Yesterday, on Twitter, new follower Mike Keliher (@mjkeliher) pointed out how he wouldn’t tolerate being forced to see an pre-roll ad in order to view a 15 second story. When I asked him why he felt so strongly, his answer was:
@jptrenn 99.9% of the time: entirely irrelevant. More importantly, disrespectful of my time.
I’m no where nearly as absolute on that. I realize that these media properties need to make money and I see pre-roll as a legitimate concept in theory. Still, I don’t blame him for feeling that way. Media properties apply pre-roll entirely wrong, with no concern for the viewer. So here’s a few suggestions. Strong suggestions.
1) Above all, don’t put pre-roll on tragic stories
The last thing I want to see when I click on a story about that tragic accident that killed 68 people, including 23 children, is a frigging commercial for indigestion. While other times pre roll ads are inconvenient, at times like this, it is completely offensive.
2) Don’t put pre-roll on breaking stories
Sorry, but while these stories are the ones most likely to be clicked on, when people click on them, they often so so with as sense of urgency. To the viewer, the content is compelling and they don’t want an interruption. It could hurt the advertiser as it hurts the viewer experience.
3) Make the ads relevant
If I go to view an add about baseball spring training, give me a travel ad to Florida or Arizona. Or one about sports. Don’t just something up there. As Mike says, 99.9% irrelevant.
4) One pre roll per user session please
Otherwise, it begins to ruin the experience.
5) If more than one…
…then make sure there’s about 4-6 news stories viewed between ads. And don’t show the same one twice.
I write all of this because I understand a believe that most news sites thankfully don’t come with subscription fees. They make their money by advertising. So I’m trying to find a reasonable balance.
What are your thoughts?
5 Comments » Posted on March 7th, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn
Loading ...