Amiad Solomon, CEO of Peer39, kicked off the Web 3.0 Conference & Expo in Santa Clara, CA on Thursday with a keynote discussing the Semantic Web and how it relates to advertising. He told the audience that this is one of the key business opportunities in the Web 3.0 era. "I believe the simplest definition of Web 3.0 is the monetization and commercialization of Web 2.0," he said.
To fully appreciate how Web 3.0 can offer better advertising solutions, Solomon suggested that we start by analyzing the Web's transformations since Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau wrote the official proposal for the World Wide Web in 1990.
Web 1.0 was basic connection via the Internet, where information flowed one way and was rarely updated. Web 1.0 ended in 2001 with the crash of the dot com era that some estimate cost in excess of $5 Trillion. The Web 1.0 lesson: Cash, not content, is king.
Web 2.0 marked the beginning of the 'two sided Internet,' where we started using the Internet to talk to one another. This interactivity generated billions of dollars in data - virtually for free. The Web 2.0 lesson: Sustainable revenues are possible.
Web 3.0 offers detailed data exchange to every point on the Internet, a 'machine in the middle,' with three main characteristics:
1. Smart internetworking
The Internet itself will get smarter and become a gathering tool to execute relatively complex tasks and analyze collective online behavior.
2. Seamless applications
Web 3.0 theories suggest that all applications will fit together; a continuation of open source where all applications will be able to communicate. APIs will read data from any platform and provide a single point of reference.
3. Distributed databases
Web 3.0 will need somewhere to store very complex and memory intensive information. It will require ontologies to establish relationships between information sources; search millions of nodes, and scan billions of data records at once.
"This is where the semantic Web comes in," Solomon explained. "Businesses finally understand the Internet, and recognize that advertising is a good business model - if you can make it work."
According to Solomon, there are two approaches to advertising currently being used; contextual advertising and behavioral targeting:
Contextual advertising systems scan website text for keywords that trigger the system to send predetermined ads. Used in search engine results page, contextual systems show ads based on users search words; unfortunately, these ads aren't always relevant as words can have several meanings. While errors occasionally result in humor, and are good for a laugh, contextual ads show a serious weakness: companies investing in them are wasting advertising budgets, brand promotion and sentiment.
Behavioral targeting systems collect information on a person's Web browsing history, usually by way of cookies. Given the European Union's Directive 2002/58 on privacy and electronic communications, and pending US legislation restricting the use of cookies, behavioral targeting campaigns via cookies can no longer be seen as a valuable investment. Additionally, home computers are oftentimes shared, and if cookies are enabled, users get to see ads directed by other user's cookies. Again, badly targeted advertising can be a nuisance for the user, and a waste of advertising dollars.
Successful advertising means showing the right product to the right person at the right time. The semantic Web puts data into semantic formats on the fly, and targets ads based on the meaning of data with a high degree of accuracy.
This is good news for the user - no more embarrassing keyword results, no more Hooters ads on sites about feminism, and an end to annoying cookies.
Do you agree that the Semantic Web will bring even more effective advertising to the Web?
ReadWriteWeb is a media sponsor of the Web 3.0 Conference & Expo
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/8636
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Thanks for the update.
Posted by: vev from teak furniture | October 17, 2008 1:59 AM
What it will actually bring is ever more sophisticated ad blocking software. The result will, in a weird way, be more effectively targeted advertising because those who just hate the ads anyway will be blocking the few (allegedly relevant) ones that they would be sent and those who are ad junkies and take any notice of that stuff will, perhaps, get ones they will react to.
Face it, advertising is a continual battle for the advertiser to intrude into the attention of the target. One that advertisers are probably losing because modern media give the target the ability to fight back (ad blocking software, speeding through the ads in recorded TV programmes).
Posted by: DD | October 17, 2008 2:29 AM
Absolutely hit the nail there. But the way semantic ads are described, it's just an evolution of behavioral targeting which has shown itself to be sorely lacking.
