Google has clarified its policies surrounding GMail. Matthew Haughey sums the whole situation up very well: “it boggles my mind that they even have to go to such great lengths to explain how their subtle ads aren’t the new red menace.”
There are reports that
a state senator in California is attempting to block Google’s Gmail service via legislation. She objects to the targetting of advertising based on the content of email. This is one of the most ill-informed and ridiculous things I’ve heard of from a lawmaker.
: Why we sell advertising, not search results. A simple statement of fact gets right to the point. Perfect. I won’t use anything else anyhow, but it’s nice to have it confirmed. Especially with all the FUD going around on this issue lately.
Suck speaks the truth
: Jocko Homo; or how banner ads could actually work if people used them better. It’s easy to say, I know, but this has been my mantra for a long time now. Banners have to click through to something with an immediate payoff for users – content that they can rely on, content in a format they don’t normally see, content that’s tied to a specific event. And the banner itself has to communicate that – and never diverge from the principle. Cause as soon as someone clicks through to something lame, they may never go through on that site again. Banners aren’t a revolution in advertising – but nor are they useless.
I got my copy
of Communication Arts today at the office – it’s the advertising annual this month. Flipping through – the best one I noticed was a billboard for the California Avocado Commission that said:
Trees supply oxygen.
Really good trees supply oxygen and avocados.
[Pretty nice website too]
