If you are referring to ads in iTunes, this article does not mention that. It talks about using the iTunes user database to better target people with ads.
If you are referring to ads in iTunes, this article does not mention that. It talks about using the iTunes user database to better target people with ads.
Almost none. I use ad blocking and ClickToFlash, which keeps most things out - I have only manually white-listed some sites which depend on the ads to keep up their work. I do not mind static ads in newspapers, but all this blinking, animated crap is just an annoyance and turning it off does not hurt them either, as I would never click on one of these things anyhow.
Apple can of course use iTunes user data to inform about own products - but so far, they do not even do that. All the newsletters they send, advertise stuff that is not remotely related to what I have bought in the past. I have not seen anything in iTunes' terms that says I have authorized Apple to monetize on my data, or use it for the benefit of third parties. Not saying they plan to do that, but these pundits make it sound like a company could use any data they have as they please...
You're totally wrong . . . again. The "Get a Mac" ads are sheer genius and obviously quite effective, as Apple wouldn't have continued the series for YEARS if they weren't.
And THAT qualifies this as as NOT sucking.
Well, there is a logical flaw in your statement in that I'm saying that ads (as a category) suck. So whether an ad by it's own terms was "effective" or not, is irrelevant.
"Suck" is probably too vague a word anyway. I should have used things like "immoral," "stupid," "unnecessary," "intrusive," etc.
Yeah, and all these people would continue to be happy customers, paying the higher iTunes prices, if they are abused like that... I have spent over 5k EUR on iTunes since 2004. One single ad in my face - and I'm gone.
I have some faith that Apple knows better than these tasseographists.
Not sure what you look at when you buy something on iTunes but, the moment you open the iTunes Store in iTunes you are barraged by advertising. Every (almost) page that iTunes presents is littered with advertisements so I don't know how you spent 5K EUR since 'you were gone' the moment you opened the application.
Not sure what you look at when you buy something on iTunes but, the moment you open the iTunes Store in iTunes you are barraged by advertising. Every (almost) page that iTunes presents is littered with advertisements so I don't know how you spent 5K EUR since 'you were gone' the moment you opened the application.
The iTunes store displays the wares it sells, like absolutely every store. If you can't tell the difference between that and advertisements, I can't help you.
The iTunes store displays the wares it sells, like absolutely every store. If you can't tell the difference between that and advertisements, I can't help you.
So, you actually do realize that there is some advertising that is useful - that is what displaying its wares is all about. I go to iTune to buy Music. I don't want Movies but they (Apple and content providers) provide advertising on the front page that give me information that these are available. It benefits me - gives me information - and them - potentially increases their sales. That is what advertising is.
If you don't think that placement on the front page of iTune isn't valuable advertising you really don't appreciate the breadth of advertising. Content provides will kill for such placement and the costs of getting there are certainly in their advertising budget.
The iTunes store displays the wares it sells, like absolutely every store. If you can't tell the difference between that and advertisements, I can't help you.
Actually there is big difference between being in a store and seeing displays of a few of the products they sell versus driving down the freeway and reading a billboard advertising Coke, or reading a magazine and seeing an advert for a watch. There is a huge disconnect with the latter.
No offence to Steve Jobs, but there is nothing in the known universe that can stop advertisements from sucking. Ads suck, they always have and always will.
How to make ads not suck (or suck considerably less):
1) give us a CHOICE of ads or not. If the ads earn 25c per viewer (for a TV show for example), then let me pay 25c to not see them at all (for whatever that 25c worth of ads covered). The ads in apps might be worth .1c.
2) customise them to my interests, needs, and location
I am now eligible for baby ads, but for many years I have not been.
Even let me request ads of certain types if there's something I'm particularly looking for at the moment.
3) let me interact with the ads and the ad servers in some way
Some ads I want to remember for later, or explore further. Others I'd like to say "that annoys me, never show me that again". etc. In fact, if I say I want to mark this ad for later, Apple might start showing me related competitors ads for the same style of product.
