It’s not really a new fact, that advertisers are trying to do all sorts of stuff for getting the attention of consumers. However, in the last couple of days I read about two new payment models introduced by startups that want to offer a better, more efficient way than traditional media buys to place ads where they can find the attention of people. TechCrunch writes about a start up called Pay per Post. This company pays bloggers to write (positive) reviews about their products:
There does not appear to be any requirement that the payment for coverage be disclosed. There is a requirement that PayPerPost.com must approve your post before you are paid.
The Scobelizer expresses his opinion on the fact that bloggers should disclose whenever they write something based on money or free product samples. He specifically says:
I will try to keep my advertising and editorial separate and easily identifyable. […]
Why is disclosure so important? Because I, as a reader, need to know about potential conflicts of interest.
And he is right about that, credibility is the most important asset any media souce has (unless you’re writing for the „national enquirer“, „the sun“ or the „Bild“ – those papers I’d rather classify as entertainment).
I don’t agree with this kind of „advertising“ at all. I think it is utterly important for any content producer to stay independent and make that clear.
But I can see how advertisers (being one myself) are trying to „buy“ attention in any way they can – even if that means buying the time and space of non-professionals, who already have the attention of other non-professionals. (Which is exactly the reason why this non-professional content is so promising: I myself like to read bloggers content, because I consider it true and non-biased by anything.)
At the same time, funnily enough, I read news on Informationweek about another startup called Jellyfish paying consumers for spending their time reading or viewing ads. It is a comparison shopping site like many others, with the one single edge to it, that might make consumers prefer using this platform instead of others:
The company […] plans to give the customer half the ad revenue it collects from the advertiser upon making a sale.
The result is that Jellyfish users can get products for less because half the marketing dollars spent by advertisers go directly their customers instead of to a third party. […] the cash returned can result in discounts of up to 24%, according to the company. This number will rise and fall daily as merchants bid for consumers‘ business.
Users can collect their cash once products can no longer be returned, in order to prevent abuse of the system.
In this model, advertisers clearly benefit from the fact, that they place their ads on this site. Question is: will people go to jellyfish first to find out about things and then buy whatever they found? Or will they search for stuff anywhere on the web and then buy at jellyfish to get the discount – which means that advertisers will still have to also advertise „anywhere on the web“ to get the attention of these people?
On the Motley Fool this whole thing is also covered, and they state on thing which is fairly certain to happen:
Jellyfish’s arrival is only going to make things harder, since consumers will now expect discounts.
As advertisers are trying to find new ways of „buying“ the attention these two approaches might be ways to succeed. But I doubt it in the longterm.
The first will only be effective as long as the credibility issue rises to steam and bloggers realise that their audience reacts to advertising on their blogs just like they would in the traditional media.
The second one will only work out for everyone, as long as it has not become the normal procedure on the web to share ad revenue with the target audience. Once this model has been applied on all shopping sites, consumers will only experience a general drop in prices across all websites. A general rebate on all things bought online funded by advertising. And, realistically speaking, once this becomes common practise, advertisers will start to look for ways decreasing spending across the board.
Either way – paying bloggers or paying shoppers – I am still not convinced you get quality-attention by paying anyone. As soon as the flow of money decreases, you loose your audience. Instead, you need to involve your target audience, engage them in your brand and the story of your brand. Get them to buy your product, because they value that – and not the discount.
PS: How BS is this Quote from the article in the informationweek?
The name „Jellyfish,“ says president Mark McGuire, reflects the company’s intent to bring transparency to the ad market.
Hey, get real: this was a domain you still had from the late 90s and it makes more sense than any domain or artificial web2.0 name you could get nowadays, right?
What can I say? The whole country is absolutley mental. Worldcup fever all over the place. Thats the main reason why this blog has been so quiet the last couple of days. I was probably out and about celebrating yet another German victory (who thought we’ll actually make it past the first round??)
Here are a few shots of the athmosphere taken during the last couple of days. It’s a mixture of the celebrations after the game against Sweden last week and the celebrations of yesterday, when we actually won against Argentinia!
This one is after the game against Argentinia:
and this one is after the game against Sweden:
The overall athmoshpere here in Germany is just fantastic. I wish we could have the worldcup in Germany all the time, like, every year. It has been a great party sofar. And, since we have a lot of foreign citizens in Frankfurt, there was a party every night, there was always some nation celebrating.
As video on the web evolves into a fairly standard medium, it starts to offer some real benefit for TV. On the one hand, you can show/sell shows on the web, that are not successful enough for TV placements or that are so successful, that people will pay a couple of bucks per film or episode.
Now I read, that Axe Webisodes are destined for TV. Since the show attracted millions of viewers online, it will now be put on regular television:
„Evan and Gareth proved this model online, and we’re excited to translate it to television, where it has a ‚pre-sold audience‘ of millions of unique viewers who’ve already been enjoying the comedic adventures over the Internet for a year.“
I am pretty sure, that producers will look at the web as a medium to test new shows, content, etc. more than ever in the future. i.e. find out, if your content is good enough to capture the attention of people, before you waist thousands (millions) of dollars putting it in front of a uninterested TV audience.
A couple of weeks ago I noticed skypecasts for the first time. An amazing concept. You create a skypecast to which up to 100 people can join in. As the moderator you can decide who gets to speak (you could also decide to have a monologue for 2 hours – might be your last cast that people join).
In theory, this opens the door for massive multi-chatter audio chat sessions (MMCACS – a term I just made up 😉 )
Skype already lists pages of Skypecasts that anyone can join – Irish language chats, church-casts, business briefings and tech webcasts. It’s like call in radio on the web – and the advantage is that the host can record the conversation and post it in podcast format to iTunes or their blog. (PSFK)
Now PFSK calls it „call in radio on the web“ – but the true fascination will come from topical chat sessions, where 20 people can discuss, say, a worldcup game, for example. Just like the Italy vs Ghana as I watch now.
It might get too noisy, as people try to grab everybodys attention. But then again, people will get to learn some „conference call etiquette“, as it is already common in the business world. And those who do not play by those rules will be kicked out of the chatsessions.
Can you already hook up Second Life and Skype(casts)? I think this would be the next logical step.
The Kinsey of Clicking is a very interesting research into todays love&web culture by Wired author Momus.
He asked the readers of his blog a few questions, which he gathered and summarised in a report later published at wired.com.
His questions were:
What are the effects of information addiction on your life together?
Is the internet age less cozy and communal than the TV age?
Do today’s couples cuddle on the sofa when they’re surfing, legs entangled, laptop lids touching?
Might the „virtual personal space“ of a laptop screen be a lifesaver for a couple crammed into a too-small physical space?
Is surfing solitude or a new form of sociability?
Do couples mail each other interesting URLs, do they text message each other even when they could be talking face-to-face?
What about „asymmetrical addiction“ — does the first one to be bored online dictate offline activities, or does the one who wants to stay online longest make the other one click around aimlessly for hours?
Like the intrepid Dr. Kinsey himself, I didn’t hold back from darker questions, either.
Do couples use domestic Wi-Fi to look surreptitiously at porn?
Are they flirting with other people, using the internet’s weird ability to make the absent more present than the present?
Can jealousy, that primitive monster that sleeps inside us, distinguish the threat of human sexual rivals from the threat posed by the winking green LEDs of the very machines that bring them into our living room?
Crazy, the kind of ads this worldcup inspires. Advertising for peanuts pointed me to the The Adidas Chapel. They painted the ceiling of the main trainstation in Cologne to look like the Sixtine Chapel by Michelangelo…
Wo ich sonst so bin...