After 10 years of the current models I am surprised that no one is re-thinking the basic model, i.e. creating code which can understand what a consumer wants.
I don't think that can ever be done.
Posted by: Jon | October 17, 2008 2:33 AM
He makes several good arguments.
We have begun incorporating elements of the Semantic Web in our client's online advertising projects, and have noticed the positive differences in the ROI. :-)
Posted by: Public Relations | October 17, 2008 3:04 AM
Great article! Off course the semantic web will improve advertising....for customers as well as firms! Advertising will be much more customised and at the right time because the web finally understands relations between data. ROI will dramatically increase and the customer will benefit from relevant advertising instead of annoying ads.
Posted by: Sjef Kerkhofs | October 17, 2008 3:23 AM
I agree that the Semantic Web will bring even more effective advertising to the Web. I also agree with Solomon regarding his definition of Web 3 features: Smart Inter-networking, Seamless Applications and Distributed Databases.
I was particularly interested in the section on Behavioral Targeting / privacy. The sooner "cookies" are eliminated - the better. One of the goals of my new (launched last month) web site is to exploit contextual marketing and not leave cookies on browsers of those who visit it.
Posted by: Boyd Carter | October 17, 2008 4:08 AM
We are an Arizona based company that provides web designing, web programming, online advertising, web hosting and domain names. No matter what the website
is, we have superior knowledge in all of the following categories; flash, 3D animation, video production, html, php, aspx, css, javascript, mysql, shopping
carts and more. With domain names starting at $6.95 per year and hosting starting at $3.99 per month, our prices can't be beat. Search Engine Advertising is
one our strongest fields, we have had remarkable success in bringing our customer's websites on the first pages of all the major search engines. If you are
looking to have a website redesigned, maintained or designed from scratch, we can assist you.
Posted by: Brody Web Design | October 17, 2008 4:53 AM
Hello Lidija, it's nice to see that someone from ReadWriteWeb is at the conference. I'd love to meet up and get your impression of the different sessions.
My problem with Amiad's presentation is two fold. First, I think that the time of the traditional banner is dying. I don't think the idea of getting the "right ad to the right person at the right time" can be accomplished merely by applying semantic technologies to read the context of the page. I think that two additional things have to be done...
1. Apply semantic technologies to the behavioral side as well. Not by using cookies, but by actually using the social graph. That could be the difference in showing someone an ad that suggests he goes golfing with his friends (because you see and understand that this is a "social object" that connects him to people), or an ad that promotes the beauty and serenity of golfing alone.
2. Apply semantic technologies back into the web and into the vertical of the advertiser. The semantic technology should be analyzing the brands content coming from the brand but also from the social web... reviews, conversations. It's not just about matching a message and image stored in a database a la Yahoo! Smart Ads... it's about bringing the user relevant content in the ad. Users trust other users more than brand messaging.
But my biggest problem as that advertising focus was used to kick off the event. We are understandably in a time where monetization is necessary element to the conversation. But, this is just the advertising angle is just the tiniest sliver of what the next generation of the web should be focused on.
Tom Tague said it best in a later session that the next gen web HAS to deal with information overload and an improved user experience. The key word of the day was relevant. Whether you want to call it Semantic Web or semantic small "s" or the personal assistant web or the open web or the mobile web. I think we all can agree that Web 3.0 = The Relevant Web.
Marta Strickland
Editor, ThreeMinds
Organic
Posted by: Marta Strickland | October 17, 2008 6:31 AM
Call me crazy but why am I reading an article about this so-called Web 3.0 when thousands of businesses have yet to change their mindset from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0? Nobody's going to shift to a third iteration without seeing the value of the second.
My take on the above model is that Amiad Solomon has it backwards; rather than companies targeting ads based on x, y, or z critera, shouldn't the companies' consumers be creating the advertising as the next iteration of what they (and we) are currently doing by blogging, tweeting, and stumbling their products and buzz?
