Print 77 comment(s) - last by HeelyJoe.. on Jun 17 at 1:45 AM

Google CEO Eric Schmidt had a lot to say at his latest interview in San Francisco. He says Google is striving to live up to "don't be evil", but is facing some challenges that leave it misunderstood.  (Source: Stephen Shankland/CNET
Hearing the call of duty to fix the online ad business, Schmidt comments on publisher fears and a broad array of issues

We're not your enemy, we're your friend -- that's the message Google's Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said media companies should take home about Google.  In an in-depth interview with Ken Auletta, The New Yorker's media reporter, Schmidt portrayed that by "fixing" the advertising system and bringing offline advertising online, Google is bringing advertising into the twenty first century and is doing what it takes to save advertising.

Schmidt reaffirmed his claim that Google wasn't out to just make money, but was trying to promote a greater good.  He states that concerning publisher's problems with advertising, "It's a huge moral imperative to help here."

Google will certainly make a lot of money, though in the process if it succeeds.  After growing large business selling text ads, it now is upping its graphical advertisements, thanks to its acquisition of DoubleClick, among the internet's largest and most experienced advertisers.  Schmidt said this unified approach is the key to success, stating, "By combining DoubleClick with that (search-ad) architecture, we can provide a single platform for publishers that over time will begin to generate significant revenue for publishers."

However, Google is fast finding that graphical ads, which command a price premium are much more vulnerable to the economy.  While Q1 2008 did see significant 8.5 percent annual growth, up to about $2.9 billion total annual revenue, this was significantly slower than the early growth rate of 16.7 percent.

Schmidt commented on Viacom's suit against Google for its property YouTube which Viacom contends intentionally allows or condones infringement of copyrighted materials.  He labels the claims as baseless and says that media companies like Viacom are just insecure about Google's role as a leader in the online advertising and media revolution.  He states, “There is a sea change from one model to another. Many of the criticisms I see seem to be merely about the change, and Google happens to be the messenger.  Those changes are going to occur independently."

With YouTube, Google fills the shoes of both being a publisher, like Viacom, and an advertiser.  Thus it's in its best interest, it argues to make graphical advertising work as well as possible.

Curiously Schmidt remarked that he found the fact that internet users were getting more and more while paying less and less to be disturbing.  He states, "That's bad for Google. We are critically dependent on high-quality content."

Schmidt insists that despite this profit first mentality, Google is really only using its profits as a vehicle to achieve great and noble things.  He dropped a number of statements such as, "The goal of the company isn't to monetize everything. The goal is to change the world."

When challenged to provide more detail of what such a lofty and ambiguous goal meant, he quipped, "For the better."

Schmidt says of his company "we don't have an evil meter we can apply," but he says they do apply the line of thought in making their most important decisions.  He says that cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin were responsible for the attitude and at first he was incredulous and thought it was a joke.  He states, "I thought when I joined the company this was crap--companies don't have these things. I thought it was a joke. It must be a Larry and Sergey thing.  o I was sitting in a room six months in, and an engineer said, 'That's evil.' It's like a bomb goes off in the room. Everybody has a moral and ethical discussion that, by the way, stopped the product."

Schmidt says Google doesn't have listen to what Wall Street says, rather, "We respond to end-user satisfaction.  We have enough leverage that we have the luxury of time.  Most businesses can't invest for scale. They have to make money now. That short-term focus does make people sometimes make the wrong trade-off."

While money is not usually the main objective, it is sometimes he admits.  He confirmed reports that Google held an important meeting with the YouTube staff demanding they move the business into profitable, cashing in on its success.  His details on the plan were vague, but he stated, "We have a revenue plan, a usage plan, a scale plan, a bandwidth plan."

YouTube accounts for most of Google's outbound traffic, so it must start making money.

While Schmidt's comments, particularly the amount of service one, may strike some users as a bit odd, it’s hard to deny Google's success and power.  With the internet ruled by Google for now, we can all only hope that it lives up to its motto -- "Don't be evil" -- as Schmidt says it will.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Motoman on 6/12/2008 6:35:45 PM , Rating: 1
Note to Google and all other advertisers...

Every time I see an advertisement...whether in print, on the TV, on a billboard, online, wherever...I make a mental note NOT TO EVER BUY THAT COMPANY'S PRODUCTS UNLESS I HAVE NO REASONABLE CHOICE.

The less you put ads in front of my face, the more likely I am to buy your products. When I need something, I go looking for it, and the prospective purchases I could make that come from the most obnoxious advertisers go to the bottom of the list.

The more you put ads in front of my face, the more likely I am to permanently boycott all of your products...and not ever consider anything you put out at all.

And don't even think about telemarketing. If someone calls me up to pitch me something, I don't care if it cures're getting NOTHING from me. Ever.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By zhaus on 6/12/2008 6:48:28 PM , Rating: 5
Ah but advertising is more subtle than that. The stuff you see on TV, the pictures in magazines; they have a huge influence on consumer thinking.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By LumbergTech on 6/12/2008 6:55:16 PM , Rating: 5
thats true, but times are changing....a large segment of the population is getting smarter about advertising..

most ads i see cause me to feel resentment...i dont mind advertising in some places but i do not want to be blasted with ads every goddamn second of the day and it just causes me to feel jaded and refuse to buy the products i see advertised

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By P4blo on 6/13/2008 5:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
I've blocked many of the main advertising domains at my router. I did it initially so I could remote my PC without it grinding to a hault because of the load web based animated advertising puts on remote desktop bandwidth.

