Just learned, via twitter ironically (Hugh McLeod specifically), that twitter isn’t making money. Neither is Digg or Facebook. And i think I know why. Well I’m going to hazard a not too-deeply-researched guess why. I’m an advertising creative, research is, like, a pain dude.
As long as the Internet (the “i” is capitalized you know) has been around and thriving, the cry of the overfunded startup has been ‘Oh, relax, the money will eventually come from advertising!”. Really? And what form will this advertising take? Google ads or something. Banner ads! Yeah. That’s it.
If only these would-be vendors of advertising had bothered to ask adfolks like us what we thought about the advertising opportunities they proposed to sell to – presumably – adfolks like us. Because if they did, they might realize that what they’re selling just isn’t that exciting. Sotto voce text whispers do not an exciting experience make. And advertising, to be successful, has to get people excited in some manner. It has to be motivating. It has to be exciting.
I’m not qualified to get into the mathematics of online advertising. But I really think that the online advertising game has been won. And Google won it. If i want to reach (note i say “reach” not “excite”) people i’m giving Google a call.
There will doubtless be great uses of Facebook (whopper sacrifice) and Twitter eventually i’m sure. But to hear the chatter about these alleged hot advertising properties reminds me of this scenario.
You walk into the foyer of the a grand French hotel. It looks beautiful. you’re paying a fortune to stay there. the manager greets you effusively. “Welcome to the Hotel Royale!” He then informs you that you will be sleeping on the window ledge on the fifth floor. You are understandably underwhelmed. He is perplexed. Is this not the most beautiful hotel in all of France???