Why must advertising continue on the same path where the business generates it? Shouldn't the business receive the revenue based on the consumer generating the ads?
Posted by: Ari Herzog | October 17, 2008 6:53 AM
Connecting semantic web to better advertising is a bad idea for several reasons.
First of all, semantic web is a broad concept, geared towards representing information in machine readable form to derive greater utility for the end users. To narrow down semantic web to better ads would be to do disservice to both the concept itself and to the users, as Marta points out.
Secondly, nobody wants better ads. We should stop marketing this to consumers, because nobody is going to buy it.
What people are looking for is a better web experience, more relevant content and the being in control of the information. The promise of semantics, as many companies in the space have shown is the potential for relevancy via understanding of the user context. That is a real tangible benefit that many semantics based tool deliver today.
The problem of monetization, which has suddenly become more acute because we are in a recession has nothing to do with semantics. Any technology can be monetized by advertising, charging users and other means. The problem is that in today's world, charging the users is a big 'no-no', so the only obvious way to make money is to slap in advertising.
We need clarity separating the goal - better web experience, from means - semantics, from monetization - advertising, etc. Until we are clear on what is what, we gonna continue to clump everything together and confused ourselves and the end users.
Posted by: Alex Iskold | October 17, 2008 6:58 AM
Obsession with numerical versions - U ALL HAZ IT
"The old lengthy, bureaucratic, we're-doing-this-to-cover-our-asses process. The typical result: bloated, forgettable software dripping with mediocrity. Blech. Getting Real gets rid of meaningless version numbers..."
- 37 Signals 'Getting Real'
Posted by: Todd | October 17, 2008 7:06 AM
Very bad article!
This article does not say anything special! It talks about the past and present of the web (who does not know it already?) and then goes to say that semantic web is going to solve the short attention span people have on the web.
Neither does the article delve into the details on how this is going to be solved. Ontologies someone?
Ok, Facebook Connect is the holy grail!? The problem people don't realize is that typical web 2.0 sites are a gathering place and communication mean, just like a phone, a club. People do not visit a club or call a friend to buy stuff!
Posted by: Edu | October 17, 2008 7:49 AM
"unfortunately, these ads aren't always relevant as words can have several meanings". Actually, a company called proximic, is a startup putting together a solution which supposedly raises the bar on contextual advertising relevancy.
Posted by: JohnC | October 17, 2008 7:52 AM
The Semantic Web really has nothing at all to do with a human browsing the web with a browser and viewing ads. The idea behind the Semantic Web is to provide information that's structured to make it easier for machines (read: computers) to help humans accomplish tasks on the 'Net. Unless RDFa catches on big-time, and we start embedding the semantic metadata into XHTML pages, this whole premise falls down, at least as it relates to the Semantic Web proper.
And finally, there is no such f%!#ng thing as "Web 3.0," there's just the Web... deal with it.
Posted by: Phillip Rhodes | October 17, 2008 8:10 AM
I agree with much of your problem analysis, particularly the problems with some of the assumptions about users on which behavioral targeting rests.
But I think you're a bit over the top when you suggest that the semantic web will give us, "no more embarrassing keyword results, no more Hooters ads on sites about feminism ..."
The computer's ability to extract meaning from text and images on a web page may be impressive and improving. But think about how the vastly more powerful "meaning processor" - the human brain - sometimes struggles with getting the correct meaning out of our attempts to communicate.
Two people in a quiet room, with full access to facial expressions, body language, tonal qualities of voice, and of course the words themselves, still misundertand each other all too often.
I'm not saying semantic web technology won't be an improvement. Just offering a reality check if we're thinking it will make all the problems go away.
Posted by: Tom Collins | October 17, 2008 8:26 AM
Iskold nails it, and DD, Todd, Edu, and Rhodes make very good points.
Marketers continually borrow buzz words from the tech-side (eg. semantic) and re-purpose them for their own benefit.
A better online experience has little to do with advertising other than finding ways to rid ourselves from the intrusion of marketers.