I'm of the opinion if there were no adverts and people simply made use of the wealth of information and reviews available to assess products, much better purchases would be made and rubbish products couldn't cheat there way into market share.

We all know the quality and look of an advert bares virtually zero relevance to the quality or functionality of the product. All it is doing is shouting louder than the other companies from the highest hill and spending more of their profit margin doing so.

I don't want overpriced products simply because companies get into ridiculous advertising exposure wars. It's just stupid and pointless unless you happen to be a combat wearing advertising flunkie.

And dont get me started on the whole lifestyle pushing thing. I just find that offensive, a company who only cares about its profits trying to suggest how I should live my life? Talk about conflict of interests.

I'm of the opinion that advertising is an unnecessary evil and should be kept under control for the good of all. There are plenty of brilliant products that put their budget into product development and dont blow it all on over invasive market research and advertising. Usually the products that get mega marketing are poor/average quality, high profit margin, pile it high junk and they couldn't beat the competition if they depended on word of mouth.

Look at what's happening with TV these days. I rarely watch stuff live and hit the fast forward every time they try and sit me through endless adverts. On the occasion when I do prefer to watch something live (like F1) the adverts just grind and I get up and make a drink rather than feel like another hamster in their wheel. I also resent losing live coverage of the races to pander to their sponsors. Advertisers target F1 viewers and the net result is F1 fans lose up to 20 minutes of race coverage to watch their junk? Another wonderful conflict of interests.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By giffypop17 on 6/13/2008 12:27:50 PM , Rating: 2 do realize that F1 exists essentially for the purpose of advertising, right? Sure, the drivers, crew chiefs, and engineers may be in it for the racing, but the people who front the money? All big companies looking to get their name out.

Advertising is a lot more than just commercials, jingles, and placing a coke can on a desk during your favorite sitcom (which also, by the way, is only free because guessed it: ADVERTISING!!)

I'm not saying I'm a fan of advertising, I can be just as annoyed by the stuff as anyone else. But everyone on here is acting like it's some simple thing we can just remove.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Motoman on 6/13/2008 1:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
As noted elsewhere, I'm sort of pro-sponsorship and anti-advertising...

I like seeing a sponsor's logo on a race car...that is conducive to me buying their products. As opposed to seeing their ad on a billboard, which makes me not want to buy their stuff.

I guess I kind of look at it like I WANT to see F1, for example, and I want F1 to flourish, so I want to support the companies that support F1. I don't, however, want to support the companies that put a 50-foot sign along the highway.

There's a fine line there somewhere...I'm not sure I could define it too well without spending a lot of time thinking about it, but I think most of us get the idea of sponsorship vs. advertising.

By jRaskell on 6/16/2008 12:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
The only fine line there is one arbitrarily drawn by you. My purchasing decisions have absolutely nothing at all to do with how products are advertised and everything to do with the quality and value of the product itself.

Product Marketing and Product Development/Manufacturing are two distinctly seperate entities within the majority of companies. With only a few extreme exceptions, basing your purchasing decisions on advertising models is about as arbitrary and irrelevant as basing them on whether you like the company name or not.

By dever on 6/16/2008 2:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
I don't, however, want to support the companies that put a 50-foot sign along the highway.
If I'm visiting another city, and my kid gets sick, I'll be quite happy if a private hospital or clinic rents a giant sign with an arrow.

Similarly, I look for signs to hotels or restaurants that I find tolerable when I'm driving in an unfamiliar area.

How about the absurdity of government highway signs? You're distracting me from driving with tiny letters to tell me that it's a $100 fine if I litter? And you're using my tax dollars to devise, print and install these distractions? Compare that with the split second it takes to realize there's a McD's at the next exit just by seeing the giant golden arches. Information I might be able to use.

The bottom line is this... if individuals didn't respond to advertising, then companies wouldn't pay for it. There's an implicit benefit to the customer because of the response.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By JonnyDough on 6/14/2008 8:42:33 AM , Rating: 2
But everyone on here is acting like it's some simple thing we can just remove.

Advertising isn't removable?

Mozilla Firefox with pop-up blocker + banner ad blocker add on = thanks.

Why do I need to spend a monthly fee for net service AND get hit with mass advertising. My old tv never charged for broadcast signal. I believe the advertising revenue paid for that as well.

Places that advertise:

Fee-based video games (and not just games online, see "Rainbow Six")

MySpace and other online community sites


Which one has a right to make me see advertisements?

Only the online community sites. If I buy a video game for $50 that should be enough, I shouldn't have to get pummeled with ads. It detracts from the enjoyment of the game for me. You can thank pirates for the increasing ads and costs of games. These companies are losing money because of it, and stealing isn't justifiable no matter how you want to spin it. The fact is software developers put long hours and a lot of work into making good games, and if we steal it we're essentially telling them thanks for the free labor.

Online stores should earn revenue through sales. They make more money per sale than an actual store would anyway due to not having to display merchandise (except via photographs) and one (or only several per region) location warehousing.

Just my 2¢.

By jRaskell on 6/16/2008 1:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
You can thank pirates for the increasing ads and costs of games.

I don't consider that a foregone conclusion. I don't refute the amount of piracy that goes on. I also don't refute the fact that it is stealing.

I have not, however, seen any reasonable attempts to accurately correlate piracy and lost revenue, and I am not convinced that there is any substantial revenue loss that can be attributed to piracy.

As such, I don't see piracy as a valid root of any financially related problem or perceived problem.

