The audience would probably swell in appreciation.

It depends if you’re serious about artists selling their art to their audiences vs just wondering how content creators can monetise their content such that its consumers can be captured as a communications channel for commercials.

The lingo changes depending upon whether you’re an artist or an advertiser. Those appreciated begin with ‘a’. Those held in contempt begin with ‘c’.

Here’s a recent blog post of mine about how the market for art is undergoing a revolution (not a disintegration):
http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=114

Short answer: this post is more about the industry, not about you guys – I just included you for context. I think you guys have rocking strategies, and it justifies a blog post in itself on the merits of your model.

I think we can all agree on that – that’s the direction we need aim for. What the hard bit is, is trying to work out what the end consumer “wants”. Having them consume niche content, is a clever way. But is there another way to do this? Specifically, I am thinking of a model where a user “converts” their attention into a monetary amount elsewhere, and with that ‘credit’, they can then use it to purchase content. This reduces the pressure of the publishers to serve up niche content as they try to guess what the consumers wants are, and through some complex I’ve-got-no-idea-how-yet system, relevant advertising can be targeted without comprimising the users privacy as its done in a central trusted place.

I totally agree about Google pioneering the cost per action.
One of the many links above, which I point to give a better understanding of my views (http://liako.biz/2007/06/thoughts-on-attention-advertising-and-a-metric-to-measure-both-keep-it-simple/) is that I actually think the cost per action is a bad model – why should a publisher have to pay for the cost of a product that is poorly communicated through the ad? Google translates action as being engagement – but I don’t agree that engagement necessarily means the consumer actions – because that’s putting the burden on the publisher for something that’s not their fault. If a publisher can ensure that a consumer has seen the ad, that is all they should be forced to do. Like I end in the post I link to above, if I promise you that I will stand on the Sydney Harbour Bridge naked and can guarantee 10,000 people from the North Shore of Sydney can see me – I should (like a publisher) get paid for that. Not if people toot their horn. The offline impact of ads is not factored into the cost per action model, which means the advertisers are taking publishers for a ride: http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2008/04/the-hidden-retu.html

To clarify, what I meant about Cam using a traditional approach – think about industry magazines. Niche publications that have specific types of advertising. Also think about radio with sponsored shows. I didn’t mean to bash Cam’s model – if anything I think it rocks.

Like I said, I’m thinking thinking thinking and trying to identify the need, the opportunity, and the problems. Thanks for the comments – your perspectives add to my own and help me clarify my thinking. I’m not just an armchair critic looking in – the agencies you talk about are actually my clients

I think your model of one-to-one advertising, targeting the person, is terrific in theory – I can’t wait for that day to come. But in your post you were deriding technology solutions and this is DEFINITELY a technology solution. And it carries all of the privacy issues you also referred to. So I don’t think that’s going to be on our doorstep in the near future. In the meantime, what can us internet content types do?

I have no doubt we’ll have some answers shortly

Oh and I should point out that “targeted ads” like the one Cam mentioned are not a traditional advertising approach by any means. Traditionally advertisers have a “big net” approach – which is what TV, radio and print amount to – a general audience who may/may not be interested in your product.

Cameron: If I had a solution, I would be writing to a VC not for my blog I actually think to find a solution, we need to better understand the problem. Understanding not just that advertising sucks, but why it sucks and what are examples that do work. My post above actually touches on quite a few themes, and anyone reading will have ample avenues to pursue research. It’s me thinking out loud

What you described about the TPN model sounds excellent – I think you have a lot of potential and I’ve been meaning for quite a while to do a case study on your business. However again, this is very much a traditional advertising approach – targeting ads to a niche market. I think the solution needs to be more advanced: relevant information (targeted ads) to the person consuming the content. So that if I was to listen to a podcast, I would be getting a different ad from one you when you listen to it.

I also think some type of automation is needed. For example, a podcast is timeless – and if someone advertises at that point in time, they effectively get to advertise for all of eternity. With the power of the Internet, podcasts you offer should be able to dynamically update because this will effectively increase your inventory to infinity.

So in short, your approach is about as good as it gets in our current world. I just think we are on the cusp of something bigger in the next decade. I’ve got some ideas of where I see potential, but I’m still thinking thinking thinking.

What did you think of the TPN model I explained (albeit briefly) on the weekend? Highly targeted, content specific advertising inside podcasts? EG a podcast about cycling with advertising from bicycle manufacturers, etc? Will people still want “banner blindness” or its podcasting equivalents if the advertising is actually intelligent, respectful and, most importantly, relevant to their interests?