Bear in mind the WSJ has no reason to want iAds to succeed, and that they've used unattributed quotes. I think it's WSJ that's finding the process slow.
iAds offer something different for advertisers. Anyone expecting them to be as simple as creating a Google ad or a banner ad will find it's not for them.
The earlier report quoted exactly the sort of companies iAds are aimed at. This report says nothing about who finds it slow.
Murdoch's papers in the uk are famous for dissing the opposition, usually the BBC, and this is more of the same IMHO.
Even though Murdoch has said he thinks the iPad is the future he wants it on his terms. That means seeking ads in his apps and that means making google and apple etc seem like bad choices.
Internet advertising is a mess right now, and Apple is absolutely doing the right thing by exerting "tight control over the creative process." Internet advertising in general is high-volume / low-quality, and that makes for a lousy end-user experience. I would go so far as to say that the current Flash banner / AdSense model actually cheapens the Internet, by and large, by stifling the advertiser canvas so that the only plausible creative is quick and dirty.
Kudos to Apple for having the foresight and the wherewithal to implement a revamped approach.
Thank you!
I was going to say the same freaking thing. Ads on the internet are just sh**. They are thrown all over the place with an "I DON'T GIVE A F***!" mentality.
Look, when the big boys get it going like Coke, Nike etc we will see some truly awesome ads or if I may invoke the words of Doc Brown from Back to the Future,
"When this baby hits 88 mph, you're going to see some serious sh**".
It was never going to happen overnight. And seeing how poor most adverts are, and how little effort ad agencies get away with, this should not be surprising to anyone.
Again, it's going to be hats off to Apple who are changing the world, one industry at a time.
Have a feeling that apple is just trying to set the initial style of iAds.
If they let advertisers have all the say then they will just continue to so exactly the same unimaginative stuff they have done before - which is to say ridiculous flash animations and eyeblasters.
Have a feeling that apple is just trying to set the initial style of iAds.
If they let advertisers have all the say then they will just continue to so exactly the same unimaginative stuff they have done before - which is to say ridiculous flash animations and eyeblasters.
Totally agree. I don't think I've yet seen an iAd, but I sure hope Apple has some rules that maintain a little class and dignity in an otherwise ugly and trashy world. I could tolerate small ads if they were mostly static with slow/gentle transitions and without gaudy background colours.
Totally agree. I don't think I've yet seen an iAd, but I sure hope Apple has some rules that maintain a little class and dignity in an otherwise ugly and trashy world. I could tolerate small ads if they were mostly static with slow/gentle transitions and without gaudy background colours.
Dunks and S.metcalf, I also fully agree.
At least with many web sites you can scroll the ads out of the way. I haven't seen an iAd yet either, but if it's going to be in a fixed bar on the screen, the ads had better not be so frantic & intrusive that they make the app unusable.
Which of course means Apple and the ad agencies are going to have a clash: Apple wanting to protect their experience, the ad agencies wanting whatever it takes to drive traffic. It'll be very interesting to see how this pans out.
Everyone knows Apple likes to have control. If you don't like it, you don't have to make accessory products, apps, or ads meant for Apple's products.
Nothing is stopping anyone from using an alternative ad provider. Nothing is stopping anyone from making Blackberry, Palm OS, or Android apps. Nothing is stopping anyone from making a web app instead of using the App Store, or from making a Cydia store app.
Someone want to check out how the Toyota ads disrupt The Weather Channel app on iPads? It's intrusive and annoying in the extreme. If this an iAds product, this is bad news.
After writing the article and getting this feedback, it is too bad WSJ has not taken the opportunity to clarify their position - unless they realized they don't have a position worth defending.
They should come out from under their rock and make specific points or retract their original comments.
I think what you are seeing is a bunch of ad companies who are use to whipping out an ad in a few hours and then having it placed on line for everyone to ignore and then collect a few pennies for each placement. Now they are being ask to conform to some standard which ensure the placement looks like and hits the right people and this take time since turning a hacker into someone which real creativity and skills takes time.
Now, the WSJ may be hit-baiting a bit with their language: any ?Apple failure? large or small can become a profitable headline
100%.
This program is at most 6 months old (and has been active for less than 2). Of course it has kinks, will be slow going etc. Folks just like to gripe. They want to play in this realm by their rules, not the actual ones. Rather than saying 'okay Apple, when you get it figured out, we'll come play. Until then, we are sticking with this other service'. Mind you we know what the issue is, they want the info that Apple won't let 'this other service' have because that service is likely Google's which is not allowed user private info under Apple's rules.
