When the ad impairs the offering
posted by Rob on 2010.08.23, under Advertising
08.23
In this situation, when does The Economist start to ask themselves whether their advertising on their own site is becoming counterproductive? I count four near-identical ads above the fold, but because they’re all the same red as the logo, I at first thought the logo was a fifth ad. Aside from being visually disturbing (the online equivalent of a “BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE” infomercial), it also distracts from the content, which was what I came to the site for in the first place.
Maybe the underlying message is that subscribing is the only way to read an article without seeing four ads on the same page.
comment
Please Leave a Reply
TrackBack URL :
Who knows better than The Economist that the economy is tanking, and that people might re-evaluate their begging for dollars skills?
This merely advances the already obvious marketing conditions: people are distracted, depressed and delerious. What to do?
If you own the real estate, a school of thought advocated by many is: ADVERTISE MORE! MAKE THE CUSTOMER AN OFFER S/HE CAN’T IGNORE! Dinosaurs and other small-brained animals followed this path.
Such a path merely adds to the problem. The counter-corporately-considered option suggests instead: learn more about your customer. What do they want to buy? How? Do better research, actual user research. Ask better questions. Do less of what irritates more people, and more of what makes more people happier — and in a buying mood.
This simple adage, is, I know, too simple. Which is why its rejected routinely in favor of more of the same.