4) Make the ads fit with the article.
In a magazine etc, make it visually appealing as well as relevant, if possible.
5) Show fewer ads.
We all know that once you get too many ads, you ignore them. So make less of them but charge advertisers more for each since they're more likely to be remembered.
I want ads. To a point. I just can't afford to pay for everything.
In TV - I want a subscription to ABC for $5/mth (as rumoured) but with the option to add regular commercials (and make ABC free) or add far fewer but customised/interactive commercials (and make ABC free), or half the commercials (and charge $2/mth for ABC).
Lots of ads do suck, but some are hilarious and others very informative.
And after seeing any ad once I never want to see it again. In fact, I would give up the "hilarious" and "informative" ads (no sacrifice at all) if I could never see any ad ever again.
I guess I'm biased since I am sort of in the marketing biz. But I would rather watch a solid hour of TV ads than 5 minutes of typical prime time drama. Some of the smartest people in the entertainment business are in advertising. Unlike most people, I often click the channel to find another ad when the scheduled program comes back on.
I'm glad I never engaged you in a dinner conversation.
So, you actually do realize that there is some advertising that is useful - that is what displaying its wares is all about. I go to iTune to buy Music. I don't want Movies but they (Apple and content providers) provide advertising on the front page that give me information that these are available. It benefits me - gives me information - and them - potentially increases their sales. That is what advertising is.
If you don't think that placement on the front page of iTune isn't valuable advertising you really don't appreciate the breadth of advertising. Content provides will kill for such placement and the costs of getting there are certainly in their advertising budget.
When I go to a supermarket to buy milk, I do not call everything else in the store advertising, just because I do not need it.
Interesting observations. But let offer a couple of counter-points:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
How to make ads not suck (or suck considerably less):
1) give us a CHOICE of ads or not. If the ads earn 25c per viewer (for a TV show for example), then let me pay 25c to not see them at all (for whatever that 25c worth of ads covered). The ads in apps might be worth .1c.
Micropayment systems still have problems being economically viable. Otherwise, we would all be paying for our AI stories by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
How to make ads not suck (or suck considerably less):
2) customise them to my interests, needs, and location
I am now eligible for baby ads, but for many years I have not been.
Even let me request ads of certain types if there's something I'm particularly looking for at the moment.
That actually creeps some people out, like me, for instance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
3) let me interact with the ads and the ad servers in some way
Some ads I want to remember for later, or explore further. Others I'd like to say "that annoys me, never show me that again". etc. In fact, if I say I want to mark this ad for later, Apple might start showing me related competitors ads for the same style of product.
This is an interesting point. However, our tastes, preferences, interests etc change over time. What if you forgot to uncheck an ad you thought you wanted a couple of years ago but don't anymore? You'll be complaining about getting unwanted 'baby' ads......
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
4) Make the ads fit with the article.
In a magazine etc, make it visually appealing as well as relevant, if possible.
That is impossibly difficult. You'll have to create 'contingent' ads for all kinds of possible stories, and that is obviously unviable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
How to make ads not suck (or suck considerably less):
5) Show fewer ads.
Yeah, we all want want that. But the problem is, that only addresses the 'demand' side of the equation. The 'supply' side of ads has its own imperatives.
Interesting observations. But let offer a couple of counter-points:
Excellent
Quote:
Micropayment systems still have problems being economically viable. Otherwise, we would all be paying for our AI stories by now.
And yet, if Apple is controlling the iPhone/iSlate experience, they could easily charge to a users iTunes account. Could work on Safari too.
And with regards to paying to not see ads - if the user doesn't have an iTunes account, show the ad.
Quote:
That actually creeps some people out, like me, for instance.
Yeah I get that. Part of me classifies it in with when Windows asks "do you want to always trust Microsoft content?". I figure, if I don't trust microsoft, then they'll ignore my answer anyway. What can you do?