By P4blo on 6/16/2008 4:59:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yes I fully appreciate that many of the services and sports we watch are largely paid for by advertising. Where I draw the line though is when the advertising begins to actually detract from the events enjoyment.

Fortunately they're moving our F1 coverage back to the BBC soon so we will have adds removed again just like the good old days.

I wonder if advertisers really do understand how poorly some of their stuff is received, both in content and how it's delivered. People here are right, you piss off the 'buyer' in any way and you can forget your sale.

I think they have much to learn!

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Motoman on 6/12/2008 7:37:13 PM , Rating: 3're right - they do. When I see a Coke can in a TV show I'm watching, my consumer thinking goes "I dislike Coke a little more now."

Granted, the vast majority of consumers are completely incapable of thinking for themselves, which is why they buy Monster Cables and Bose products. So yes, sadly, advertising does work...on the average schmuck.

However, I (and I suspect pretty much everyone who would come to DT) am not an average schmuck, and I know what you're doing, and I really wish you would stop. And the more you keep doing it, the less I like you.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By MrBlastman on 6/13/2008 11:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree with your views on excessive advertising - it is very annoying, I disagree with your extreme viewpoint on telemarketing.

I myself am guilty of changing channels on the television, I do it all the time. I usually watch two or three programs at a time, flipping back and forth between them every time commercials come on (I do not watch enough television to justify the cost of Tivo).

But, I must say, you obviously have never, ever worked in a Producing type career of any form that requires you to sell yourself to grow your practice. The type of career where you only get paid if you produce your own revenue and business. This can include your own business or a professional job that requires you to market yourself in a company (where people typically make 200k+).

If you had _any_ idea how hard it is to bring in new clients, put bread in your mouth every month and feed your kids while handling the stress of not knowing where your next piece of revenue is coming from - and repeat this over and over, your attitude might change.

It is NOT easy. It is even harder today than it was 15 years ago with the introduction of Do Not Call. Sure, there was a lot of junk marketing (the phone companies and other low-dollar mass-barrage of trying to get you to buy little products), but there are still many legitimate hard working Americans who due to regulatory measures, can not do things such as:

a. advertise on television
b. advertise on print
c. promote themselves on the radio or in other public means

and are forced to spend THEIR OWN MONEY to send mailings to invite people to seminars, cold call, or try and generate word-of-mouth referrals.

Until you are in that hotseat, please do not trash-talk cold callers. There are a few that are out there trying to make an honest buck and when you have zero money and are trying to start a legitimate, professional career, sometimes picking up that receiver and dialing is literally the most cost effective thing you can do. Not everyone knows somebody, not everyone has lots of money in the bank, not everyone is gifted with a book of clients from the start.

Some of the people out there actually have to start at ground zero and earn everything honestly.

By Motoman on 6/13/2008 11:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
You know, you're right. I had totally only been thinking of "big company advertiser" like credit card companies and the like. My whole mindset on this thread was about "the man" and his "shock and awe" advertising campaigns that seem to bombard us all the time.

Your point is well-taken, and I feel to be totally different from the kind of stuff I'm mad about. You only call businesses who are likely to need your services...not random people at home eating dinner. That puts this in a totally different class.

I don't really have to deal with business-to-business marketing, so I probably can't really form an opinion on it...but by all means, go and find yourself some work.

...just don't get a job as a telemarketer and call me at night trying to sell me new windows ;)

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Freddo on 6/12/2008 10:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. It may not affect the consumer goods you know stuff about, be it sodas, computer parts or whatever.

But when one buy stuff that one doesn't know stuff about, like cleaning products or something, then people are more likely to buy a brand they find familiar from advertisement.

And seeing there's always a product X that consumer Y doesn't know about, all ranges are targeted.

And for kids, the commercials are very influencial and the products are usually something that's "cool", and might be something that they stick to for life. Or at least, a very long time.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By mindless1 on 6/13/2008 5:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
When I'm buying something that I supposedly don't know about, I am LESS likely to buy the brand displayed by an annoying online ad, particularly video ads.

It has only negative effects, I will purposely seek out the best alternative that is not made or sold by the same company whose ad was displayed.

Kids are more easily swayed by such cartoon things, but if young enough to be swayed they are young enough to have little if any money. It was years ago when advertising had more of an effect, before it was coming at us from every angle and far too many brands to choose from unlike in the past where you had two or three most popular vs. the generics and house brands, and even in those days I would never go to the store, see all the brands and buy the one advertised instead of assessing what was before me and picking based on more important criteria.

Shoppers are not so much the sheep that advertisers believe. Once upon a time ago it was believed that if the company had enough resources to get ads on tv they must be more legit and capable of creating a good product (not necessarily better, just "good enough" but those days of brief impressions from an ad are gone, especially on the internet where ads don't cost nearly as much, where any kid can whip up something in flash and all it costs is a few minutes and a space on a web page.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By tastyratz on 6/13/2008 8:36:44 AM , Rating: 2
Kids are, and I think Joe Camel proved that pretty well.

Advertising is annoying, and blasted advertising will turn me off to a product as well, but a simple graphic ad on a web page is no more offensive than a billboard on the street. The problem is the abuse the internet advertising companies have put forth that causes a complete and total resentment towards page ads.

How many times do people protest ads in the newspaper or billboards on the street? and how many people show a sour face when you mention an online advertisement?

I personally run adblockplus with my firefox and it stops all the ads from loading, but I don't resent a company for advertising their product - its how business works.

If you see a coke ad twice a day during your day you very well might grab a coke next time at the store - you think nothing of it flipping past the ad but its like you couldn't stop thinking about that coke for the past week.... well it worked didn't it?

