the most damning thing I’ve read about digital ads


But it doesn’t have to be

Your friends The Awl interviewed someone who used to be in print, then ran a Patch site near frisco, and now is back in print.

He says no one wanted to advertise on his Patch site

Sammy: I wish I knew why the local merchants weren’t interested. We’re not just talking SF Bay Area, we’re talking SILICON VALLEY here. This is the place where dry cleaners know all about the CEO of Apple or whatever. And they just didn’t want to partake—I think they tried it here and there, and found no traction (although honestly I don’t remember seeing a single local ad on my own site). It would appear that digital advertising lacks the oomph of print, for some reason. ‪

What blows me away is this weird inability ad sales people have with creating a demand for digital advertising and thus monetizing certain aspects of the web.

Advertising is, in it’s best case: useful info

Meanwhile the Internet is often where people find the most useful info.

Why is there such a disconnect for the two which should far more easily be able to connect the two via cookies on your digital screen than say TV?

TV of course being a medium that never seems to have any probs garnering ads even though its rarely targeted or personalized.

For example, I have AT&T uverse. TV, cable, phone everything. Yet on my tv I see those dumb ads of kids saying kids today have it made because they can move their TVs around their giant houses.

There’s nothing less interesting to me than those commercials. I cannot buy what they’re selling. I already have it.

Targeted web ads though shoukd know what’s in my abandoned shopping carts, they should know what I’m buying and selling on eBay. They should know my moms birthday. They should know where I’m mayor on Foursquare.

TV will never know that.

But my second screen knows all.

And I want it to know all.

Because when we are working together it becomes useful info.

Which always turns into $$$$.