Forbes.com can kiss my butt
I was poking around in my google mail, when the news crawl, ticker, whatever you want to call it, came across with the blurb mentioned here. It sounded relatively interesting, so I clicked. Go ahead, check it out. I’ll wait.
http://www.forbes.com/video/?video=fvn/forbesonfilm/ve_fof111706?partner=rss
As those of you who followed that link can see, I sat through no less than a minute and a half of advertising and financial news data that had absolutely nothing to do with the article I was supposed to be seeing. For those of you who didn’t visit that link, allow me to provide a breakdown.
First 10 seconds: Summary of upcoming content. No mention of the article shown in the above link.
Next 30 seconds: Samsung commercial.
Next 100 seconds: Various financial news, again, no mention of the linked article.
Next 30 seconds: The EXACT SAME Samsung ad.
Next 20 seconds: Another ad.
Then and only they did get they get to the “point” i.e. the piece about Jack Black. It was apparently about the upcoming Tenacious D movie, but by the time I got to that point, I was so irritated by the barrage of un-asked for information I no longer had any interest in the information that actually related to the link that brought me there.
Color me stupid, but I was under the impression that have the attraction to internet media had to do with the lack of bullshit and filler one typically associates with the more “traditional” forms of media. Television, for example, is stuck with static streaming, and basically have to bend the way their revenue source wants them to bend. Internet content is a bit more fluid in nature. They could rip that down, promote it, or move it however they see fit at any time. I could understand running an ad before the main content, and even another one after, but this was ridiculous.
To get people to read this article here, for example, I wouldn’t draw people in using links for Viagra or casinos, feed them this article, then say “oh by the way, Viagra is great if you’re at a casino”. That would be a shitty thing to do. There’s a lot of internet, and not all that much time. Incidentally, based off of this ill behavior on the part of Forbes, I’m half-tempted to go marketing this article with Viagra and casinos, since I’ve now mentioned them. Or maybe a slightly less competative term, like maybe “emo” or “pony midget porn”.
Hey, why not? If the big dogs can use deceptive content presentation and linking tactics to get people to watch their advertising, why can’t I? Afterall, the promise of relevant content is what makes MySpace so popular, isn’t it? “Hey look my friend from high school, hey look, cursors and diplomas and lots of people to date through x service… wait, where’s that friend of mine again?”
Time to sign me up for some contextual advertising… post haste. Jerks.
Potentially Related posts
Permalink | |