By Noya on 6/13/2008 9:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, I don't consume corn syrup/HFCS filled products.

Thank you US governemnt for replacing sugar cane with corn syrup!

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By InternetGeek on 6/12/2008 7:00:55 PM , Rating: 3
I've never used ad-blockers or whatsoever because after more than 10 years using the Internet I simply ignore them. It's like they are not there. Though whenever I see a banner that's kind of interesting I grab the URL and open the website myself, thus denying the click. hehe

Anyways, yeah, I understand advertisements make some products cheaper. And sometimes they do affect consumer thinking. Anything from an editorial to an infomercial can affect your decisions. I think that if a company really wants to sell they should provide more information about their product. Vague information and options that are hard to compare do not cut it out.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By MScrip on 6/12/2008 7:51:00 PM , Rating: 4
I used to be the same way... until a month ago, when I installed AdBlockPlus with FilterSetG. I was just curious to see what Adblocking was all about.

I wasn't particularly bothered by seeing ads, but there is another side-effect of blocking ads... the speed that pages load now is incredible! Websites load instantly, without having to ping 4 or 5 different ad servers. I am amazed. You'd be surprised how many external connections most web pages have.

So now I use ad blocking software, because ads slow down my website experience. It's nothing personal, advertisers... I just enjoy how much faster websites load without your ads. Oh I'll still see your products in the form of articles and reviews... but I really don't like your banners and annoying flash ads bothering me. Well, they don't anymore. ;)

By quickk on 6/13/2008 2:20:17 AM , Rating: 2
I started using AdBlockPlus along with easyelements the moment adds started talking to me. Text adds and flashing banners (as long as they do not cause seizures!) are fine, but video adds are just too much.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By sabre lime on 6/13/2008 4:34:33 AM , Rating: 5
Did AdBlockPlus pay you to say that? Hehe.

By MScrip on 6/13/2008 5:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
Haha! I wish!

No, but I was amazed at how much external crap is put into websites. Just as I am always trying to speed up my own websites and optimize code, I was shocked to see how much faster websites are when you cut the ad servers out of the picture.

Unfortunately the internet is still 99% ad driven. I don't mind ads on tech sites like Anandtech. I'd prefer ads for video cards and hard drives on a tech site. But I hate all of the non-targeted ads on every other site. I don't need an internet date, mortgage info, credit scores, etc. And I don't want a free iPod!!! Fortunately most internet users are clueless IE users, so the ads are still going strong!

By HeelyJoe on 6/17/2008 1:45:31 AM , Rating: 2
Just by the way, you shouldn't use Adblock Plus with FilterSetG.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By oab on 6/12/2008 7:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations, you can now buy no products in existence unless you will die if you don't have them.

Might as well move to the mountains, you can get away with not having pretty much everything except for anti-biotics.

Lets hope that if Pfizer creates a cancer cure they don't hire a telemarketer to tell you about it. Or your internet provider.

I bet you still have rabbit-ears on your TV don't you?

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Motoman on 6/12/2008 7:51:14 PM , Rating: 1
...I have everything I want, and yes, walking thorugh my house you'll notice that my big-screen TV (Mitsubishi), stereo gear (Pioneer, Klipsch), soda (currently, Sprite Zero is in the house), beer (currently Leinenkugel's), so on and so forth are all advertised.

...but given a choice, I buy Coke products because Pepsi's advertising bothers me more. In other words, I dislike Coke less than I dislike Pepsi. When I can, I buy RC cola because not only does it have the best taste, but they have virtually no advertising at all - and as a consumer, I really appreciate that.

I know that this site runs on advertising dollars. Virtually every website does. I'm just saying that advertising in the traditional sense backfires with me.

You know what I do like? Sponsorships. If I came to DT and in normal text somewhere on the page it said "DailyTech - major sponsoring provided by Pepsi" I'd be like OMG maybe I'll start buying Pepsi products now.

Yes, sponsorships are still PR for the company doing essence, still advertising. But I'm going to presume you know the difference that I'm making - instead of a crappy-ass banner ad flashing across the top of the page (advertising), a little "thank-you" from the website to it's sponsor.

I've always been a motorcycle racer. I used to buy Surf laundry detergent religiously, because they sponsored a rider on the motocross and arenacross circuit (Jeff Glass). Just by way of giving an example, I (as a consumer) chose to support Surf because they were supporting my sport. Eventually, the sponsorship went away...and I started buying whatever seemed like the best deal for laundry detergent again. On the flip side, if I'd been exposed to Surf by billboard ads, magazine ads, TV ads, or whatever without the racing sponsorship, I'd have made my usual mental notes not to buy Surf and never would have.

Maybe I should have mentioned that I like sponsorship in the original post...guess I wasn't thinking about it at the time.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Wererat on 6/13/2008 12:28:21 PM , Rating: 3
"but given a choice, I buy Coke products because Pepsi's advertising bothers me more. In other words, I dislike Coke less than I dislike Pepsi. When I can, I buy RC cola because not only does it have the best taste,"

That last (taste) is the only reason (other than price) that makes sense if you're trying to be unaffected by advertising.

The person who says "I hate X's ads so I don't buy X" is just as manipulated as "I like X's ads so I buy X." Either way, you're basing your decision on the ad.

Buy your drinks because they taste good and your detergent because it cleans well, not because of the guy they sponsor or which ad company they hire or the color of the box.

By Motoman on 6/13/2008 1:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct, sir. I am absolutely basing my decision on advertising in that example.

