The death of advertising authenticity

Re:The death of advertising authenticity by biohacker42 on Tuesday October 06, 2009 @03:20PM (#864972)

This is just plain wrong. The authenticity provided by expensive spending is still there. When something becomes cheap to buy (advertising in papers) and its authenticity had been based on it being expensive, well then it's authenticity is gone along with its high prices.

When something reliably vets its advertisers, that can have greater authenticity then is provided simply by high add rates. For example, TWIT and PA and many other blogs/podcasts/comics vet their advertisers. And their audience trusts them and extends that trust to the advertisers - priceless.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The death of advertising authenticity by rantfoil on Tuesday October 06, 2009 @07:41PM (#865657)

Is that really true?

With many web services, if I have to see an ad for it, then my perception of it actually goes down somewhat. If it was that good, would I need to see an ad for it?

See Mozy vs Dropbox, for instance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The death of advertising authenticity by biohacker42 on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @09:28AM (#866648)

Word of mouth has always been considered among the best and most valuable forms of advertising. Thus it is no wonder that if you're used to finding new web services from word of mouth, then seeing an anonymous advertisement will not be nearly as good.

[ Parent | on HN ]