Seriously though, is there a way around it that would work for you? I would rather see fewer ads customised to me (which is appealing to me, appealing to the advertiser, but has big brother overtones). Further in my post I suggested that if people didn't want it customised to them they should have the option of seeing the regular number of non-specific ads.
Quote:
This is an interesting point. However, our tastes, preferences, interests etc change over time. What if you forgot to uncheck an ad you thought you wanted a couple of years ago but don't anymore? You'll be complaining about getting unwanted 'baby' ads......
Absolutely. You'd think anything like this would need a time out... like you opt out (or in) for a few months and then it assumes your preferences are no longer as important and tests that.
Or upgrades your baby to a toddler?
Quote:
That is impossibly difficult. You'll have to create 'contingent' ads for all kinds of possible stories, and that is obviously unviable.
You're probably right.
I was thinking of magazines and how their ads are often very relevant to the article. Perhaps article writers themselves could nominate brands or ads they believe relevant to their article and submit this in some way, or advertisers could search for articles to place their ad with.
Quote:
Yeah, we all want want that. But the problem is, that only addresses the 'demand' side of the equation. The 'supply' side of ads has its own imperatives.
Not so! Or at least, the supply/demand equation works on 2 fronts. If there were half as many ads on TV, advertisers would have less supply of ad-slots, and the cost for those would go up.
Basically they'll pay more for their ads if there are less other distracting ads.
Apple should just make their own search engine. Call it iFind and have it integrate with iPhoto and all the OSX varients in ways no other search engine and web browser can.
To allow Google to serve this data would basically allow Google to know explicitly what Apple iPhone customers want.
Essentially they are going to embed 'genius' tech into their ad network - makes sense -if you have to have em then if they're are stuff you actually want you may even begin to enjoy your ads .
Why Bing? Altavista is still around and it works great, and so does yahoo (which anyway owns altavista). It's high time someone kicked google in the shins. Their web search isn't better than their rivals.
Comments
One single ad in my face - and I'm gone.
You don' get ANY ads now?
If you are referring to ads in iTunes, this article does not mention that. It talks about using the iTunes user database to better target people with ads.
Apple could allow items in ads to be purchased through the customer's iTune account.
You don' get ANY ads now?
If you are referring to ads in iTunes, this article does not mention that. It talks about using the iTunes user database to better target people with ads.
Almost none. I use ad blocking and ClickToFlash, which keeps most things out - I have only manually white-listed some sites which depend on the ads to keep up their work. I do not mind static ads in newspapers, but all this blinking, animated crap is just an annoyance and turning it off does not hurt them either, as I would never click on one of these things anyhow.
Apple can of course use iTunes user data to inform about own products - but so far, they do not even do that. All the newsletters they send, advertise stuff that is not remotely related to what I have bought in the past. I have not seen anything in iTunes' terms that says I have authorized Apple to monetize on my data, or use it for the benefit of third parties. Not saying they plan to do that, but these pundits make it sound like a company could use any data they have as they please...
You're totally wrong . . . again. The "Get a Mac" ads are sheer genius and obviously quite effective, as Apple wouldn't have continued the series for YEARS if they weren't.
And THAT qualifies this as as NOT sucking.
Well, there is a logical flaw in your statement in that I'm saying that ads (as a category) suck. So whether an ad by it's own terms was "effective" or not, is irrelevant.
"Suck" is probably too vague a word anyway. I should have used things like "immoral," "stupid," "unnecessary," "intrusive," etc.
Yeah, and all these people would continue to be happy customers, paying the higher iTunes prices, if they are abused like that... I have spent over 5k EUR on iTunes since 2004. One single ad in my face - and I'm gone.
I have some faith that Apple knows better than these tasseographists.
Not sure what you look at when you buy something on iTunes but, the moment you open the iTunes Store in iTunes you are barraged by advertising. Every (almost) page that iTunes presents is littered with advertisements so I don't know how you spent 5K EUR since 'you were gone' the moment you opened the application.
Not sure what you look at when you buy something on iTunes but, the moment you open the iTunes Store in iTunes you are barraged by advertising. Every (almost) page that iTunes presents is littered with advertisements so I don't know how you spent 5K EUR since 'you were gone' the moment you opened the application.