The company that advertises the least is the one I buy. I have been totally influenced by advertising.

...just not in the way the advertiser intended.

I may be jaded, but I'm not of the opinion that it makes a whole heck of a lot of difference what laundry detergent I buy, or what pop I drink. So things like whether or not they sponsor a sport I like, or annoy me less with their advertising, are important factors in my buying decisions.

In the example of buying a vehicle or not, I have stated that I hold all manufacturers to be essentially equally annoying with their advertising. Therefore, my purchase in that case is sort of "purer," I guess, in that I make my decision based on where I can get the best deal on a vehicle with the features that I want.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By nineball9 on 6/12/2008 7:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Every time I see an advertisement...whether in print, on the TV, on a billboard, online, wherever...I make a mental note NOT TO EVER BUY THAT COMPANY'S PRODUCTS UNLESS I HAVE NO REASONABLE CHOICE.

Do you realize that you are posting this on an advertisement supported web site? If companies stopped advertising online, DT and AT would be forced to become fee based web sites.

By Motoman on 6/12/2008 7:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
...or get supported by sponsorship rather than advertising, which is much more palatable.

Or for that matter, follow the XM model. Radio is free...but I have no problem paying $10 a month for ad-free XM. I am willing to invest my dollars in NOT having to put up with advertising...and I think that says a lot, and I think that's a major reason why the vast majority of XM/Sirius subscribers do so.

No, I don't exaclty know how to go about creating an XM-like internet - was just making a point.

By walk2k on 6/13/2008 1:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
and if everyone used ad-blockers they would go out of business.

put it plainly, if you are using someone's free web site and blocking their ads you are essentially stealing from them.

By Polynikes on 6/12/2008 8:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
And don't even think about telemarketing. If someone calls me up to pitch me something, I don't care if it cures're getting NOTHING from me. Ever.

If you get cancer, you'll be lining up just like everyone else.

By theslug on 6/12/2008 8:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think it would more reasonable to boycott companies with really annoying ads, but support those with good ones. Advertising is a legitimate form of marketing. Seriously, how else would you know what products and services existed otherwise?

By sprockkets on 6/13/2008 1:07:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well, that means Apple is definitely out.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Funksultan on 6/13/2008 7:28:05 AM , Rating: 3
Every time I see an advertisement...whether in print, on the TV, on a billboard, online, wherever...I make a mental note NOT TO EVER BUY THAT COMPANY'S PRODUCTS UNLESS I HAVE NO REASONABLE CHOICE.

Thanks for my morning laugh!

This might be a contender for the most retarded statement I've seen to date on DT. *grin* Advertisting is geared to either keep things in the forefront of your mind that you are already aware of (i.e. "McDonalds") or to clue you in on things that you might not be aware of that you might be interested in (i.e. "Newegg has 1TB hard drives for $179.99!").

News flash: McDonalds didn't get to the top of the food chain (oooo, double entandre this early?!) by word of mouth.

Lemme know how that life of never eating fast food (or for that matter, only eating at restraunts that don't advertise) and buying products that nobody has ever heard of.

Pardon the quote, I don't get to use it that often.

"Motoman, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By FITCamaro on 6/13/2008 8:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Everything is advertised. For me, advertising doesn't affect me. I'm not going to go out and buy something because an ad tries to tell me I can't live without it.

If I want a new TV, I do research into what the best TV for me is. When I buy a computer, I look at what components perform the best for the money I have to spend and which brands are the most well reviewed for performance and reliability.

But to simply hate any product that is advertised? Man you must not own a car then.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Motoman on 6/13/2008 11:30:16 AM , Rating: 2

If you two would care to actually read and think at the same time, you might start to feel better. It's hard, I let me walk you through it.

I didn't at any point say that I don't buy items that are advertised. Virtually everything is I clearly stated above, I simply move the most-often/most-obnoxious advertisers to the bottom of my purchasing list. That's it.

Don't own a car? I own a Dodge truck and a Chevy Trailblazer for my wife. All car/truck manufacturers advertise - there's no choice in that market, so I consider all of them to be equally offensive. In that case, I just buy an appropriate vehicle for my needs and I don't worry about it, since all those vendors suck equally.

However, when I have reasonable choices for purchasing something where one vendor clearly irritates me more with their advertising than another, say Pepsi vs. RC, I buy the least-irritating one. It's that simple, and I'm sorry you have trouble with reading comprehension.

When I need a hard drive, I go and use Pricewatch and flip through my favorit online vendors - and then I see where the best deal is. Simple as that. I'll find that sweet deal at Newegg when I want it. I'm not going to run out and buy a hard drive when I don't need one just because it's on sale...if you have so much money as to be able to buy anything simply because it happens to be on sale, whether or not you need it, then good for you. I'm not independently wealthy. for your "quote" their, Frank, I have no idea who you are or where that "quote" came from, but it's clear that it was crafted by an idiot...rather than directed at an idiot.

I clearly am not the only one who has feelings about advertising the way that I do. So get a grip.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By UNHchabo on 6/13/2008 1:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'll find that sweet deal at Newegg when I want it. I'm not going to run out and buy a hard drive when I don't need one just because it's on sale...if you have so much money as to be able to buy anything simply because it happens to be on sale, whether or not you need it, then good for you. I'm not independently wealthy.

I'd rather go the truly frugal route and say "I need a new hard drive, but I'll wait to buy one until I see one on sale."

By Motoman on 6/13/2008 2:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
That makes perfect sense to me.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Funksultan on 6/13/2008 2:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
Don't cry. It makes your (already) weak position that much weaker.