As the mortgage and credit markets melt, most consumers cannot be shown "relevant" ads because they do not exist. Nobody has any money left to spend.
How can we get these people to stop putting a version number on a medium? Newspapers 2.0? Magazines 2.0? Printing press 2.0? Yes, they all sound equally stupid.
Thanks to RRW for continuing to promote this insipid nomenclature (eg. Web 3.0). WTF!
Posted by: Tim | October 17, 2008 8:37 AM
Please, please, everyone who is involved in building, marketing, or using web technologies: stop versioning the web. It has completely outlived its usefulness -- this is a pointless rat race that benefits no one.
Posted by: Jamie Scheu | October 17, 2008 8:42 AM
I attended a couple of panels and moderated one myself at the conference yesterday. There was great discussion about using semantic technology to enhance user experience, manage information overload and provide greater search relevance to the consumer. However, I'm surprised at the focus semantic advertising is getting at this stage.
As others have discussed in this thread, the focus of current consumer-oriented semantic applications should be better experience, more engagement on the site and subtle adoption ( consumer don't need to know that semantics is powering an application). If there are higher Click-thru's, more transactions and increased monetization opportunities as a result of underneath semantics, then the viability is obvious and adoption becomes mainstream.
Posted by: Nagaraju | October 17, 2008 9:21 AM
Please, Squash that Web 3.0 Cockroach (see http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=406)
Posted by: Mike Bergman | October 17, 2008 9:29 AM
Greate conference!
If anyone wanna have detailed information in german just visit my blog.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 17, 2008 11:57 AM
I too attended and moderated a session yesterday and I'm not surprised by the SV backlash against advertising but let's maintain some perspective.
No one is saying semantic web is just about advertising. We all agree it is about delivering relevance by dealing intelligently with the ever growing overabundance of information on the web. Semantic web is about correlations and efficiency and yes, better experiences as a result. That includes advertising.
Also stop this BS that people don't like advertising. As the great Howard Gossage said, "People like what interests them and sometimes that's advertising." People thirst for relevance. Who among us has never clicked a Google ad after a search? We all have.
Lastly, ask yourself how many of the media you love and consume everyday would exist if there were no advertising? We would all be watching Masterpiece Theater every night on PBS and chilling on Wikipedia. Lame.
Posted by: Jonathan Mendez | October 17, 2008 2:29 PM
Let's get some facts straight!
1. Nobody is saying using versioning is actually a tight definition for the "thing" (I shall call it the "Thing" until someone that lives in the real world will come up with a better term; for those of you puking at "web 3.0" I urge you to come up with a better name that can actually be explained in non-technical words to my wife, a potential user, which does not involve "AI", "intelligent", or "semantic").
2. Stop hating advertising. There is nothing wrong with advertising, but everything wrong with poor advertising. I am sick to my stomach of the immaturity of people that continue to live in "the clouds", are used to selling to enterprises, but not to consumers/users; by the way, if you hate advertising and marketing in and of itself, please teleport yourself to the 1800s. Or better yet, be prepared to pay more for your services.
3. Why is it that people who continue to use technological memes in a (most often failed) attempt to convince my wife to use services or to buy into an abstract service (pitching data to consumers per se is hard to sell, unless of course you have a very idyllic/hippy mentality about what goes into the real world, outside the well controlled audiences of enterprise IT decision makers.
4. Of course it's all about personalization, user experience improvement, etc. I just cannot understand why to that for targeting and advertising is wrong? Doesn't advertising ALSO have user experience in need of major improvement? I have worked tens of years with advertiser clients and big data owners and they don't really want to shove tons of useless ads on to users no more than we as users do, but the reality of how media is bought and sold and the poor technology of advertising makes it a reality. Stop complaining, get a plop-plop-fizz-fizz (if you're about to puke), and propose/show how YOU are going to make the world a better place without advertising, and good user experience, in a non-technical user interface (by the way Alex, I think Adaptive Blue is well on the way there).
