Depending on whom you ask, the pop as we know it is living on borrowed time. The pop has already quietly been under siege. ISPs offer pop blockers to attract customers; a slew of popular browser toolbars provide them for free in exchange for your coveted browser space and search revenue; and a litany of software developers have come out with paid versions. While prevalent, the impact has not appeared to cause panic, most likely because the impact has been hard to quantify. Is it 10%, 17%, 25%? We know but we don’t. This may all change when Internet Explorer, which owns upwards of 70% of the browser market, releases a built in pop blocker in its next service pack.

For marketers, the current hope is that IE will set the blocker to off by default, and given the overall trend among users to leave their browsers settings as-is, this may mean a reprieve for the pop industry, much like CAN SPAM is for email. I know that many in the industry must have had a heart attack last November when these words were first published, “I can confirm SP2 will include an update to IE that adds pop-up blocking.” 

Whether set to “off” or “on,” the pop is already starting to be the online equivalent of Michael Jackson – beloved by many but an outcast to others. While there is no shortage of people gladly buying pops, many of the higher dollar clients have already “Beat It.” They have moved away from the pop to focus on, at times equally intrusive, rich media spots embedded on the user’s current page.  

One of the big questions on people’s minds is what will replace the pop. Technically, it isn’t hard to block the blocker, but that option has yet to excite many advertisers. As a result, much of the attention has shifted to desktop advertising. Most advertisers are aware that the vast majority of pop blocking solutions won’t inhibit desktop applications’ ability to launch pop advertisements. And, while companies such as Claria and WhenU have had time in the spotlight, it is my belief that consumers are generally in the dark regarding the workings of the desktop market. Like any other market, it too is incredibly complex and likely not to stay immune from the pressures that face pop and email.

More than anything, the main point driving so much of this reform seems to be the simple fact that users don’t like to be interrupted from what they are doing. Commercial email distracts users, to the point that there is a law regulating it; pops annoy users and are fighting for their survival; many desktop applications appear invisible to the user and only increase their anger towards online advertising. While I am concerned about the changes ahead, when looking at the picture holistically, what I believe we are experiencing is simply growing pains. Marketers and end-users simply haven’t reached that comfort level that other, more established mediums have. TV commercials interrupt my tube time; I don’t know how people can make it through certain magazines, and, I can’t imagine many people being thankful for the billboards that adorn what is otherwise beautiful highway scenery. Let’s not even talk about the full-fledged commercials before some movies – and to think we had to pay to see them! How bad can the pop really be?

The only reason in my opinion that 18 to 23 minutes of commercials per hour of programming is tolerated (or more if you are USA Network), is that users simply can’t call up Chevy and yell at them for interrupting Friends the way online users can. In the online world, we deal with empowered users, and that’s why, at the end of the day, we are simply trying to achieve a harmonious balance, the yin and yang of content to advertising. Online advertising, given its dynamic nature and instant, direct feedback, is as mentioned before simply growing-up, and as is commonly said during development, hopefully this is just a phase.

Sam Harrelson is co-editor of the Digital Moses Confidential.  He can be reached at sam@digitalmoses.com

return to top

Digital Moses Top offers:
Net 10 Payment Terms
Contact: Dave Paynter, dave@digitalmoses.com 201.394.6191 for additional information

When our team conceptualized CoregMedia.com, an opt-in co-registration network, we anticipated that there would be major challenges to overcome while developing project.  We soon discovered that opt-in co-registrations proved to be especially difficult because of the major and all-too-familiar hurdles co-registration buyers and publishers experience: 

• Duplicate records against buyer’s database
• Qualification of a “bad record”
• Volume expectations
• Quality expectations (vs. price paid)

We discovered that the best way to overcome those challenges is:

• Deciding what kind of co-registration network to operate (bulk co-registrations vs. quality-oriented co-registrations) 
• Communicating with buyers and publishers before agreements are made

Communication is key. Being on the same page with the buyer/publisher before the campaign begins is what makes a campaign a success. The challenge with co-registration campaigns these days is to match the proper price with the proper quality. There appears to be 2 different worlds in the co-registration world: Bulk co-registrations (low price, high volume, poor results) and Quality-oriented co-registrations (higher price, lower volume, better results).

