Hold on, I need to make a right turn from the left lane because I just saw that Container Store billboard

alternateorg on February 27, 2001

How come internet advertising is based on click-thrus? Seriously. I don’t understand it. For 100 years, advertising has been totally (well, kind of) passive: the ad sits in the magazine, hoping you will look at it, and after seeing similar ads a number of times, you will consider purchasing the product contained therein. Right? So how come online advertising is so obsessed with click-thru rates? I don’t have to throw a rock at a billboard every time I see it, so the advertisers know I saw that ad. So why do I have to click a banner in order for that ad to be considered effective?

If I’m driving down the highway (again) and I see an ad for the Container Store, the advertisers don’t expect to me to all of a sudden immediately take the next exit and head toward the nearest Container Store, do they? So why do they expect that if I’m reading news or checking out designsites or shopping for music online, I’ll be willing to immediately stop what I’m doing, click the flashing banner at the top of the page, and totally redirect my activities, just because I saw a banner? That’s ridiculous. One rule of advertising is that the best you can hope for is that the consumer will think of you strongly enough when they next need/want a product that fits the description of yours, not that they’ll go out and buy in droves the second they first see your ad. That simply isn’t going to happen, offline or on, bigger ads or smaller ones:


Web sites have been looking for ways to become more attractive to advertisers, who have been disappointed with response rates to Internet banner ads.

The bulked-up Web ads will take up much more space on a Web page than current banner ads, which typically run across a narrow section at the top of a page — 234-by-60 pixels for a half banner or 468-by-40 pixels for a full banner.

The larger units include a square pop up that is 250-by-250 pixels and a so-called “skyscraper unit” that measures 120-by-600 pixels. Larger ads will also allow marketers to make their online message more creative and more interactive.

Link via SVN.

Now, ads for The Gap I wouldn't mind (they're in NYC every block, too)

alternateorg on February 26, 2001

From WireNews


For example, you’re sitting in a taxi traveling up 6th Avenue when the cab passes by a Starbucks. Suddenly, your cell phone rings. Starbucks is offering you a 50-cent discount on a Mochaccino if you come in right away. But in a recent cab ride through the Big Apple, Catlett said he noticed there is a Starbucks every two or three blocks.

Right. So I’d get to PAY by the minute for ads to be CALLED INTO MY PHONE? Wonder-fucking-ful. And what if you LIVE right next to a Starbucks? What then? Why can’t marketers and advertisers just, for once, leave something alone? I mean cell phones are pretty intimate.. far too personal for it to be acceptable to be called like this. I was reading tech news from Yahoo! wirelessly in a cafe at lunch today, and I actually could pay attention to the story. You know why? There’s not banner ads yet in the wireless internet. If I get any coupons called to me, I’m going to flip out..

Now this here, this is Chewbaca…

alternateorg on February 26, 2001

From WiredNews:


Edwards asked Minear whether it would violate antitrust laws if Microsoft used its connections “to destroy a grocery chain.” Minear said there would be no violation because Microsoft “doesn’t have a monopoly in the grocery market.”

Edwards then likened Netscape to the grocery store, saying the company did not consider itself a challenge to Microsoft.

Ah.. yes. The brilliant ‘grocery store’ defense. I thought they’d pull that out.

The Not-So-Bad Files

alternateorg on February 25, 2001

I’m amazed. The X-Files wasn’t so bad tonight. In fact it was quite good. I haven’t watched it like all season, and I knew what was going on… Although we don’t get to know until April whether Mulder is dead or not. We have to suffer through ‘The Lone Gunmen’ until then. :/

Virtual PC for OS X

alternateorg on February 23, 2001

I noticed this story at MacNN.com about the new version of Virtual PC shipping soon after the launch of MacOS X. This is wonderful news… think about it… now I can run;


UNIX apps (apache, samba, emacs, etc)

LINUX apps (ports of X window environments KDE and GNOME are sure to follow)
Classic MacOS Apps (PhotoShop, GoLive, etc)
Carbon Apps (iTunes, all new apps, etc)
Cocoa/NeXT/OpenStep Apps (OmniWeb, Mail, WebObjects, Project Builder, etc.)
Win32 Apps through Virtual PC

and theoretically you could run BeOS Apps as well through Virtual PC.


….drool…. and all of this on a Ti PowerBook G4 on Airport sitting in the park across the street from home working remotely… ahhh.. it will happen soon.

iCube

alternateorg on February 23, 2001

I have nowhere else to vent this so here goes…

All you Mac heads bitching and whining about a 17″ iMac go buy a fucking $1299 cube and a $150 17″ VGA Monitor and voila… there ya go… and its even under the $1499 you would pay for an iMac SE (which obviously would be the price point of a 17″ iMac if it ever existed).

Remember the whole “monitorless imac” rumors??? I mean, what the fuck did those people think an unexpandable monitorless iMac was supposed to look like… a round bubbly thing …??? NO, its the CUBE DAMNIT!!!

Grrr… now, go buy it!