5. This is why you shouldn't let someone in IT running Biz Dev and market/corporate strategy at a company: because in the end, we get all geeked out by the coolness of technologies, and we forget someone needs to pay bills somewhere (including consumers) - unless of course. But of course, not if you're hippy. I'd also personally love everything to be free, so maybe I didn't get it, maybe semantic=socialism? Hmmmm, I really didn't think of it that way, but maybe it is, as the logic of marketing-hating people would have it, it's only the next logical step.
6. Being a great technologist has nothing to do with being able to market, launch and run a business based on a technology - that's why they have MBA programs and Comp Sci programs!!!! Two separate skills, two different mentalities.
7. By the way, for people who want to use Semantic Web in a very strict technological way, and disallow others to use it ("you're not with us, if you don't use SPARQL and OWL" type beliefs), this is VERY sad. It contradicts basic tenets of openness and democracy in data/technologies that the same people advocate, and it's in fact technological stalinism. Go at it, it makes no argumentative sense to advocate both in the same rhetoric because you're contradicting yourself.
8. Overall, grow up and instead of constantly getting sick, do something that is better, but in a way that doesn't require users to understand the technical mambo jambo, but makes sense to them.
Posted by: Dan | October 17, 2008 6:12 PM
Also, one suggestion please: it's always more convenient to continuously bitch, but harder to actually come up with an alternative that is both scalable as a new business model. If all advertising is evil, I urge you to come up with a better, new business model that is less evil. For those that hide behind blogs and did not have the guts to directly come to the conference ( I repeatedly invited those people and urged them they need their voice to be heard, and that the conference needs their angle because the truth/way is always in the middle, etc.) and raise their points, it's yet another sign if immaturity. This conference has been, and will be open to detractors and haters of both marketing and "Web 3.0", but there is one condition to do so (which I guess it's not that easy to do, is it?): they need to support the hatred with a reasoned proposal that is better. We have directly discussed the need for a moniker, "web 3.0", and had plenty of juicy discussion about it (plus side, minus side), but to simply deny it outside the realm of reasoned debate is an act of cowardice. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: Dan | October 17, 2008 6:26 PM
How shall we call it instead, Mike? Please indulge us :-) of course, maybe we don't need to name it at all (coming from someone working in the area, and with years of experience in RDBMS, etc. etc. that's a bit surprising though). I propose:
"the thing",
" the unnamed"
" the thingy that is hard to explain to Dan's wife, but she needs to be an early adopter of anyway, even though she won't understand what it is" - I specifically like this last one.
Thoughts?
Posted by: Dan | October 17, 2008 6:33 PM
By the way, I didn't think the title of this article "shoves" semantic web (or would we prefer Semantic Web?) solely on the evil territory of advertising (ooooohhh, ahhhh, advertising is going to get you!), I took it as showcasing potential applications of semantic technologies (just like imrpoving user experience intra-site, inter-site, on the web overall, enterprise, etc.), but maybe the title does suggest that. In any event, the conference was not focused solely on advertising. I think our cozy community here is a little too jittery about marketing and advertising. Let's all pay for content ourselves, right? That seems like a good idea. It also seems reminiscent of two things:
1. The early discussions whether advertising is useful information (by allowing people to know what products are available, etc. etc.) in the early 20th century, when advertising started to become an industry.
2. The early discussions of the "evil" hijacking of the WWW with such nuisances as the evil (grin, grin) AT&T Hotwired banner ad.
Here's my sarcastic proposals:
1. While we're at tossing the baby with the bath water, let's get rid of PSAs too. And while we're at it, let's get rid of Yellow Pages as well (a form of advertising as well).
2. I think there are different ways to consider advertising that is not that evil, and there could be new ways to monetize (=build a business, not a research project) data, that is both "clean", user-driven, and different than the HotWired way of today, but not quite there yet (I have been working on it actually). But until we can come up with better models, I would take it easy on absolutist remarks that incite the passions, but not the mind.
