Bringing Interruption-Based Ads To the Web

Andy Smith writes "British production company Celador is to launch an Internet version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? as reported in this BBC story. This may interest Slashdot readers because the online competition, which will be free to enter, will feature "e-mercials". It's commonly accepted nowadays that the Net's traditional forms of advertising (banners, pop-ups and spam) have a very low success rate, so it seems inevitable that the next step is interruption-based advertising, which has worked fine for TV and radio. The Millionaire web site will display 7 second ads between rounds, and the player must watch them before continuing. E-mercials couldn't arrive in a more high-profile way, so once the online version of Millionaire launches we can expect to see similar ad systems used all over the web." Actually, rollouts of this have already been attempted - the media agencies called them "interstitals" and they are supposed to be 5 seconds between pages or so. Some of the drive behind this is that selling interruption-based ads is easier, because the media buyers who bought TV/radio ads are well familar with them.

Comments

Success of Ads

[wass]

Okay, any marketing people here on slashdot? (oh no, i've invoked the demons). There's something about this I don't understand. My main confusion with this whole issue is how do they know that internet ads aren't working, but TV/radio/magazine/billboard/skywriting ads are?

It seems that internet ads are probably the only ads they can actually keep track of how many people have followed the link. In terms of other ads, how will said companies know if they work? Ie, if I buy a bar of Ivory soap, or a Dell computer, how the hell do they know whether I bought it based on the TV commercial during the Simpsons, a billboard on I-95, a magazine ad in Knitting Today? In fact, how do they know how many people even look at ads in magazines, radio, TV, billboards, etc.

People get numb to web ads after awhile, but so too with billboards on the highway. Yet billboards seem to be prospering. Radio and TV ads somewhat too.

What has led these companies to determine that all other ad sources are a success, but internet ads are a failure?
__ __ ____ _ ______
\ V .V / _` (_-&#60_-&#60
.\_/\_/\__,_/__/__/

Splitting the web

[Eloquence]

The difference between commercial and non-commercial or semi-commercial sites will finally begin to show. While the commercial web has been primarily paid for by stockholders in the early days, this time is over. As advertising becomes more annoying and more difficult to block, the advantgage of "free speech" over "free beer" will become clear. Collaborative sites like /. and K5 need less staff to provide more content than CNET & Co. The web can't be built with lots of money & advertising -- that's just digital TV. It can only be built by the people, and for the people.

--

Exactly like Bezerk Network

[Fervent]

It'll work exactly like Bezerk Network, which has had this for years. You Don't Know Jack, Acrophobia, Get the Picture, etc. has small 15-second commercials in between "rounds". The commercials are done in Flash, and pressing a key on the keyboard brings up the advertiser's web site after the game -- a lot smarter idea than today's banner ads.

Low success rate?

[IvyMike]

It's commonly accepted nowadays that the Net's traditional forms of advertising (banners, pop-ups and spam) have a very low success rate

As it turns out, the click-thru rate on my television and radio is exactly zero, which when compared to web click-thru results seems pretty abysmal. Yet people still buy tv and radio ads.

I thought the purposes of advertising was to raise the profile of your product; when I keep hearing "Drink Coke" all day, I'm more likely to think "Coke" when the question "What do you want to drink?" comes up.

By this measure, I think that web advertising might be just as successful as traditional advertising. However, somebody set us up the meme that a web ad that doesn't result in click-thru is ineffective. I find this reasoning inconsistent. You're going to have to prove to me that they're less effective than traditional magazine and newspaper ads, but until then, I find the "low success rate" argument a falacy.

The Internet as TV

[Alien54]

Imagine:

"This File Download has been brought to you by Microsoft, ReInventing the Internet, Just for you!. Before your download begins, let us remind you to check out the latest Microsft product, Microsoft Spam ..."

And Then:

"Before we continue your download ..."

This would be enough to make me change my mind on gun control.

;-)

Argh

[2nd Post!]

Has no one realized yet how the web works?

Advertising, if one applies the proper transformations, is actually product information dispersal online.

If John Deere wants to advertise it's mowers and stuff, what they can do (and probably should!) is to host and design gardening, landscaping, and home-maintainance websites!

*Grow* the market, and makes sure your name is attached to it! So create http://www.jdweb.com/Garden or http://www.jdweb.com/DIY, etc.

I think this can be expanded to *any* product. If you're Johnson and Johnson, create the home healthcare, health, and self improvement pages. Don't bother too heavily with product placement, I don't think, but when people start associating 'health' and 'wellness' with J&J, they've done good advertsing.

Let's try more esoteric examples: Coke, which sells a drink.

Actually, they sell a lifestyle, in which the drink is part of the image and the taste. Create something hip and free for people to visit; web boards, movie reviews, hiking, bike, and rollerblade info sites, etc. Sites where people can go do things, and while they are at it, drink Coke.

Safeway Foodstores could host cooking sites, with recipes. Activity sites, like Coke. BBQ sites, with hints, anecdotes, stories, and recipes. Whatever!

It's similar to how a portal works, but much more targeted.

Geek dating!