Online Advertising: Sullivan vs. Clemons
The future of online advertising: Danny Sullivan vs. Eric Clemons; http://tr.im/hVKE
-
Gerrit Eicker
Reply
-
eicker. Wir sprechen Online. Folgen Sie uns zu relevanten Nachrichten rund ums Web. [RSS, Kontakt]
We speak Online. Follow us to relevant news focusing the Web. [RSS, Contact]
Gerrit Eicker 21:48 on 28. March 2009 Permalink |
Clemmons (origin): “The internet is about freedom, and I suspect that a truly free population will not be held captive and forced to watch ads. We always knew that freedom comes at a price; perhaps the price of internet freedom and the failure of ads will be paying a fair price for the content and the experience and the recommendations that we value. … People don’t trust ads. … People don’t want ads. … People don’t need ads.”
Sullivan (reply #1): “The TechCrunch article was designed to inspire debate. I recognize that, recognize it as queued up to go out on a typically slow Sunday news cycle to get people buzzing. I just want educated debate. If we’re going to be subjected to weekend “thought stories” by any publication in the blogosphere, I desperately want more of those to be by people who demonstrate clear knowledge in their space and a reason to get the attention they receive. Clemons demonstrated none of that by calling search ads ‘misdirection.’”
Sullivan (reply #2): “Advertising, especially offline, has an issue in that people will avoid interruptions if they can, nor do they particularly trust interruptions. In addition, offline ads are poorly targeted compared to those online and tracking performance is laughable compared to metrics for internet ads. But that advertising still works. On the internet, which continues to grow its audience, advertising is smarter, more targeted, more measurable and ultimately will find a place to be more successful, in my view.”
Clemmons (reply #1): “There are numerous other business models that will work on the net, that will be tried, and that will succeed. – The last point, actually, seemed to be the most important. It was really the intent of the article, and the original title was ‘Business Models for Monetizing the Internet: Surely There Must Be Something Other Than Advertising.’ This point got lost in the fury over the title of the article and in rage over the idea that online advertising might lose its importance. – I’d like to offer Danny the following wager: I bet that in five years revenues from internet advertising will constitute less than 20% of internet business revenues, excluding revenues from the sale of physical goods. Winner buys the loser lunch and gets to gloat.”
Sullivan (reply #3): “Just because many web sites on the web or many companies in the real world don’t earn the majority of their revenue through advertising doesn’t mean advertising is failing. In terms of the internet, I think internet advertising will continue to grow as more people come online and the space continues to mature. And I’m happy to bet this will happen with a far better wager. – Clemons wrote that internet advertising revenues will never be as high again as they are now. I disagree. In five years, let’s look at internet advertising spend reports from some commonly accepted sources, such as the IAB. If advertising is above today’s levels, I win. If not, he wins. The loser pays $1,000 to the charity of the winner’s choice.”
Clemmons (reply #2): “It appears that Danny actually agrees. That was the real point of my original article. It looks like we have agreement after all. Internet advertising will be a small percentage of internet revenues. The other business models will become more important. At less than 20% internet advertising must fail as the main support of the internet. – Now we can move on and develop those business models.“