Why banners fail to have any of the X factor

Intriguing headline and article that i just got on the i-media connection newsletter.

Any one who knows me or has heard me soap box it on banners, know i've never been the greatest fan, so i was drawn to this intriguing article

"If you come to a site, and before you enter the site, you have to sit through an ad- it's an introstitial.

If you are on the site and have to sit through an ad when going to a different section, it's an interstitial.

But, if you are on a page and all the ads on the page are from the same advertiser, that is a roadblock.

MOTO means master of the obvious, to some.

i like the style of how Sean X writes and i agree with much of what he says, but unless people can create 'banners' that really do delight with multiple formated content- engagement- interactive call to participate-not to preach- then the focus should be in the editorial section of the site for maximum endorsement- rather than the bits round the outside.

I read the paper, I skip the ads.
I read the editorial and look at the pictures.
If the brands featured/associated/the creator- in there, then I'll then look at the ads with more interest.
It's the same with the digital.
It's the same with i-TV.

It's the norm unless you're really, really lazy.

Death to the banners. a lazy creative way to buy yourself the chance of a relationship.

Much better to earn it respectfully and credibly with some strong social currency that respects and rewards each other online, just as we'd expect and demand it, if we met socially..

I'm shocked how many brands ignore basic social skills online. Brands need to be social. Make friends and be popular.

And those that learn how to listen properly, are going to be streaks ahead in any popularity contest.

It's not just 'nice' to be popular- it's also hug£ly rew$rding.