I just witnessed the most disgusting ad presentation I’ve ever seen on the internet.  The ad itself wasn’t intentionally meant to offend, but it’s format did something that was inexcusable.

Being a native New Englander, I often  got to  Boston.com to check out sports stories.  That’s what I just did a few minutes ago.  Right there, in front of me, was a story “Northboro Native Killed in Washington DC Accident”.  A photo of her shows a pretty, young fresh faced young woman, with a beaming smile.  Now that I live in the DC area, I was especially intrigued by this.  I was once 22 and lived in DC.  Young.  Idealistic.

So I went to click through to read the story.  In the corner of my eye, I began to notice  a ‘growing’ ad coming across the page.  One of those ads that form images across a web page.  In this case they were images of the walking footprints of what looked to be that of a hiker.  The footprints continued across the woman’s face and would not let me click through to read the story.  That’s because just as I pressed down on my mouse, the ad crossed over the exact spot where it was pointing to.  Suddenly, I was transported to another site, the landing page of the ad.  Tourism in New Brunswick.

When I finally got back to the site I wanted to be at and clicked through the story I wanted, I began reading:

A Northborough woman and Amherst College graduate beginning her career in Washington, D.C., was killed in the nation’s capital yesterday morning when she was run over by a garbage truck while riding her bicycle to work.

…beginning her career…killed in the nation’s capital…run over by a garbage truck”…riding her bicycle to work”…

Her young life snuffed out just like that.  Full of promise, full of life, now gone.

But we want to show you this ad first - the ad is more important.

This is definitely not the way to do things, folks.  These ad formats, while enticing, should not be used by news outlets.  At least on their front pages.  News outlets cover news and news is more often bad, or in some cases, tragic.  It isn’t worth the ad dollars.

Advertisers shouldn’t necessarily shy away from using these formats, but they should be very judicious in where they buy them.  They should look for sites that viewers come to be entertained.  I don’t care how effective they are.  Use another formats on front pages of news sites.

A slowing economy usually means that companies cut back on their advertising dollars.  The wisdom of this is debatable, but the inevitability of it is almost assured.

But times are changing somewhat.  In a survey conducted by Advertising Perceptions, we find that the long term traditional advertising outlets are the ones that ad execs - be they in house decision makers or agency professionals - see as being the ones that are likely to experience a decrease in ad spending over the next six months.  Meanwhile, online and mobile are not likely to take any substantial hits.

This is pleasant news for those of us in the online arena.

The survey asked 1811 marketers - 40% from the marketing side, 60% from the agency side - if the share of spend per advertising would increase, stay the same, or decrease.  National newspapaers and local newspapers took the biggest hit by far, with 44% and 40% of responders saying that they expected a decrease in spend, respectively.  Only 10% and 14% expected an increase for those categories.

This somewhat surprises me.  I would have thought the upcoming elections would mean more news media usage, regardless of the medium.  And while, yes, most of the growth in usage would be online, local coverage, in print, will still matter.

Guess not.  Newspapers are worse off than I thought.

The same can be said for broadcast 30% expecting a drop-off while only 14% expecting an increase; and radio, which is doing even worse.  Thirty three per cent expect less spend with seventeen per cent expecting an increase.

The real story here are the increases in online.  Seventy-two percent of those interviewed said they felt that online would see an increase in the next six months.  Only 4% saw a decrease.  That an 18 to 1 ratio.

In many industry verticals, online is not yet the automatic buy.  But it’s becoming the best buy.  The following numbers prove it.

Jupiter Research is reporting that online ad spending should grow about 20% this year from $19.9 billion in 2007 to $23.8 billion for 2008.

By 2013, it will increase to $43.4 billion, for an annual rate of 13%.  Offline advertising is expected to grow only 4% per year for the same period.

I never know how they come up with these numbers.  But they may well be right.

It’s my guess that search, video, and sponsored communities will see the greatest growth.  Search and video are what everyone says, but my guess is that with social media growing the way it is, we’ll see sponsored, semi-private networks emerged, composed of fans or product users.

This, of course, is happening now.  It will catch on as many of us transfer more and more of our lifestyle online.

This morning, Norman Birnbach wrote an article wherein he suggests that I emphasize giving swag:

One of his tips is to “Give swag” — a point that Chris Abraham emphasized in a recent interview. The reason is that blogging is often a second career and there are few perks so swag can make a difference to get bloggers to respond.

He is not wrong, but I think I need to clarify my definition of “gift-giving.” I don’t emphasize giving away swag, necessarily — what I do emphasize is gifting — and giving ’til it hurts, “What a gift needs to be is super-valuable to the recipient — the value of a gift is based on perception.”

Read more…

Andy Sernovitz’s blog’s name says it all, and definitely reflects my response to reading this: Damn, I Wish I’d Thought of That!, especially in his post Instant Word of Mouth for Restaurants. From our experience doing blogger outreach and blogger gift-giving, this is on-the-money advice you should all consider (Via Chris Abraham — Because the Medium is the Message):

Read more…