Readers' Comments

Reader Comments on Aardvark Daily 23 Feb 2001
Note: the comments below are the unedited submissions of readers and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher.
From: Dan Langille
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Ads should be pay per view

Newspapers don't charge for ads based on how many phone
calls the business will receive.  They pay based on home
many people will [potentially] see the ad.  It is the
responsiblity of the advertiser to design the ad so that the
reader takes action.  If no action is taken, it's not the
fault of the newspaper. They provided the medium through
which the ad was presented to the reader.  The onus is on
the advertiser to create an effective ad campaign.

Why should it be different for websites?  Pay per view is
the only method that makes sense.




From: Peter Belt
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subject: Ads

Bruce, you say

"...Even the big-boys like CNN, NewsCorp, Disney and many others are
laying off staff and scaling back their costs significantly as advertisers
come to the realisation that advertising on the Net isn't quite the great
investment they thought it was...."

So why are New Zealand sites still expecting 7-10c per non-targetted
banner impression?  I've greedily looked forward to more realistic pricing
to launch some ideas.  "They" have so much spare space, "they" are running
ads advertising their own services most of the time.  What is it that
makes NZ Web Site operators think that they don't need to yield to the
supply-demand curve?

Who are "they"?  TradeMe, NZCity/SearchNZ, AccessNZ/Webmasters and stable,
TVNZ/NZoom, Stuff and any other site with at least some credible web
traffic.

I'm now getting much cheaper and better keyword targeted exposure through
the likes of Google, Go and others which allow investments as little as
$100 to get started.  Great for testing ideas before committing to more
money.

I don't get it.  Don't they want banner income? Can you explain?




From: David Buckingham
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: User pays Internet

If we really want to get quality content, we are going to
have to pay for it.

Pay to use sites currently are not liked because the
competitian is all free.

However when the banks or even a networks of ISPs is set-up
we will be able to get more, better and ad free content for
a fee.

Would that be so bad? - I say it would be better.

There has been a lot of talk about "e-commerce B2B
exchanges" - well what about "content exchanges"

You subscribe to your local content exchange, and though
there you can buy the different content from around the
place and you just pay a small bill at the end of the month.

This could be done using excisting technology, much like
the way cable and satellite operators offer television.

Now that there is a whole of of niche channels (which is
essentially what the internet is) - the ratings don't add
up to sell ads on them only as a revenue source.

So pay per view, and subscription is the solution.

Of course many sites - like my own - which although I carry
banner ads, money is not my driving factor, are still going
to offer stuff for free.

A bit like the free to air television stations TVNZ and
Canwest.




From: Colin francis
For : Right Of Reply (for publication)
Subj: Removing ads

I find its easy to remove ads by putting the urls in my hosts file. When
directed to the ad sites the browser goes to the hosts file instead of the
actual ads site. There is a list of about 300 urls from ad companies
available for insertion in the hosts file. It sure speeds up surfing.
Now Have Your Say