Good Idea, Bad Idea – Internet Advertising

Inspired by Animaniacs, I now present you with Good Idea, Bad Idea. Today’s topic: Internet advertising.

Good Idea:

The Million Dollar Homepage: This is a very fresh idea with an interesting result. Alex Tew of Wiltshire England came up with the idea of selling one million pixels on for one dollar each so he could put himself through school. He reached his goal and then some in January 2006. Way to go Alex!

There will be plenty of copy-cat sites, but I will always hold the original as a great example of out-of-the-box thinking.

Bad Idea: Not only a rip-off, but somewhat degrading. It’s a fresh new type of prostitution, but its still prostitution. The site features a moderately attractive woman who, as people buy advertising, will be undressed, one painfully small panel at a time.

Anyone who buys advertising here is a moron. For starters, there’s better porn out there. More importantly, the ads only show up when you mouse-over the body part purchased, and nobody who is looking for pictures of a naked woman is going to mouse over her best parts just to find out who sponsored them.

The only thing that could somewhat redeem this site is if it had a “Crying Game” surprise ending. This guy is such an ass clown I won’t even link to him. He’ll get a little press, but will be recognized for the hack he is.

advertising, internet advertising, ads, internet, ass clown

4 thoughts on “Good Idea, Bad Idea – Internet Advertising”

  1. Yup, sure is, and kinda sucks. You could find a more concrete definition of “Web 2.0”. Wikipedia offers some good info, or better yet, Tim O’Reilly’s description is considered as close to definitive as has been written to-date.

    More to the point, who do you think is going to go to your site? The idea itself is not truly Web 2.0, nor does it offer any interesting content.

    Long story short, is the anus below the long tail.

  2. Srinivasan, below are the seven “core competencies” of Web 2.0 that Tim O’Reilly identified. I think this list would provide a far more concrete way to evaluate a site/company’s Web 2.0 status. It’s important to note that a company does not have to meet all 7 to be considered Web 2.0.

    1. Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability

    2. Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them

    3. Trusting users as co-developers

    4. Harnessing collective intelligence

    5. Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service

    6. Software above the level of a single device

    7. Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models

    Good luck with your page. It’s not a new idea any more so I’m not sure what the allure will be.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *