Comments on: Pro (Advertising) Choice

By: Advertising’s New Hope « brandpost's blog

Advertising’s New Hope « brandpost's blog — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:46:54 +0000

[...] challenges. I watched it in HD on my iPad, in exchange for my email address (the one I’m dedicating to marketers). It’s a huge, multimillion-euro video production, with scores of the [...]

By: B2B Marketing Tip #1 – Social is the New Digital – Socially Yours A specialized blog for simplifying Marketing & Technology for B2B & SMB

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:12:50 +0000

[...] users around the world? Let me explain you by sharing an example, read this post written by Frédéric Filloux ( General Manager, French ePresse consortium). A possible reason why he wrote this post could be, [...]

By: behavioural targeting

behavioural targeting — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:45:31 +0000

Sweet post, behavioral Targeting as a marketing discipline can be applied to any online property, product, or agency: first that the visitor’s experience is improved by it, and second that it benefits the online property through improved conversion and spending.

By: The Mac Couch » Blog Archive » Pro (Advertising) Choice

The Mac Couch » Blog Archive » Pro (Advertising) Choice — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:37:16 +0000

[...] Frédéric Filloux – Monday Note [...]

By: Julian Robinson

Julian Robinson — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 07:04:22 +0000

Tracking and consequential targeted adverts is ludicrous and short sighted because (and if only) it mostly has no way of knowing when and if you have satisfied the interest or desire it has interpreted. Example … I recently bought a new car. Since buying I am still being bombarded with car adverts which are completely irrelevant to me so ignored. This is not just annoying to me but is a complete loss of focus and revenue to the advertiser. It is touting to the person who is absolutely NOT going to buy a car and at the same time excluding most other ads that might actually be relevant to me. So lose, lose. lose. Loss to me because it’s annoying. Loss to the advertiser because their premium cost advert (targeted advert) is wasted entirely with less impact than a random untargeted advert, and loss in the end to the medium because people will realise both previous facts and stop advertising by that means.

By: The Insidious Power of Brand Content | Monday Note

The Insidious Power of Brand Content | Monday Note — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:32:13 +0000

[...] challenges. I watched it in HD on my iPad, in exchange for my email address (the one I’m dedicating to marketers). It’s a huge, multimillion video production, with scores of the helicopters [...]

By: Sean M

Sean M — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:45:39 +0000

A really interesting article. I suppose Microsoft is indeed trying to get at Google and Facebook, under the excuse of providing a much needed service for customers. In the end, it is a story we all know too well: people (advertisers, in this case) get greedy and the greed backfires. Not only the nuisance of seeing ads everywhere, but especially the feeling of uneasiness you get once you realize you are literally being followed around the web. I think they should blame themselves and nobody else. Still, there are still options left on the growing mobile and apps market, so I presume we will see a major shift in the next couple of years – until they will overdo and clog that market too, of course
When it comes to privacy though, I think Mozilla still provides quite a few useful instruments to the more tech-savvy in order to avoid the big chunk of ads and cover at least some of the tracks. But of course we can’t expect everybody to spend hours researching for applications and pimping their browsers.

By: bagbat

bagbat — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:54:04 +0000

Great article and timely too. I’ve repeated considered an online subscription to the NYT newspaper. I pretty much abandoned all hope after I read the terms and conditions (in three separate documents: Terms of Sale, Terms of Service and Privacy Policy!). However, if I subscribe through iTunes instead, I believe I am offered the option of not providing personal information to the NYT. It’s all too restrictive for me and enabling for the NYT. Not happy at all since I’d like to support quality journalism.

By: ‘Do Not Track’ controversy could limit news sites’ dependence on targeted ads | Astrid Bidanec

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:06:03 +0000

[...] Monday Note | John Battelle’s Searchblog Frédéric Filloux says users are becoming so irritated with the flood of targeted ads that they’re deliberately not clicking on them: The more experienced users become, the more cautious they get in [...]

By: Aktuelles 12. Juni 2012

Aktuelles 12. Juni 2012 — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 05:02:34 +0000

[...] Pro (Advertising) Choice | Monday Note "The conclusion is obvious: behavioral advertising is backfiring. The more experienced users become, the more cautious they get in order to avoid aggressive tracking. For advertisers, this is the exact opposite of what they meant to achieve. And I take the trend will accelerate. Marketers have more sense of efficiency than of measure; they were quick to embrace these clever technologies without considering they might end up killing the golden goose. It is happening much earlier than anyone has anticipated." [...]

By: Mike van horn

Mike van horn — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:37:52 +0000

We’re being overfished! Just visited the magnificent Monterrey Aquarium. Many exhibits on the impact of overfishing the open seas. A resource thought to be inexhaustible is rapidly diminishing.
Our “eyeballs” are the new fish. Because the web advertisers show no sense of proportion, they risk making the resource they depend on an “endangered species.”

By: Marius Waldal

Marius Waldal — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 06:39:54 +0000

Install LastPass and put your passwords in there instead. You can flush your cookies then, as LastPass will keep (and autofill, if you so choose) your passwords for you. It will even provide them between browsers.

By: Lisa Duggan (@motherhoodmag)

Lisa Duggan (@motherhoodmag) — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 05:43:14 +0000

There is a fundamental difference between how we, as readers, perceive and pay attention to online ads, to how we see / attend to them in print — and I’m not sure that it is being acknowledged. (And it’s not about placement on the screen.)

Print ads cannot NOT be seen; they are part of the composed page and we acknowledge them both unconsciously and consciously. With the loss of print, advertisers lose the medium where ADS CANNOT BE TURNED OFF, which TV lost a long time ago. Digital ads are not recognized as part of the image we are focused on (the words/content) — they are seen as separate-from, and can therefore be ignored.

When you are reading online, ads are a nuisance because they stop you from doing what you are doing — reading (retrieving information at your own pace) — and interrupt you to do a different activity — watching (receiving information at someone else’s pace).

In the online world, Text battles Images because we (older generation only, maybe) don’t expect images on a screen to be passive, but animated, and so they require a different kind of attention, and we have to decide which kind of attention they require (passive/active), which takes time & is distracting & exhausting.

Perhaps the secret to successful online ads is compelling text-rich ads — things to be glanced at & read at the readers choice — things that appear congruent with the content — and not interruptions, objects that require watching.

Perhaps for online ads to be effective, they should be consistent in asking for the same kind of attention & engagement the consumer has already “turned on”.

The event of a double-screen tablet (that opens like a magazine) would help in this, too. If we could approximate the old spread of a magazine, advertisers would gain much of the real estate they lost online, and readers would be able to absorb content + ads again.

By: Antoine

Antoine — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 01:48:23 +0000

Thanks for this note Frederic.

Conceptually, better targeting should lead to more useful (user perspective) and efficient (advertiser perspective) ads. This is even applicable to the DNT question: “conceptually”, the ad is targeted differently depending on whether the user wants tracking or not (why show you an ad that you find annoying). The problem you are mentioning is very much an execution problem (as well as a game of opinion manipulation by the large players).

Regarding what is really at stake revenue-wise, it would be interesting to see the sensitivity of these players display ad sales to the ability to track user behavior. I would not be surprised if it were not significant. I would be more worried if I were a specialized retargeting player.