Posted by: Dan | October 17, 2008 7:09 PM
I don't know you, Dan, but after reading your multiple sequential comments and your mention of keeping the Yellow Pages handy, might I mention that I haven't opened a telephone directory in several YEARS?
If I need to know a person's or company's phone number, either I call 411 or I visit Google.com or BigYellow.com.
But that's me and I'm not even a member of the so-called Millennial Generation who represent 25% of the U.S. population.
When I suggest reinventing the notion of advertising, I'm serious. The fact we're discussing this "online" and not over coffee at McDonald's is evident enough that the times and gossip locations are a changin'.
Posted by: Ari Herzog | October 18, 2008 12:07 AM
Yes, Ari, I can't agree more with reinventing advertising, feel free to read my blog. But i just don't think that revisionist proposals would get anywhere anytime soon, simply because they're not practical. By the way, 411 and services like that, although you might not consider them advertising, they indeed are advertising, because companies pay to be there. So, let's get rid of them too, right? Easy on revisionism please.
Posted by: Dan | October 18, 2008 12:54 PM
People, there's too much argument over a simple point. From what I see we've got two camps here: 1. those who believe that it's ok to make money on the web, and 2. those who don't. What can be said to anyone against monetization to shake them out of the gospel that the internet is a free lunch? Advertising is the main engine of growth on the internet; if semantic advertising fulfills its promise, it looks like a major opportunity. Better advertising targeting is better for everyone.
Posted by: HiltonH | October 18, 2008 7:36 PM
we are a uk based web design company proposing web design and web development services. visit us at http://www.discountwebdesign.co.uk
thank you and best of luck
Posted by: web design | October 19, 2008 10:46 PM
@DD An interesting point. I think advertisers need to start looking at smarter options; those of us that use the Web daily do block ads [in the main] - what happens when more and more people start doing the same? I think the advertisers really need to examine what is working and what is not and try and find a better way - using traditional advertising on the Web is just not working.
@Jon - I think you're right - re-thinking the basic model is going to be a trick - but really there is no other option.
@Marta - Howdy - it was good catching up with you at Web 3.0.
You raise some valid points. Cookies, for the most part are extremely ineffective - and I think advertisers are starting to realize this; particularly given the recent moves in legislation.
However, I did hear Tom speak, and agree with his point that we must deal with information overload; in fact I think this is where people should be focused. As you point out, advertising at this point needs to take a back seat.
@Alex - Nicely said. I don't want better ads; in fact, I don't want any ads [in their traditional form]. I think some companies have worked it out (think Blendtec, P&G in the 1930's etc). But they tend to be more the exception than the norm.
To me there seem to be too many people with different agendas competing for a position in the new Web world, and in their haste to be at the forefront, they are confusing not only themselves, but all of us that use the Web.
@Edu - sorry you feel that way. The article doesn't delve into how to solve the problems of the Web because I honestly don't think anyone knows what the answer is right now; certainly I wouldn't know where to begin writing about it.
@Tim - but don't you know? If you come up with a new whizz bang term you immediately acquire Web celeb status. Game on! ;)
@Dan - Thanks for your thoughts; as Co-Conference Chair for Web 3.0, I suspect the week has been extremely busy for you.
I just wanted to respond to your points.
Re: 1. I suspect the people that take exception to the Web 3.0 moniker are folk that use the Web heavily. To them, this is just another step in the process of the Web evolving. As for those non-techie folk, I don't think it matters to them one way or the other what we call it; it's still the Web, and like other things in life, it's changing.
RE: 2. No, there is nothing wrong with advertising when done right. The problem with advertising on the Web is that it has been so wrong for so long.
Think about 'in your face' advertising - pop ups, pop unders, adware - stuff that many people associate with malware. It's the perception of what advertisers are trying to do on the Web that is causing problems.
While many advertisers may want to change their ways now, I wonder whether it is too late to try and convince users that advertising won't harm their computers - it's going to take a lot of work.
