The Internet Is for Upstarts

As said, The Internet Is For Porn and Direct Marketing.

And for upstarts.

Internet advertising has been around for a quarter of a century and it has created no discernible brands in any category, as Bob Hoffman rightly pointed out.

That’s hardly surprising. The banner ad is the worst advertising format ever.

Those who like to blame Ad Tech for everything say that, if only banner ads were not targeted, they would carry a signal, and could contribute to the emergence of brands.

Not so.

The format sucks. You can’t tell a story. It’s the same format on The New York Times and on your cousin’s website. Internet users are flooded with way too many banner ads.

There are more problems that need to be solved than some would like to think.

Away

On the other hand, to say that the Internet has created no brands is not true.

Away, Glossier and Warby Parker are huge hits.

I’m sure there a quite a few more mid-level brands that made it.

This is what the Internet is for, apart from porn and direct marketing.

It’s a shitty, distributed, low-cost Kickstarter to help small companies emerge.

Then, if they ever make it, they will start doing real advertising.

Offline

Real advertising means offline.

Like the Big FANG. Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google.

Do the big brand you work for a favour: act like a grown-up.

Like the Big FANG, not like some small company operating in a basement.

Do real advertising, not the tricks the small guys do to get noticed.

Don’t make your brand look dumb just because you want to look cool.

I know, I know…

I know, we were all hoping for better things for this child of ours, the Internet.

Some hoped it would spread knowledge. Not fake news.

Somebody else said it was “unconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service… to be drowned in advertising chatter”. No, that was not Tim Berners-Lee.*

But porn, direct marketing and helping upstarts get a breakthrough is not too bad.

* It was Herbert Hoover, then US Secretary of Commerce, speaking about radio, in 1922.

The Internet Is For Porn and Direct Marketing

I am troubled by posts like the latest one from Doc Searls that praise the advertising of olden days and seem to imply that advertising on the Internet was hacked.

The Old Days

The good ol’ days were actually terrible. Advertising has always been a borderline and devious field. Advertising did create great brands, but for what kind of products?

Snake oil remedies. Booze. “The best sigarettes for your health”. And take two tablets of Alka-Seltzer after you ate more than you should have in the first place.

Mass-produced orange juice. Because, you know, squeezing the damn oranges yourself was too much of a hassle. And frozen mass-produced orange juice.

Tropicana. Or Minute Maid. Stuff that tastes exactly the same if you’re in Boston or Buenos Aires, Barcelona or Beijing. Ever wondered how that is possible?

What about margarine? Processed food? Frozen food? Frozen processed food. Refined everything. Diet soda, fat-free cheese and decaf coffee.

After WW2 a lot of shit was sold to consumers. Advertising certainly played a large role in making it possible, but I’m not sure there’s much to celebrate.

And last but not least: it’s true, advertising helped pay the bills. But not just for the New York Times. It also gave us the New York Post. And The Sun.

Then Ad Tech

Ad Tech did not come out of nowhere. Contrary to what Doc Searls seems to imply, advertising on the web was not hacked while it was sleeping.

The web was oversold to companies on the promise of interactive advertising and a one-to-one future. It didn’t work and we ended up where we are now.

Why was it assumed that consumers who were dodging advertising on television would want to interact with companies and their ads on the web?

The dotcom bubble burst, ad space on the web wildly outgrew demand and prices tanked. It was off to the races to see who could squeeze something out of the wasteland.

First it was affiliate marketing programmes and guaranteed results schemes such as Advertising.com. Then come Adsense. Finally, Google acquired DoubleClick.

Interactive advertising, then online advertising, then display advertising were rebranded as programmatic advertising. But they are still selling the same dumb banner ads.

Only, targeted. More targeted than ever. Targeting, in fact, is the only thing they are selling. Hey, we know this shit ain’t working, but at least you’re hitting the right target.

Except when your ads end up on videos of Neo-Nazis or Jihadists, that is.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I certainly dislike Ad Tech, and I have a lot of respect for people like Doc Searls who are looking for an alternative way to sell ads at Linux Journal.

But I’m not sure it’s going to work, and I am especially doubtful that it’s going to work for larger publishers. I have the feeling that there’s probably no going back.

No going back to a world — one of normal advertising on the Internet — that never was and probably never will be. Repeat with me: The Internet is for porn and direct marketing.

Red and Blue Bullshit

#1 – Remember all the hoopla about the “Twitter revolutions”? You know, that without Twitter the people of Iran would not have stood up for democracy? Which was bullshit. None of that is popular now that the “revolution” went Trump’s way.

#2 – Blue America being more refined, they need their bullshit — you know, that Sanders didn’t stand a chance or that yes, of course Hillary would win, how could she not? — fed to them by important and respected newspapers and highbrow TV shows.

#3 – Red America being less spiffy, they’re perfectly ok with bullshit made up by teens from a rural town not in Ohio, which would be bad enough, but in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, with the sole goal to profit from Google Adsense.

#4 – But the bullshit du jour comes from Mark Zuckerberg. He tells companies that “native advertising” on Facebook is so powerful, and yet that it’s “a pretty crazy idea” to think that fake news had a role in determining how the election went.

Rock on.

Looks, Sex Lives and Gaffes

We have a problem. I’m talking to you, people who work in the media.

If even the BBC — what happened, Auntie? — deems it worthy of their time and of their readers’ time and attention to write an article comparing Trump to Berlusconi over looks, sex lives and gaffes, I think we have a problem.

We expect better of you. We need you to inform us, not to entertain us.

We have Netflix for that. And Fox News.

Not to mention: those are not gaffes.

Those are premeditated offences artfully created to get free media attention.

And they work.

They work every time newspapers start a race to who comments Der Great Leader‘s latest bullshit remarks first, so they can get indexed by Google and shared on Facebook by bored or well meaning people, be they angry at Trump or interested in looking more liberal than thou or in blending in with their friends’ opinions.

They work every time people in the media are more interested in looking smart and witty, or politically correct, rather than trying to inform and educate their readers.

The next time you people in the media ask if the media — you know, the other guys — are responsible for Donald Trump, it’s time somebody answers: Fucking yes.