The Underscore Archives

On 9/3/07, Tim Beadle <tim.beadle at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/09/07, Keir Moffatt <hello at iamkeir.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for that Tim, was a useful read.
> >
> > It's the kind of article to share with those clients that seem hell-bent on
> > ad-ravaging their websites.
>
> I know what you mean. The thing is though, that all these advertisers
> keep paying hand over fist to get their ads displayed, even though the
> stats say that no-one's clicking on them.

The ad sales people have it far too easy to imagine anything different
and are in control of how stuff is done, so the punters, who don't
want to hear anything different anyway, continue to plough good money
after bad into thoroughly dis-proved tech and industrial printing
business models. Couldn't care about the flat website ads myself but
it's when this slovenly attitude gets dragged across to
membership/community that it bothers me.

>
> So instead of unethical design we have unethical ad sales, in that if
> they told *the truth* to prospective advertisers ("For your £x000,
> about one person - maybe two if you're lucky - is going to click") I'm
> sure the advertisers would be less keen to stump up.

Possibly, or maybe the marketeers are sitting on fat budgets that
*have* to be spent to justify their existence, and can't think of
anything better, so are happy to be schmoozed by the ad sales people,
so you have a self-fulfilling prophecy of mediocre thinking and action
and wasting of dough, and smug patting on eachothers' backs. And if
the click through figures suck, the marketeers and advertisers
probably get together and self justify by saying 'brand awareness
raising' (without mentioning to the ultimate client that it's probably
negative).

'Truth' is a variable concept at the best of times - especially when
you get a combination of commission driven sales people, web metrics,
and needy marketeers. Phooar!

Also, given that, generally, it is the tough nut fiscal experts who
run companies (many of whom come from a sales background and are the
hardest negotiators), 'Truth' in this context is therefore driven by
the boss, who believes in commission as the ultimate motivator,
identifies the most with sales people, and thus makes most of the
decisions from this framework. (caveat: I'm not bashing management,
just rabid sales management: the best companies I know and trust are
run by creative/tech people with a keen fiscal sense).

>
> Or they might still see one or two clicks a worthwhile investment - we
> work in pretty specialised fields. Nonetheless, it just makes the
> ad-supported business model seem *even more* of a house of cards than
> it already did.

Indeed, but as the dominant model, benefitting the hardest
negotiators, it's a house of cards that suits those with their hands
on the lever of power.