>actually i bet we would be frightened to find out how many people simply >stare through the 3 min of commercials.
Hmmm... yeah, this is the old "lay-back versus lean-forward" thing (or what were the terms again, Fred?). Since tv is a lay-back medium, you keep staring the screen during the commercials, because your brain activity is near zero already. But when you're surfing the web, you're _actively_ searching for the information/entertainment you want to read (/see/feel/hear). If someone tries to force anything unrelated down your throat while searching, it feels annoying. I'd say that web isn't a good medium for advertising in the first place. If you want money from the content, make the site closed for non-registered people. Make the registered people pay for the content. Of course you should have some content people are willing to pay for in the first place... ;) >but i'm more worried about this urge to bring the www down to a >compromised tv. Yeah! > i thought people generally had gotten over that way of thinking back in > the late 90's! e.g. www ads will be the more effective the more they > resemble tv ads. ... but the whole medium should first morph to more lay-back-oriented, before advertising could really work. How many times you've actually clicked an ad banner? I think I've clicked less than ten times, from the very beginning of the commercial web (somewhere in the mid-nineties) to today. I've never bought anything because of web advertising. ---> jab | commie | http://commie.oy.com "Less is moo" --- The Holy Mad Cow
