Posts by Jeremy Andrew
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Except with news, its not an either/or situation, more of a continuum. They can have the wide-appeal, lowest common denominator, Britney's boobs stories as well as the more focussed, high-brow analysis.
People already customise their newspapers, they chuck away the sections they don't read. Online, they'll ignore the sections they don't read.
The difference is, with smart cookies and analysis, they can target the ads in each section with more accuracy. They don't need broad-brush demographics like "women read the fashion pages, men read sports, well off people read the business section, etc". They will know that I am a male in my age group, and which articles and types of article I read, they may well extract my income bracket and other useful info from some "competition" questionnaire or survey, they'll know that I have kids, a mortgage, a wife, what city I live in, what supermarket I shop in, my inside leg measurement. I'll see ads that sell things I am likely to buy, I won't see ads for wrinkle cream or Prada handbags, or mercedes convertibles, I will know when there's a CD sale at the Warehouse, or if a local shop has my favourite beer on sale.
If I click on lots of ads, or just a few high value ones, then there are likely to be more of the type of article I read turning up. -
Patrick Troughton was a bit before my time.
They reckon you can tell someone's approximate age by which Doctor they regard as the 'real' one.
Mine's Tom Baker - age-wise it should be John Pertwee, but Worzel Gummidge spoiled it for me. Plus his scarf was cool. -
I can't believe you posted that!
-
Sure the advertising crew will have to work a bit smarter, but the results will be worth it. Hard news readers will generally be better educated, in better jobs and probably better paid. Getting some brand recognition to their specific eyeballs will be worth the bit of brainpower it takes to design ads that can sit next to a commentary on a massacre in Darfur and not seem tawdry.
-
what company wants to associate its name to child abuse, of nuclear disarmament talks, or AIDS epidemics?
But the advertisers who end up adjacent to such articles aren't necessarily being associated with the content - they will be keen on associating themselves with the type of reader who reads the hard news (instead of, or as well as, the fluff).
I'm sure the demographic who read proper news have various traits that would endear them to certain advertisers, as opposed to the readers o fLindsay and Britney's latest exploits. -
Now that was a funeral (well, wake anyway).
-
I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with my adverts knowing that much about me personally
I know what you mean (but not the way Google knows what you mean...). Turning off cookies stuffs them up, but that also kills off some other functionality that I do like. You can have a cookie whitelist in IE7, which I haven't been arsed playing with yet though.
-
I dunno, but if something gives the Prime Minister 'the creeps' then of course there should be a law against it.
-
Any chance of a transcript, or slightly longer abstract for those of us who missed it?
-
Actually I didn't watch it either, I only have a vague idea what you're talking about because someone mentioned it on another thread a few weeks back.