The iTunes store displays the wares it sells, like absolutely every store. If you can't tell the difference between that and advertisements, I can't help you.
The iTunes store displays the wares it sells, like absolutely every store. If you can't tell the difference between that and advertisements, I can't help you.
So, you actually do realize that there is some advertising that is useful - that is what displaying its wares is all about. I go to iTune to buy Music. I don't want Movies but they (Apple and content providers) provide advertising on the front page that give me information that these are available. It benefits me - gives me information - and them - potentially increases their sales. That is what advertising is.
If you don't think that placement on the front page of iTune isn't valuable advertising you really don't appreciate the breadth of advertising. Content provides will kill for such placement and the costs of getting there are certainly in their advertising budget.
The iTunes store displays the wares it sells, like absolutely every store. If you can't tell the difference between that and advertisements, I can't help you.
Actually there is big difference between being in a store and seeing displays of a few of the products they sell versus driving down the freeway and reading a billboard advertising Coke, or reading a magazine and seeing an advert for a watch. There is a huge disconnect with the latter.
No offence to Steve Jobs, but there is nothing in the known universe that can stop advertisements from sucking. Ads suck, they always have and always will.
How to make ads not suck (or suck considerably less):
1) give us a CHOICE of ads or not. If the ads earn 25c per viewer (for a TV show for example), then let me pay 25c to not see them at all (for whatever that 25c worth of ads covered). The ads in apps might be worth .1c.
2) customise them to my interests, needs, and location
I am now eligible for baby ads, but for many years I have not been.
Even let me request ads of certain types if there's something I'm particularly looking for at the moment.
3) let me interact with the ads and the ad servers in some way
Some ads I want to remember for later, or explore further. Others I'd like to say "that annoys me, never show me that again". etc. In fact, if I say I want to mark this ad for later, Apple might start showing me related competitors ads for the same style of product.
4) Make the ads fit with the article.
In a magazine etc, make it visually appealing as well as relevant, if possible.
5) Show fewer ads.
We all know that once you get too many ads, you ignore them. So make less of them but charge advertisers more for each since they're more likely to be remembered.
I want ads. To a point. I just can't afford to pay for everything.
In TV - I want a subscription to ABC for $5/mth (as rumoured) but with the option to add regular commercials (and make ABC free) or add far fewer but customised/interactive commercials (and make ABC free), or half the commercials (and charge $2/mth for ABC).
Lots of ads do suck, but some are hilarious and others very informative.
And after seeing any ad once I never want to see it again. In fact, I would give up the "hilarious" and "informative" ads (no sacrifice at all) if I could never see any ad ever again.
Microsoft and Apple do not really compete with each other. They are way more complementary.
Every Mac sold means more money for Microsoft than for every Windows PC sold.
How do you come up with that? I will not put Windows on my Mac, I will never buy another version of Office, I've never used Bing, etc. etc.
Explain yourself.
I guess I'm biased since I am sort of in the marketing biz. But I would rather watch a solid hour of TV ads than 5 minutes of typical prime time drama. Some of the smartest people in the entertainment business are in advertising. Unlike most people, I often click the channel to find another ad when the scheduled program comes back on.
I'm glad I never engaged you in a dinner conversation.
So, you actually do realize that there is some advertising that is useful - that is what displaying its wares is all about. I go to iTune to buy Music. I don't want Movies but they (Apple and content providers) provide advertising on the front page that give me information that these are available. It benefits me - gives me information - and them - potentially increases their sales. That is what advertising is.
If you don't think that placement on the front page of iTune isn't valuable advertising you really don't appreciate the breadth of advertising. Content provides will kill for such placement and the costs of getting there are certainly in their advertising budget.
When I go to a supermarket to buy milk, I do not call everything else in the store advertising, just because I do not need it.
