Guests

Jason Calcanis states his opinion quite bluntly: ad networks are for losers. And he isn't alone in this thought. Calcanis says "This ESPN quote says it all: ‘the use of ad nets diminishes the value of their brand and content by spreading it so widely, ultimately threatening existing relationships with advertisers.'"

Adweek's Eleftheria Parpis argues that the tools that measure both buzz and biometrics still can't quantify creativity. In the end, the smartest agencies know how to condense all the research results and use their creativity to leverage it. "You have all the data in the world, but there is no substitute for intuitive creativity," says Mark Tutssel, CCO of Leo Burnett Worldwide. "There is so much data out there, distillation is everything."

According to Jake Pitt, "The lifecycle of internet advertising follows traditional media advertising. First, there is no advertising, as consumers are just beginning to adopt the new technology. Once the consumers are there, the advertisers come in, throwing their ads up all over the place (commercials, infomercials, etc.). Finally, advertisers wise up and realize that product placement is more efficient, more effective, and the best way to go, especially since big traditional ads are just plain annoying."

Count Ben Kunz among the few widget skeptics: "We knew widgets had gotten overhyped when we learned of the launch of a Widget Marketing Assn. When a marketing tool leaps from obscurity to cottage industry with its own trade group in just a few months, a bubble is surely brewing. Deep in your heart, dear marketer, you know this is true."

Writing for Advertising Age, Larry Dobrow discourses on magazine sites' video efforts. He summarizes: "a solid 85% of magazine websites are way out of their depth when they turn their attention to video. Maybe the mere creation of these clips, the fact that they exist, is cause for celebration in magazineland. But outside its inky gates, the standards are a bit higher. All most magazines are accomplishing here is further scuffing their already diminished brands."

When it comes to consumer-generated content, and consumers having a voice on the web, you simply can't stop it. Since you already must live with the risk, you might as well benefit from it. Jim Kaskade suggests on MediaPost that embracing social networking is the obvious answer.

The AdRants blog is rather well-named, because the authors speak their minds pretty plainly. Last Thursday the rant concerned anti-advertising campaigns, specifically a recent New York City effort that equates visual advertising with graffiti. The irony is that the billboards making this case are advertising. And the more people try to avoid advertising -- using DVRs to skip past them, for instance -- the more ads we seem to get. Don't be surprised if one day soon network programs feature overlays throughout entire episodes, or the shows play within branded skins. The solution? Less fuss, better targeting.

The very nature of the mobile phone makes it a powerful advertising medium. It is always there and always on. This means that mobile is also a brilliant way of engaging customers from other offline channels: billboards, press and direct mail, for example.

Writing for ClickZ, consumer-generated media expert Pete Capshaw took a stab at forecasting the top Web 2.0 buzzwords for next year. This is funny stuff, all the more so because he makes valid points. He nominates, for instance, "Search moptimization" -- the art of cleaning up negative organic search results generated by cranky consumers' reviews, blog posts, and videos. Or how about "Shamsparency," the state of ease in uncovering phony social networking on behalf of your brand -- and the inevitable backlash. Well worth the look!

An excellent TechCrunch piece by Erick Schonfeld explores the latest Google rumor. Now that it has started the ball rolling on its mobile software platform Android, the underground buzz is that Google may look to duplicate this strategy with TV set-top boxes. Schonfeld reminds us that our favorite TV interface is basically an underused computer with the same capabilities to do what the internet does. Assuming, of course, that somebody programs the boxes to do it. In-video AdWords, remote-over hotspots, and click-to-buy applications are all bound to happen. Who better than Google to help it along?