Here are some parameters to discuss with clients:

• What volume they are expecting
• What is the size of their database?
• How are duplicates going to be handled?
• What is considered a “bad lead” and how should they be handled?

We have discovered that the best way to deal with “bad leads” is to not send them.  There are numerous techniques to verify a new member’s data when they register on a site. With thorough filters, bad leads can be a thing of the past. As far as duplicates are concerned, it’s a very time consuming process and it appears to be more advantageous to present buyers with a slightly lower rate and not allow duplicate returns.

Once publishers and advertisers agree on the parameters listed above, co-registration campaigns are an excellent marketing solution to build a highly-qualified prospects database that clients can contact by phone, postal mail and email.

Try to imagine life without advertisements.  At this point, it is ultimately worthless to attempt such a feat.  However, the backlash against advertisements has been an ongoing phenomenon well before digital recorders, email filters and pop-stoppers.  The advent of the VCR brought the same apocalyptic predictions from advertising analysts.  However, these reports of impending doom soon proved baseless.  However, products like TiVo, the Federal Do Not Call list (60 million Americans have signed up), and email “junk boxes” (present in 54% of American homes) do present a different sort of challenge to advertisers looking for eyeballs.  Can consumers ever filter advertisements out of their life?  Ultimately, what do advertisements mean to the mythos of our society?

Andy Warhol took the symbol of the advertisement and was able to express an incredible amount of meaning from common icons of pop culture.  Part of Warhol’s genius was his ability to reproduce images that were seemingly so mundane into complicated representations of contemporary life.  In Warhol’s works, Coca-Cola bottles, Brillo boxes, Campbell Soup cans and everyday brand images become hieroglyphs (literally translated means “sacred texts”) of contemporary American life.  In Warhol’s vision, advertisements serve as an important key to understanding the complex visual nature of pop society.

Public feelings and opinions aside, what fundamental service and meaning do advertisements serve in 21^st century American culture?  Are ads contemporary hieroglyphs as Warhol posed, or are they more defined by Dylan’s contention in his 1965 song It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)?:

Advertising signs that con you
Into thinking you're the one
That can do what's never been done
That can win what's never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you.

As direct marketers, we’d certainly like to think that Warhol’s canonization of advertisements is more valid than the opinions of those who would love to see their demise, whether on email, tv or radio.  However, returning to the first question posed in this article, imagine a world devoid of advertisements.  Certainly, culture as we know it would be radically different.

Advertisements supply a great deal of contextualization, meaning, and dare I say, value to pop-culture.  It can be argued that ads actually supply a socialization tool that helps to predict and secure norms within the culture.  If it were possible to choose every advertisement that we saw as consumers, or block them entirely how would that affect the social situation held together, in large part, by advertisements?   

Good or bad, advertisements have become the sacred scripture of the American dominated global pop culture.  In the global culture held together by “market capitalism” the signs of the world’s great religions have been usurped by the Golden Arches and the red and white Coca-Cola bottles.  Warhol tapped into this by exposing the sanctification of advertisements in their ability to supply and convey cultural truths, norms and ultimately, definition. 

Where is the line to be drawn?  Is spyware or adware acceptable forms of advertising?  What does “acceptable” mean?  Should we be subjected to so much advertising in our daily lives that it fills our memory banks to the brim and spills over?  Advertising has always existed.  No doubt, it always will.  Advertisers have constantly sought the most eyeballs available for the dollar and looked for ways to codify themselves in the normal life of consumers.  Post-modern bombardment of the sub-conscious can truly seem like a troubling issue that we as direct marketers and advertisers must face and answer.  However, at a certain point, advertisements do fill the gap in our collective need for stabilization and provide social “norms” in a fragmented post-modern society.   

As consumers continue to invest more time and money into “ad-blocking” technologies, the question of advertisement’s place among the masses is raised in this new context of direct, targeted and instant marketing.  Will the Warhol of the 21^st century proclaim the sacredness of weight-loss or mortgage html email creatives?