No One Likes Web Ads. What About Web Ads That Look Like Magazine Ads?
by Peter Kafka
Posted on February 19, 2009 at 3:30 AM PT
Common complaint among Web advertising pundits: Web ads suck. Why can’t they be cool, like some of the ads that run in glossy magazines?
So here’s a start-up–funded by a magazine, not coincidentally–with the same point of view. FlipGloss Media, run by Yahoo veterans using money from Forbes, wants to make Web advertising that looks… like some of the ads in glossy magazines.
“We think consumers love the magazine experience, but we wanted to build something that is native digital,” says CEO Kerry Trainor, who used to run the ad business for Yahoo’s (YHOO) music site back when that was a big deal.
Unspoken but crucial part of the pitch: Not only are traditional Web ads boring, but the prices publishers can command for them drop every day. So anything that can command a premium–as certain magazine ads still do–would be a huge boon for Web publishers.
What does a digital version of a magazine ad look like? FlipGloss has unveiled a site today that gives you a pretty good idea: Basically, lavish slideshows with hyperlinks. Like this (click to enlarge, hopefully):
Move your mouse over, say, the picture of this model from New York Fashion Week, and you’ll find that she’s wearing a Charlotte Ronson dress; you can also learn more about the designer and where you can find her clothes (coming to J.C. Penney this month, apparently).
The site is fun to monkey around with, but if FlipGloss pans out, you’ll encounter its slides on other people’s sites. The plan: FlipGloss hands its technology over to various publishers, who sell their own ads and give the company a cut. Alternatively, FlipGloss helps assemble editorial/advertising packages for various publishers and takes a bigger cut.
FlipGloss has taken an investment from Forbes Media, my former employer (more disclosure here), and its advisory board includes several representatives from Elevation Partners, the private equity group that took a 40 percent stake in Forbes a few years ago.
While I can imagine Forbes finding some practical applications for FlipGloss–Forbes.com, for instance, is a vigorous proponent of slide shows–the company will really need to find traction with publishers like Condé Nast, whose magazines are famous for their lavish advertising.
But while FlipGloss says it’s working with several unnamed publishers, I’m told it is not working with Condé Nast’s digital group. It would be good if the company could figure out how to do that.
The bigger challenge: convincing publishers who have built complicated systems to deliver crummy banner ads to try out another medium. And then convincing advertisers to pay a premium for it. Given that my livelihood is dependent on Web ads (you’re reading this story for free, right?), I hope someone figures it out.
Comments
Extending my comment on today’s other advertising article:
Problem with a lot of this stuff isn’t JUST that it isn’t interesting, but that it doesn’t work.
When people used to call me and say their PC has suddenly gotten slow, unresponsive and there is a flurry of pop-up windows they are having to close, I used to tell them they shouldn’t be visiting all those shady sites that host malware. Now I advise them to try changing the websites they use for their daily news.
Newspapers and magazines attempt to get our attention either between articles, or right in the middle of them. TV does the same. But we can easily flip past a magazine or Newspaper ad, and TV viewers have long ago learned how to time their bathroom visits.
Web ads are by contrast often unwelcome, and unavoidable.
Ads in a print publication are a PART of the publication, right there on the same paper in the same format (except for those annoying postcards that fall out of magazines). TV ads are either “broadcast” along with the program content either by the local station, Cable company, or network.
If TV ads were done like web ads it would go like this: You’re watching some old episode of “Friends”, the network breaks for ads from a razor blade company. Your screen goes black while the network hardware tries to contact the ad provider, who has just suffered a power outage. Waiting for the signal that the ad is complete, the network stays off the air for the rest of the night. People at home have long since changed the channel.
The Internet has indeed given publishers and advertisers the opportunity to do so much more, but in misusing the technology they have in fact produced so much less.
Posted by Mac Beach at February 19th, 2009 at 11:13 amHow about another business model, already. Something innovative. The advertising model needs to be retired. Will users pay for special features?
Posted by Mark Omega at February 19th, 2009 at 11:33 amUS ad spending will total something like $160 billion this year, Mark. Even if that number shrinks, and even if the spending becomes more diffuse, that’s still going to power a whole lot of businesses for avery long time.
Posted by Peter Kafka at February 19th, 2009 at 4:47 pmAds need to be relative, and not even google has that down, it’s a best guess. The business model needs to be revamped as said before and this company is getting that.
When I go to most (ok all..) web sites the ads are blocked because they are just a waste of space, bandwidth, and sometimes audio. Loading your page in IE to actually view the ads I see something for MarketWatch, NEC Business Advantage, some Microsoft ERP system, and then that lovely box of ’sponsored links’ let’s check out those gems: Online Radio Advertising, Advertising that Works, SEO by Lars, and then Mineral Foundation Makeup, yes just what I needed! Here at “All Things Digital” I can magically get a lazy stock portfolio, a business credit card, some ERP system that will do something, great sources of how to advertise, this Lars guy sounds like a pro, and some foundation make up for my skin tone. Well beyond 3 strikes and exactly why I choose to browse with these blocked. And yet its amazing that loading that in IE they paid for those completely irrelavent placements.
Who does get my clicks? Content related, mostly review sites. If I go to a digital camera site, a laptop site, a gadget site, or just a site that reviews another site, here I may very well end up on clicking a link that generates revenue for someone. This happens because it is relevant, I’m interested in it. This FLipAd or whatever company is not putting in ads for Online Radio Advertising or ERP software, it is catering to the content, catering to what people want to know about who come to a fashion site, namely fashion. My wife loves fashion, she likes to know who did what dress what neckless or blah blah. This lets he click on the dress the necklace the shoes etc.
This company gets it. Maybe I’ll see ads again someday when I dont even realize they are ads. Until then, sorry Online Radio Advertising sponsored link, you are blocked!
Posted by Rick Schmidtz at February 20th, 2009 at 3:03 am