Reread your statements a couple times and see if you can find the backtracking. No? Here, I'll help.

Hyundai advertises MUCH less than either Dodge or Chevy, who are two of the largest advertisers.

"I buy Coke because Pepsi bothers me more, but I love RC". What about generic brands that have ZERO advertising? How about those botique brands like Mike's? No real advertising there to speak of either.

The best is your tirade explaining why you buy Surf because it advertises for motocross.

No, nobody has come close to your level of "Advertphobia", and it seems everyone here is grounded in the real world, understands what advertising is for, and understand it's one of those things we just have to live with.

Your jackassery has piqued. Just say you went overboard, and let it end before you embarass yourself further.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By Motoman on 6/13/2008 3:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
Your jackassery has piqued. Just say you went overboard, and let it end before you embarass yourself further.

How apropriate. Rage much? You'd be a lot happier with yourself if you didn't find yourself having to try to defend your baseless disagreeability all the time.

Does Hyundai advertise less than Dodge or Chevy? I guess maybe they do. But they don't make full-size diesel crew-cab 4x4 trucks, which is my primary need. Do they make something in the category of the Trailblazer I bought for my wife? Probably. But I got to use my GM Card bonus points on the TB. Which will probably never happen again, because I stopped using it, in lieu of my Citi and Discover cards that give cash back instead of giving "points."

OK, I don't buy generics. Why? In general I haven't had ggod exeriences with many generics or store brands. Yup...have tried a lot of them. Actually have some store brand tortilla chips here at the moment, which aren't too bad...if they have the 2-for-1 deal on them again I just might buy them. But I've tried generic and store-brand colas, and don't like them. Is that OK with you? Can I not buy a product because I actually don't like the product?

I do believe that lots of people share my views on advertising. As apparently is normal for you, you're completely missing the point of my, er, point. My point is simply that I prefer to buy products from companies who advertise less, or at least whose ads annoy me less. That's not exactly "advertphobia", and I'm not on a tirade or pulling my hair out or anything else. Obviously it's something we live with, and like everybody else, I'm managing to contiue to live with it. I just point out that in my case, and the case of many others, advertising backfires.

Now why is that so hard for you to understand? Here's an extra challenge for you - try to respond in a way that doesn't include a personal attack that has no relevence to the topic at hand. Although you clearly like calling people names and otherwise berating them - probably because it's simpler than actually making sense.

By Funksultan on 6/16/2008 7:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
Every time I see an advertisement...whether in print, on the TV, on a billboard, online, wherever...I make a mental note NOT TO EVER BUY THAT COMPANY'S PRODUCTS UNLESS I HAVE NO REASONABLE CHOICE.

So, by "REASONABLE", you mean, if you...

1. Don't see another product endorsing something you like.
2. Don't get a discount for something else.
3. Just don't like the product.

Wow, sounds like your quote was a little overstated, huh?

The problem is that we all understand perfectly. You completely overstated your point, which made it seem as though you NEVER bought any advertised product unless forced to, and now, when educated ad nauseum to the total extent and impact of advertising, you're discovering so many rules that contradict your original statement.

See the problem? See why there are this many responses, trying to explain it?

You could have just said "I don't like overly-advertised products, and steer away from them.". But instead, you hit the caps key, and came off like a bit of a loon. Then, when people tried to show you the folly of your statement, you attempted to back it up.

RE: Your best advertising option? Don't.
By callmeroy on 6/13/2008 1:42:30 PM , Rating: 3
FITCamaro's view point matches my own.

Advertising for the most part doesn't both me much. First, realize why do you think TV and Radio proliferated to their huge popularity today -- you guys don't really think it was as an entertainment medium do you? TV and Radio's success is largely based on the value they bring to business - in the way of advertising.

Do you have a favorite show on any of the big three networks -- CBS, NBC, ABC? Guess what the network doesn't exist soley to entertain you, its business goal is ultimately to have you watch their shows to drive up ratings which they increase their value to ADVERTISERS!

While I'll admit telemarketers boil my blood most times (first of all I swear they have uncanny knack for calling at the most unwelcomed times -- from just sitting down to eat dinner, to just starting to have some alone time with the gf, etc....)... BUT the view to loathe all products advertised easily takes the cake for the stupidiest and most ridiculous mindset I've heard in the last month.

How bitter someone must be if EVERY advertisment they see fires them up....I mean advertising is everywhere - you actually have to try HARD to NOT see a bit of advertising.

And to deprive yourself of a good product - especially if its say a medicine that could relieve you of pain or discomfort, on such flimsy grounds as "well I refuse to use a product that is advertised" what a whole lot of stupid that is.

By Motoman on 6/13/2008 2:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
OK, people, what part of:

I didn't at any point say that I don't buy items that are advertised. Virtually everything is I clearly stated above, I simply move the most-often/most-obnoxious advertisers to the bottom of my purchasing list. That's it. you not get? Please find the comment I've made where I say "well I refuse to use a product that is advertised" and I'll fix it, because that is clearly not the message I'm sending here. My message is simple - the more you advertise, the less likely I am to buy your product. Which is vastly different than "I will not buy a product that is advertised."


How bitter someone must be if EVERY advertisment they see fires them up....I mean advertising is everywhere - you actually have to try HARD to NOT see a bit of advertising.

