• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

Gaming Networks Turmoil 5

by Maarten Goldstein, Jan 05, 2001 10:30am PST
Related Topics – Games: PC

Voodoo Extreme has posted a Q&A with Chris Weller of UGO, talking to him about the financial situation of UGO (our ad provider) and the rumor that some 300 sites would be cut from the alliance as reported yesterday.

VoodooExtreme -- The latest buzz is that UGO plans on slashing the size of its network by 300 sites. What criteria does UGO use to determine which sites are going to leave and which ones will stay? [Chris Weller] The latest buzz is wrong, as usual. We are not cutting 300 sites. We are going to everyone and explaining the realities of the market and getting them on board with a plan that keeps us all moving forward. You have to realize that we have been a shield for these sites, protecting them from the harsh realities of the internet space for some time. We cannot protect them from those realities anymore, but we are getting them to work with us in a way that helps us all survive. We're circling the wagons with them, so to speak. It's difficult and painful but it's really the only responsible thing to do to get through this period.


Read all the News


Comments

« Previous 1 2 Next »
45 Threads | 263 Comments
  • #262
    Refresh Thread
    By: Barbarian x
    Reply
    I can't believe they're turfing counter-strike.net. You don't kick out the website of the most popular multiplayer fps unless you're really, really stupid.

    [ C|Net / Stomped situation] [ Wednesday, January 3, 2001 ]
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Well, as you've probably heard, as of Feb 1 -- we will most likely be needing a new host. We want to thank everyone here at Stomped, who have been awesome: Bigfoot, Malhavoc, Gary, Tactic, and everyone else. We'll keep you posted with what's up with the site.
    [ cliffe ]
    Jan 06, 2001 2:04am PST
  • #158
    Refresh Thread
    By: davecrazy x
    Reply
    one more :

    PENTACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Pricing per interaction --pay for what you get on Internet banner ads

    07/02/1999
    M2 PRESSWIRE
    Copyright 1999 M2 Communications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.


    Internet advertisers are increasingly frustrated with the current system of billing for on-line ads. This is based on the number of impressions or opportunities to view that a particular banner receives. Many advertisers do not believe that impressions alone reflect the effectiveness of their campaign, but probably more accurately reflect the cost structure of the publisher. Pentacom Communications, the London-based Internet technology consultants, however, have introduced a much more accurate, and fairer, way to allow advertising brains to give full flood to their creative juices. ActiveAdvertiser, gives truly interactive Internet advertising, that enables the billing of banner ads to relate directly to the number of visitors that actually interact with each ad. The difference is similar to charging for everyone that walks past a poster as opposed to billing just for those that take a step back, read every word, shoot off a Polaroid and enter the details in their diary.

    As ActiveAdvertiser records the interactive visitors so it gives advertisers and their ad agencies unprecedented dynamic feedback on the effectiveness of their Web advertising. Powerful reporting tools monitor precisely how many people have interacted with each ad and their response.

    According to Bruce McVicar, Managing Director of Pentacom Communications, "This is real 'payment by results' advertising. Extensive feedback from both advertisers and agencies has convinced us that the number of impressions bears no resemblance to the actual success of an ad, but merely reflects the popularity of the page on which the ad happens to be situated. Most conventional banners simply flash a message - rather like an outdoor poster. There is nothing wrong with this, but because Internet surfers are so focused on screen content, they tend to be unusually intolerant of extraneous material or intrusion. Instead of building brand recognition, many advertisers may be actually diminishing positive brand image."

    Jan 05, 2001 12:22pm PST

    Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.

  • #157
    Refresh Thread
    By: davecrazy x
    Reply
    Some More :

    Report on Business: Managing
    MARKETING
    On-line ads don't seem to click with surfers Marketers are keen to capitalize on the Web craze, but the evidence suggests the come-ons aren't working
    John Heinzl

    07/28/1999
    The Globe and Mail
    Metro
    Page M1
    All material copyright Thomson Canada Limited or its licensors. All rights reserved.


    Bruce Johnston spends up to two hours a day on the Internet, researching companies and reading on-line magazines. On weekends, the 43-year-old Toronto day trader sits in front of his computer for even longer stretches.

    Yet he can't recall ever clicking on an Internet banner ad , even though he's been on-line for about four years now. "They're not . . . exciting enough for me to want to click on them," he says, adding that he goes on the Internet to find information, not to be bombarded by product pitches.

    Mr. Johnston and others like him pose a big challenge for the Internet advertising industry. Although companies are buying more on-line ads as they try to unlock the Internet's marketing power, statistics indicate most surfers have little time for the come-ons that clutter Web pages.

    And that has the industry scrambling to develop novel ways to connect with Internet users, who are proving to be an elusive target.

    "I think consumers are starting to suffer from banner blindness," says Marissa Gluck, an analyst with Jupiter Communications Inc. in New York. "They know that [ads] are there but they're not really registering in their consciousness, and it's a challenge for marketers to get past that."

    A few years ago, when the Internet was still a novelty, about 2 per cent of Web page visitors would click on a given banner ad. But as consumers have become more jaded, clickthrough rates have plunged to as low as 0.5 per cent, Jupiter's research shows. One reason is that the number of banner ads has grown exponentially, making them like wallpaper. Another is that people watch TV, whereas they interact with the Internet.
    Jan 05, 2001 12:19pm PST
  • #156
    Refresh Thread
    By: davecrazy x
    Reply
    This is a small section of an article that appeard in a trade magazine last month:

    Marketing
    Hoisting the Banner, Again
    By Kate Fitzgerald

    12/01/2000
    Credit Card Management
    Page 28
    Copyright (c) 2000 American Banker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


    Banner ads, the hot spot of Internet advertising until about a year ago, are being questioned by many online marketers who doubt their effectiveness.

    Response rates to banner ads have fallen sharply as the novelty of the little electronic billboards on the top, bottom, and sides of Internet pages has worn off. Millions of consumers now tune out interruptive come-ons for products and services while surfing the Internet. Accordingly, the average price for a single banner has dropped, from as high as $30 in 1999 to a little less than $1 recently.

    To be sure, prices for banner ads vary widely by the target audience and the traffic on the Web sites on which they appear. And most advertising firms dealing with banner ads offer volume discounts of 20% to 80%. Nevertheless the average cost per 1,000 ads is "definitely trending downward," says John Denny, vice president of business development at New York City-based Winstar Interactive Media, an Internet ad firm.
    Jan 05, 2001 12:17pm PST