The largely negative account of the start of the iAd service is a stark contrast from a different report last week from the Los Angeles Times, which painted a much more rosy picture.
As others have said, there's really no contradiction between the 2 reports
One: iAds that are in-the-wild are performing great. Companies with ads are very pleased.
Two: iAds are taking too much time to prepare. Companies making ads are annoyed it's not quicker and easier.
Comments
iAds offer something different for advertisers. Anyone expecting them to be as simple as creating a Google ad or a banner ad will find it's not for them.
The earlier report quoted exactly the sort of companies iAds are aimed at. This report says nothing about who finds it slow.
Murdoch's papers in the uk are famous for dissing the opposition, usually the BBC, and this is more of the same IMHO.
Even though Murdoch has said he thinks the iPad is the future he wants it on his terms. That means seeking ads in his apps and that means making google and apple etc seem like bad choices.
Internet advertising is a mess right now, and Apple is absolutely doing the right thing by exerting "tight control over the creative process." Internet advertising in general is high-volume / low-quality, and that makes for a lousy end-user experience. I would go so far as to say that the current Flash banner / AdSense model actually cheapens the Internet, by and large, by stifling the advertiser canvas so that the only plausible creative is quick and dirty.
Kudos to Apple for having the foresight and the wherewithal to implement a revamped approach.
Thank you!
I was going to say the same freaking thing. Ads on the internet are just sh**. They are thrown all over the place with an "I DON'T GIVE A F***!" mentality.
Look, when the big boys get it going like Coke, Nike etc we will see some truly awesome ads or if I may invoke the words of Doc Brown from Back to the Future,
"When this baby hits 88 mph, you're going to see some serious sh**".
It was never going to happen overnight. And seeing how poor most adverts are, and how little effort ad agencies get away with, this should not be surprising to anyone.
Again, it's going to be hats off to Apple who are changing the world, one industry at a time.
If they let advertisers have all the say then they will just continue to so exactly the same unimaginative stuff they have done before - which is to say ridiculous flash animations and eyeblasters.
Have a feeling that apple is just trying to set the initial style of iAds.
If they let advertisers have all the say then they will just continue to so exactly the same unimaginative stuff they have done before - which is to say ridiculous flash animations and eyeblasters.
Totally agree. I don't think I've yet seen an iAd, but I sure hope Apple has some rules that maintain a little class and dignity in an otherwise ugly and trashy world. I could tolerate small ads if they were mostly static with slow/gentle transitions and without gaudy background colours.
Totally agree. I don't think I've yet seen an iAd, but I sure hope Apple has some rules that maintain a little class and dignity in an otherwise ugly and trashy world. I could tolerate small ads if they were mostly static with slow/gentle transitions and without gaudy background colours.
Dunks and S.metcalf, I also fully agree.
At least with many web sites you can scroll the ads out of the way. I haven't seen an iAd yet either, but if it's going to be in a fixed bar on the screen, the ads had better not be so frantic & intrusive that they make the app unusable.
Which of course means Apple and the ad agencies are going to have a clash: Apple wanting to protect their experience, the ad agencies wanting whatever it takes to drive traffic. It'll be very interesting to see how this pans out.
Everyone knows Apple likes to have control. If you don't like it, you don't have to make accessory products, apps, or ads meant for Apple's products.
Nothing is stopping anyone from using an alternative ad provider. Nothing is stopping anyone from making Blackberry, Palm OS, or Android apps. Nothing is stopping anyone from making a web app instead of using the App Store, or from making a Cydia store app.
They should come out from under their rock and make specific points or retract their original comments.
Now, the WSJ may be hit-baiting a bit with their language: any ?Apple failure? large or small can become a profitable headline
100%.
This program is at most 6 months old (and has been active for less than 2). Of course it has kinks, will be slow going etc. Folks just like to gripe. They want to play in this realm by their rules, not the actual ones. Rather than saying 'okay Apple, when you get it figured out, we'll come play. Until then, we are sticking with this other service'. Mind you we know what the issue is, they want the info that Apple won't let 'this other service' have because that service is likely Google's which is not allowed user private info under Apple's rules.
The largely negative account of the start of the iAd service is a stark contrast from a different report last week from the Los Angeles Times, which painted a much more rosy picture.
As others have said, there's really no contradiction between the 2 reports
One: iAds that are in-the-wild are performing great. Companies with ads are very pleased.
Two: iAds are taking too much time to prepare. Companies making ads are annoyed it's not quicker and easier.