I never said it got me "fired up" - I said I make a "mental note" about it. In a totally casual way I sort of keep score, in a non-fired up way, about which advertisers annoy me the most, and that's how I make my buying decisions, other factors notwithstanding. It's not like I'm walking around town red-faced and's like "oh good, another Pepsi ad featuring Michael Jackson" and I continue on my way, upping my mental tally just a smidge.

And yes, I do have to plead guilty to exaggerating for effect on the "I don't care if it cures cancer" comment. I'm not hating on cancer patients, or companies trying to cure cancer. And sure, if I had cancer and a telemarketer called me up with a cure, I'd probably be pretty interested. My fault for not marking that as <sarcasm> </sarcasm> apparently.

By callmeroy on 6/13/2008 1:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
If someone calls me up to pitch me something, I don't care if it cures're getting NOTHING from me. Ever.

Wow you must be fun at parties with your warm, sunny and positive attitude. Seriously if the above quote is something you believe in -- stay very healthy....

I told you so...
By sxr7171 on 6/12/2008 7:08:10 PM , Rating: 1
Google is no better than every other money grubbing company out there.

RE: I told you so...
By oab on 6/12/2008 7:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
Are you equating Google to Haliburton or Blackwater?

RE: I told you so...
By michal1980 on 6/12/2008 7:34:51 PM , Rating: 3
why wouldn't you?

their end goal is the same: make money

RE: I told you so...
By mondo1234 on 6/12/2008 7:43:58 PM , Rating: 3
The only thing I hate worse than free advertising is when I have to pay for it. In this regard, I prefer Google to MS.

MS puts advertising into games you pay for.

MS also is working on a program to put advertising on the Zune

I prefer Free advertising to paid advertising anyday

RE: I told you so...
By FITCamaro on 6/13/2008 8:38:01 AM , Rating: 1
Ok and Google puts advertising into their email system. There will likely be advertising on Android equipped phones.

Microsoft is not alone in putting advertisements in games. And I've got no issue with advertising in games provided it fits the mold of the game. If the game is based on Earth in a modern time period, I've got no issue with driving through a city and seeing a Coke billboard. Or a Dell logo on a computer. Now if I'm playing a fantasy game and see stuff like that, yes it annoys me.

RE: I told you so...
By Ringold on 6/12/2008 7:44:47 PM , Rating: 3

Google sells ads, thats what they're good at.

Haliburton does many things, including drilling for natural gas. That's what they're good at.

Blackwater providers security services. They're mostly ex-military. Thats what they're good at.

No moral difference. All a bunch of people trying to get through life. I personally view marketing in general as little better than whores flaunting themselves on street corners, but I don't go around brow-beating. :P

RE: I told you so...
By DigitalFreak on 6/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: I told you so...
By mindless1 on 6/13/2008 5:12:56 AM , Rating: 2
While I do agree with the issue of how they go about it being a critical distinction, it should also be considered that some markets, industries, etc, are harder to make a buck in than others.

Google, making the internet better? Maybe, but if they were looking to do no evil then wouldn't they show us LESS ads and opt to make less money doing so? Wouldn't they opt to not move increasingly into video ads? Since their core business isn't clubbing baby seals or spilling oil into the oceans, and since they can't very well rape pillage and plunder all that much over your broadband connection, we might say the harm and evil is related to opportunity, same as it is in any business. If a oil tanker crashes, big harm. If a Google ad crashes and doesn't display, there was to some extent another human error, but some errors are less impacting than others.

RE: I told you so...
By Digimonkey on 6/13/2008 11:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
They mention needing the extra cash to invest in future products. You should read an article before you make a comment.

Whether google is good or not, I can't argue. They made a great search engine, I love google earth, and excited to see what they release in the future.

RE: I told you so...
By kyleb2112 on 6/13/2008 8:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
The day corporations forget money and start working for The Common Good...god help us all.

RE: I told you so...
By Digimonkey on 6/13/2008 11:58:24 AM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't that just make them non-profit organizations?

One more thing.
By sxr7171 on 6/12/2008 7:10:03 PM , Rating: 4
Firefox with Adblock Plus is everybody's friend. I can't believe some people still use IE and look at all those ads.

RE: One more thing.
By BAFrayd on 6/12/2008 7:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
Don't leave home without it.

RE: One more thing.
By Ringold on 6/12/2008 8:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
Because website hosting is free. Yep.

RE: One more thing.
By PhoenixKnight on 6/12/2008 9:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, because we all of us always look at all those ads and buy everything they're advertising. Without computer hardware ads on a hardware news/review site, how in the world would we know what hardware to buy?

RE: One more thing.
By DASQ on 6/12/2008 10:05:34 PM , Rating: 1
I honestly don't think I've ever clicked on an advertisement out of interest/want, and I've been on the internet since 28.8k was the shizzle.

RE: One more thing.
By Spivonious on 6/13/2008 8:23:10 AM , Rating: 2
I've been on since 2400 baud and have never knowingly clicked on an ad. :P

RE: One more thing.
By BadAcid on 6/13/2008 11:44:02 AM , Rating: 2
But how else will I induce an epileptic seizure by seeing 3D emoticons! Look at that one, it has huge glasses and pimples! I WANT THAT NOW!

Seriously though, thanks for suggesting Adblock Plus, definitely checking that out when I get home tonight.

RE: One more thing.
By INeedCache on 6/12/2008 10:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
Advertisement. Not buying it. Still use IE. No ads for me, either.

RE: One more thing.
By mindless1 on 6/13/2008 5:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe you were looking at all those ads back before you used Firefox with Adblock plus. Redirecting ad servers with a host list, or blocking them with a firewall or proxy is not hard and two out of three of these work for all applications, not just IE or Firefox.

