mediajunk

Scott Karp is annoyed. In the online world, he argues, advertisements should be clearly distinguished as such:

The definitions should be clear and simple. It's an "ad" if someone paid for it. If anyone looking at whatever the thing is -- a blog post, video, text link, whatever -- can't tell it's an ad, that's deception.

And I agree with him - in principle. In reality, however, I don't think advertisers will call this deception.

Unlike other media, web users can - and do - choose to ignore most of the advertisements surrounding web content. This trend is only going to continue.

Consider the case of Firefox users ignoring ads. In my experience those who use Firefox are typically "savvy" web users. Eventually of course - when the generation that has grown up with the internet represents the majority of its user base - we will all be savvy users.

Another dilemma for advertisers is the shift from "push" to "pull". With the exception of some exceedingly annoying Flash interstitials, online ads aren't shoved down our throats. Rather, they try to entice us to another site (where, presumably, the advertised wares will be shoved down our throats).

Think advertisers are going to sit idly by and watch continued audience migration to online media, without putting up a fight? Of course not. Advertising will adapt to these new, harsh conditions. Search-related advertising is one example of that. Text-only links - or "gentle" adverts - is another.

But these adaptations alone will not be enough. Economics will not allow it. Just as product placement is now an integral part of the film and television industry, so too will the rate of surreptitious advertising increase in the online world - regardless of how unethical we consider it to be.

In the meantime, expect more secretly-sponsored blog posts, "authentic fan of product x / pop group y/ movie z" sites, advertisement links masquerading as editorial links, link-creating tools that are barely distinguishable from malware, and so on.