Slashdot Mirror
Unicast Claims Success With Internet Commercials
LightForce3 writes "Remember that trial run of full-motion commercials on sites like ESPN.com and MSN? The BBC reports that Unicast, whose caching technology makes these ads work, is claiming a strong favorable response from Internet users who viewed the advertisements. It looks like they could now be making long-term deals with clients (the article mentions Forbes.com and weather.com). As a dialup user, I am less than thrilled about the idea of an extra 2 MB download each time I visit one of these sites."
As a dialup user, I am less than thrilled about the idea of an extra 2 MB download each time I visit one of these sites."
Then don't go to their websites.
Boycotting is still an effective tool, unless of course you are in the minority, which you may be, since I'm sure there are a couple million sports freaks who won't mind the commercials.
Y'think?
Never ask the sales person how good their product is, all you'll get is whatever they can spout off the top of their head as the newest sales line.
"Our stuff is great, people love it and can't seem tio live without it" - Every sales person that ever lived
Heck, why bother asking the originating company when you already kn ow what the answer is going to be. 1. The company will say the customers love it, 2. The customers will be pissed off at yet another intrusion and time wasting tactic when all tey want to do is see the content they came to see. This isn't TV ya bastards.
Whee signature.
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
-- Scotty.
Because the internet is not a mature medium, until it is as braindead as TV and purely satisfies corporate interests.
A medium that gives the user control is clearly evil and most definetly encourages evil. That will have to be counter-eviled.
How is it that the people making decisions fail to realize that the internet (or web that is) isn't a push-medium, but pull-medium?
You'd think people get that by now? Or am I to optimistic?
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
REPEAT: THE WEB IS NOT TV
. html
It's almost too obvious a point, but apparently it bears repeating: The more the Web is like TV, the less we need it. TV already does a pretty effective job of delivering what Net content people call "broadband multimedia information and entertainment" to the home, and most consumers already own the hardware. What sells the Internet to newbies is its promise of things TV can't deliver: "many-to-many" communication via bulletin boards and e-mail; interactive services that go beyond catalog shopping; quirky content unavailable on TV's limited number of channels; specific, accurate information that's there when you need it, whether it's sports stats, stock quotes or plane-ticket availability.
from: http://archive.salon.com/march97/21st/webtv970327
Seven years later, and it still counts. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. People will either block those ads, or go to other sites. Just like TCP, they will learn to route around the problem.
The web is not TV, it is not a one way communication channel where you can shove as much commercial bullshit to the other side as your CFO requires you to do. You don't have regulations on the number of channels, you have an unlimited number of them, and they get popular or less populer in a matter of days/weeks/months.
What Unicast doesn't seem to realize is that the internet is really not, in any way, a comparable medium to television. Today's newspapers and periodical magazines have proven that effective, well-placed static advertisements still work even in today's multimedia-crazy world. Even though the news channels offer live, full-color, slow-motion replays of the latest news events, many of us still turn to the old-fashioned, ad-supported newspapers as a reliable source of information. Similarly, we go to web sites like ESPN, MSN and the Weather Channel to *read* information. Full-motion video ads only distract from that purpose.