Well, then...
By Darkefire on 6/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Well, then...
By Ringold on 6/12/2008 6:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
Eh, you do know Eric Schmidt's salary is $1?

RE: Well, then...
By BAFrayd on 6/12/2008 7:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
Plus how many shares of stock?

RE: Well, then...
By Ringold on 6/12/2008 8:34:48 PM , Rating: 3

A year and a half old, but I've not heard of any change in his compensation.

He did receive a ton of options early on, but stock is, IMHO, the best way to compensate a CEO. It ties performance to pay.

Sorry, but the OP directed his class-warfare-tinged rant at probably the worst current CEO he possibly could have.

RE: Well, then...
By mindless1 on 6/13/2008 5:19:49 AM , Rating: 2
Is it really special if someone has hoarded enough money, or has enough alternate revenue, that they don't need to be paid for their work anymore?

While the OP did pick an inopportune time to make the statement about CEOs, the sentiment is echoed by many people and your description of it being class-welfare-tinged just seems foolish. No sane member of any class should be thinking a lot of pay should go to those who aren't doing things particularly valuable. That doesn't mean all CEOs are a waste of space, but certainly enough to notice.

RE: Well, then...
By Ringold on 6/14/2008 4:19:31 AM , Rating: 2
Is it really special if someone has hoarded enough money, or has enough alternate revenue, that they don't need to be paid for their work anymore?

the sentiment is echoed by many people and your description of it being class-welfare-tinged just seems foolish.

A lot of people believe a lot of strange things. Popularity doesn't mean its correct or has strong fundamental basis in reality. I don't see how my assertion that it was class-warfare related is foolish, either. He whined about CEO pay, despite obviously not knowing how much his ongoing compensation was, nor apparently caring that the stock he had accumulated early on has been rewarding him for Google performance that he has helped direct over time. He is part owner, and has been rewarded as such with the rising value of the company.

Your own above quote has the tinge of class warfare; "hoarding" isn't a very friendly sounding word, and a favorite word of class warfare warriors. Again, he hasn't 'hoarded' money, he was a part owner and his share of Google has become more valuable as his company has become more valuable -- all under his leadership. If people buy a house and its value appreciates, by your definition, they're hoarders!

No sane member of any class should be thinking a lot of pay should go to those who aren't doing things particularly valuable.

I don't have the exact research paper handy, it's in the car, I think NBER published it, but they examined the stock performance of companies who had good CEO's who left, and companies who had a CEO die. Death on the job is assumed a random event, thus in the aggregate they must be average CEO's, while a CEO lured away with much higher pay is therefore assumed to be good. Stocks in the former category dropped immediately on average about 2.5%, and stocks in the latter popped on average 2.5% upon the death of an average CEO. That suggests the difference in value between just an average CEO and a decent performing one is about 5%. One was actually 2.4 I think, and the other 2.6, but can't recall which. Doesn't matter.

For Google, that means Schmidt could be worth, at a minimum, 9 billion dollars of value added just over the average CEO. He is adding this value for free, due to his lack of ongoing compensation. For GE, 14.5 billion. Berkshire, almost 10 billion.

Further, if anyone has bothered to pay attention, CEO's and their direct subordinates heads have been rolling quick enough that Wall Street is doing Frances Reign of Terror proud in the Financial sector. Some CEO's do not go peacefully, of course. This is where people like Carl Icahn and activist hedge funds and whatnot come in. Icahn's getting a lot of hate in some posts at DT, but he is performing a necessary function of public debt markets; clearing the trash.

Are they some bad apples? Obviously. *coughYangcough* There are bad apples everywhere, however. It's just fun for some tools to pick on CEOs; they appear cold, distant, and inhuman. The only thing easier to pick on is a corporation itself, because then a face can't even be attached. Like many things that are fun or trendy to believe, a little analytics makes the whole issue a lot less compelling.

RE: Well, then...
By 16nm on 6/12/2008 6:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
Dude. :|

By Brian23 on 6/12/2008 7:36:27 PM , Rating: 5
I read the title several times and I can't figure out what I'm getting more of and who is paying the money. I read about half the article and I still couldn't figure it out. I'm not dumb either. It's just a poorly worded headline. Anyone understand this?

By GaryJohnson on 6/12/2008 8:08:15 PM , Rating: 3
It's a McHeadline. It uses the 'U' in FUD.

You're uncertain what the headline is reffering to, so your curiosity will drive you to open the article to find out more (thus raising the McPageViews).

By bebesito21 on 6/13/2008 9:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
Product placement is the way to go. Unobtrusive product placement. Heck, even obtrusive is better than ads how they are now. Case in point Talledega Nights. Man, could a movie have more product placemet? but did it bother you? nope....

By JakLee on 6/13/2008 12:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
For the record it did.
I will never buy a cougar again.
After seeing how obtrusive that cougar was, even so far as to be on the hood of a car; well that is just too much.

You lost a long time cougar buyer with that movie, uh cougar people.

By Silver2k7 on 6/13/2008 1:29:56 AM , Rating: 2
I do really like youtube, but both its audio and video quality leaves things to be desired..

Just compare a music video to cd/audio or a flac file.. im not sure what quality youtube usually is, but it feels like 10 years ago or so when i was ripping my cd's to .vqf to save on space.. the music feels less alive it kills some of the sound. This is listening with a crappy headset, since my good headphones are broken..

what to like about youtube is the sheer ammount of content, there is usually atleast something even by obscure bands.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki