

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

grayhaze

Join Date 07/2001

0

Reply #16 September 22, 2002 9:17:56 AM
from WinCustomize Forums

This very subject, by the way, is one of the main problems I encounter as a web designer having to work with print-based designers. The Internet isn't a magazine. They're two very different mediums, with very different dynamics. It's true that you can have a magazine on the Internet, but you can't have the Internet in a magazine.

You need to take the Internet for what it is, and stop comparing it to other mediums. Do you compare television to magazines? No. So why compare the Internet? The sooner people start trying to understand the Internet, and the way we use it, the sooner topics like this one will fade.

The simple fact is, internet advertising is here to stay, and if anything it's just going to get more intrusive. Hopefully in time we'll see things settle a little more, and all this experimentation will cease, but for the time being it's just something you have to live with.

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

joetheblow

Join Date 12/2001

0

Reply #17 September 22, 2002 3:13:18 PM
from WinCustomize Forums

"Magazine adverts on the other hand usually aim to push a brand or concept into your subconscious, so that you will act on the impulse it hopes to generate at a later date."

Citizen grayhaze

Yes, I would agree that avertising in different mediams have different aims. I just strongly feel that it should not be the only aim for website advertizing to be a click through to another site. If that reality was true, then a person whould never stay on one site longer than 5 minutes (or less). That actually should make the owner of the site angry because the user is being lured away by an ad (that only pays between .50 cents and 2 dollars.. please!!)

My point is that it should be allot like (like as in similar; almost the same) magazines, newspapers, or billboards such that just the fact that having like over 200,000 people seeing your ad is the way into there subconscious. At a later date, buy into the material or go to the site.

Actually I think internet advertising does not work because its sole perpose is to aim at taking you away from the site your on. If I am reading the New York Times online, I am not going to just go to another site because of an ad, but I do look at them from time to time. It gets into my head and the next thing you know I click on it (it was a real estate ad by the way). It also helps if the ad, once clicked on, opens another page as oppossed to clearing out the page you were on. Then again if the ad was actually thought about there would be a dicussion as to wether or not to do that. (Some ads take you away but show you where you came from on the top of the web page)

The bottom line is that if internet ads got anywhere near as much thought in design, placement, age group, and other factors as magazines, newpapers, or even billboards it would be a far better internet.

Internet advertising has its pluses and minuses much like any other mediam. The magor problem with internet ads is the focus of immediate gratification (or as we call it click - through). That immetiate gratification is not the focus (or for the most part should not be) of internet ads. Just because I can click on it to go to your wonderfully designed and user friendly website, doesn't mean I will. Just because I didn't click on your ad does not mean I did not see it. Just becaue I am on the internet and have the ability to just "drop what I'm doing" and go to your site does not mean I will or that you failed because I didn't go to the site.

Hell, I would love to see an ad that DOESN'T have a click through. That would peak my interest more. You see, design is the key. There are so many ways to advertise on the net, so for crying out loud use them.

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...

grayhaze

Join Date 07/2001

0

Reply #18 September 22, 2002 5:07:03 PM
from WinCustomize Forums

I agree that in an ideal world adverts on the net wouldn't only be about click-throughs, but this isn't an ideal world. It's a world, and a medium, that is driven by money and measured in literal terms. Sure, it would be nice to be able to just have adverts which don't intrude on your browsing experience, but the very nature of the medium as a fast-paced interactive experience means that such a thing just wouldn't work.

Reason for Karma (Optional)

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're looking up the edits for this post...