Incidentally, it won't be the ultra violet folk that will need convincing; it will be those that are not as tech savvy that strongly believe that ads = viruses we'll be needing to convince.
Re 4: Sorry, but I think you've got it back to front. I don't think it's up to us to prove how to make the world a better place without advertising; I think it's up to the advertisers to prove to us that they can make the world a better place with advertising.
Re 5: I don't think anyone is saying we want everything for free. Yes, we all need to earn a living and pay bills. Again, one thing I think advertisers should be focusing on is removing the 'fear' factor so firmly entrenched in the majority of Web users today if they are going to succeed.
I also wanted to point out that this article was about Amiad Solomon, who predominantly talked about advertising in his keynote (which of course makes sense given his company deals in advertising solutions). It was not meant to be an overview of the conference as a whole, just one interesting aspect of it.
Posted by: Lid | October 21, 2008 11:39 AM
FWIW, I have no problem with advertising, I just don't see one of the *primary* points of the Semantic Web being anything about advertising. That said, if additional semantics in web data allow more appropriate and meaningful advertising, that's a good thing. If I have to view ads, I'd prefer they at least be relevant.
As for this:
"for those of you puking at "web 3.0" I urge you to come up with a better name that can actually be explained in non-technical words to my wife, a potential user, which does not involve "AI", "intelligent", or "semantic")."
I suggest the alternative to "Web 3.0" be "The Web." That's it, just "The Web," no version number. Why do we need to (try to) label discrete points in the evolution of the web and tag them with vacuous monikers based on version numbers? What value does a term like "Web 2.0" or "Web 3.0" add to the discussion... I personally find the answer to be "none," but if somebody can explain to me how they do add value, I'd be interested to hear it.
Remember, technological evolution on the web is accretive. New stuff adds to, but does not (necessarily) replace the old. Everything that is "Web 1.0" is still "out there" and (many|most) sites are still a mix of the "stuff" that is lumped as "Web 1.0" and "Web 2.0".
Posted by: Phillip Rhodes | October 22, 2008 6:46 AM
I attended the meeting, it was a great presentation by the guys at Peer39.
Ad-Blocking is BAD!! You should read my article on this subject Anti-Ad Blocking
I happen to think ad-blocking is out of line. It costs the publishers thousands of dollars a year to accommodate for people who want to skim the content and refuse to provide the publishers with any value in return. Consuming content is part of modern living, you cant get a news paper or magazine without ads, nor can you get you TV shows without them, despite the use of DVRs which is made for replay, not for skipping ads.
I liken the ad blocking to stealing. I dont think anyone would want to be on the other side, trying to eek a living from our creativity. Why are actors and musicians entitled to make money from people consuming their artistic works and web masters are not?
I have collected a whole lot of information on this subject and have recently release a technology that bypasses ad-blocking software. Of course it is up to the web master to use this Anti-Ad blocking technology with caution. With the power to deliver ads at their whim it must be critical for the publisher to recognize what is a good mix of ads and content. If people come to your site and are bombarded with ads every time the visit they will soon quit visiting your website.
I enable the publisher to deliver ads, if they abuse the tool its not my fault. People will vote with their clicks in the end.
Thats how it should be. I think that people will figure that in order to consume good content they will have to deal with the ads. Thats a fact of life and it will remain that way if I have anything to say about it.
Ciao.
Dylan Rosario
adUup - President and Inventor
Posted by: Dylan Rosario | October 28, 2008 12:10 AM
VERY NICE BLOG
ITS VERY USEFUL
THANK YOU..........
Posted by: MICHAEL | November 4, 2008 5:33 AM
If anyone is looking for a highly skilled and professional Organic Search Engine Optimization Firm, we can assist you, please call 602-404-4444 or visit us online at www.directconnectcommunications.com
Posted by: DCC | November 5, 2008 9:07 AM
nice guide.. awesome work..
Posted by: Web Advertiser | November 13, 2008 1:00 PM