3 ms·
Since the 1990s I have always felt that advertisers feeling entitled to not only receive ad click data, but to only pay people based upon it, as inherently frau
by otakucode 7y ago
Since the 1990s I have always felt that advertisers feeling entitled to not only receive ad click data, but to only pay people based upon it, as inherently fraudulent. Advertisers in every single other form of media have never had access to this data. And they've certainly never even dreamed of only paying the person hosting the advertising in cases where an iron-clad case can be made that the advertisement led to a particular sale.
Of course they wouldn't. It betrays almost the entire foundation of marketing and advertising itself. Building brand recognition, forming brand opinion, encouraging new social and personal practices, etc are big parts of advertising. And now because the Internet is around, we're just supposed to give companies all of that brand building and everything else completely for free, only having them pay for specific sales funneled directly and provably through an advertisement? Can I get an ad played during the Super Bowl and only pay the TV networks when someone can provide proof the ad was the cause of their purchase? Can I get an ad in the newspaper like that? Radio? Roadside billboards? Where? Where else do I get to just rob the person hosting the advertisements of basically all advantages of advertisement and only rarely pay them for providing the venue?
- swiley 7y agoI far preferred project wonderful’s model where The advertisers bid for add space. That made so much more sense. Aparently it was shut down? I wonder what happened. Edit: it looks like they were focused on independent blogs and since those have far less traffic now they couldn’t afford to stay open. That really sucks, at least it’s a good example of how the web is a much worse place when it becomes centralized.