How to make ads not suck (or suck considerably less):
1) give us a CHOICE of ads or not. If the ads earn 25c per viewer (for a TV show for example), then let me pay 25c to not see them at all (for whatever that 25c worth of ads covered). The ads in apps might be worth .1c.
Micropayment systems still have problems being economically viable. Otherwise, we would all be paying for our AI stories by now.
How to make ads not suck (or suck considerably less):
2) customise them to my interests, needs, and location
I am now eligible for baby ads, but for many years I have not been.
Even let me request ads of certain types if there's something I'm particularly looking for at the moment.
That actually creeps some people out, like me, for instance.
3) let me interact with the ads and the ad servers in some way
Some ads I want to remember for later, or explore further. Others I'd like to say "that annoys me, never show me that again". etc. In fact, if I say I want to mark this ad for later, Apple might start showing me related competitors ads for the same style of product.
This is an interesting point. However, our tastes, preferences, interests etc change over time. What if you forgot to uncheck an ad you thought you wanted a couple of years ago but don't anymore? You'll be complaining about getting unwanted 'baby' ads......
4) Make the ads fit with the article.
In a magazine etc, make it visually appealing as well as relevant, if possible.
That is impossibly difficult. You'll have to create 'contingent' ads for all kinds of possible stories, and that is obviously unviable.
How to make ads not suck (or suck considerably less):
5) Show fewer ads.
Yeah, we all want want that. But the problem is, that only addresses the 'demand' side of the equation. The 'supply' side of ads has its own imperatives.
Interesting observations. But let offer a couple of counter-points:
Excellent
Micropayment systems still have problems being economically viable. Otherwise, we would all be paying for our AI stories by now.
And yet, if Apple is controlling the iPhone/iSlate experience, they could easily charge to a users iTunes account. Could work on Safari too.
And with regards to paying to not see ads - if the user doesn't have an iTunes account, show the ad.
That actually creeps some people out, like me, for instance.
Yeah I get that. Part of me classifies it in with when Windows asks "do you want to always trust Microsoft content?". I figure, if I don't trust microsoft, then they'll ignore my answer anyway. What can you do?
Seriously though, is there a way around it that would work for you? I would rather see fewer ads customised to me (which is appealing to me, appealing to the advertiser, but has big brother overtones). Further in my post I suggested that if people didn't want it customised to them they should have the option of seeing the regular number of non-specific ads.
This is an interesting point. However, our tastes, preferences, interests etc change over time. What if you forgot to uncheck an ad you thought you wanted a couple of years ago but don't anymore? You'll be complaining about getting unwanted 'baby' ads......
Absolutely. You'd think anything like this would need a time out... like you opt out (or in) for a few months and then it assumes your preferences are no longer as important and tests that.
Or upgrades your baby to a toddler?
That is impossibly difficult. You'll have to create 'contingent' ads for all kinds of possible stories, and that is obviously unviable.
You're probably right.
I was thinking of magazines and how their ads are often very relevant to the article. Perhaps article writers themselves could nominate brands or ads they believe relevant to their article and submit this in some way, or advertisers could search for articles to place their ad with.
Yeah, we all want want that. But the problem is, that only addresses the 'demand' side of the equation. The 'supply' side of ads has its own imperatives.
Not so! Or at least, the supply/demand equation works on 2 fronts. If there were half as many ads on TV, advertisers would have less supply of ad-slots, and the cost for those would go up.
Basically they'll pay more for their ads if there are less other distracting ads.
One analysts believes the rift could even potentially lead the Cupertino, Calif., company to embrace its rival, Microsoft, for Bing search."
Not.Gonna.Happen
But if it did. If it did, I wont be using/buying any Apple product that forces Microsoft's Bing on me.
To allow Google to serve this data would basically allow Google to know explicitly what Apple iPhone customers want.
Essentially they are going to embed 'genius' tech into their ad network - makes sense -if you have to have em then if they're are stuff you actually want you may even begin to enjoy your ads .
The ad creativity doesn't suck, but that band sure does.
Well, they are vampires after all.