Posted by Christopher Stevenson
I receive a number of e-mails each day that include links to online articles about credit unions, banks, and the big financial-services picture. Most are set up so I see the headlines and the first few sentences of each article. When I read the e-mail, I scroll down the page, clicking the headlines that look interesting and skipping over the banner ads (they're not obtrusive and don't affect the readability of the e-mail, so they don't really bother me). Today, one of my e-mails got sneaky on me, though.
I came across a headline and article preview that looked interesting to me and clicked the link. Instead of linking to a news article, however, I was taken to an advertisement for a conference. Not only that, but the advertisement was only loosely linked with the topic of the headline.
I closed the Web ad and went back to my e-mail where I finally saw the word "Advertisement" in the dotted line above the link. Aside from the small, gray, easily-overlooked identifier, there was nothing to distinguish the ad link from the real article links in the e-mail.
Why would someone advertise in this way? That's easy. The ad is bound to have hundreds of hits from people who linked to it thinking they were going to read a news article. The advertisers may think it's no different from sponsored articles in monthly magazines ... you know, those articles that look real until you look closely at that top or bottom margin where they are identified as ads. But those articles at least provide some content, something of value, even if it is slanted in the direction of the product they're selling. The conference ad provided nothing more than promotion. Big difference.
I feel a bit like I was caught in a bait and switch--like I was promised a carpet cleaning but got a sales pitch for an expensive vacuum cleaner instead. The headline promised value, but the advertisement delivered something completely different. Sure the link will drive traffic to the Web site, but how will the readers feel when they see they've been misled? It's a bad way to go. Advertising in this way risks corrupting the images of the advertising organization and the news organization that allowed it. (I have a great deal of respect for both these organizations, by they way; I just think they made a mistake in this instance.)
Am I just overly sensitive? Is this a good way to go? Should an organization use means like this to drive traffic to its Web site? What do you think?
