There’s been a lot of chatter around this TechCrunch article by Eric Clemens, with some folks up in arms about it’s content. When I actually got around to reading the original piece, I was surprised to find that I agreed with quite a bit of it:

Traditional advertising simply cannot be carried over to the internet, replacing full-page ads on the back of The New York Times or 30-second spots on the Super Bowl broadcast with pop-ups, banners, click-throughs on side bars.

and

Pushing a message at a potential customer when it has not been requested and when the consumer is in the midst of something else on the net, will fail as a major revenue source for most internet sites.

What I do not agree with is the narrow definition of advertising that Clemens proposes. Although what he states as his definition is somewhat broader, it is clear from most of the article that he mainly has traditional push advertising in mind.

We live in a world that is anchored, for better or for worse, in commercialism. Our lives are full of brands, and our identities are built around the brands we choose to consume. I use a Mac, not a PC. I will never shop at a Walmart, but Target is okay. I don’t eat at McDonald’s but I’ll happily have a sandwich from Pret a Manger.

These affiliations do not exist in a vacuum; I’ve built them over the course of a lifetime of interactions with these brands – and an important voice in these interactions is advertising. It certainly is not the only voice, but it’s definitely there. And going forward, we (as advertisers) need to find new ways to give our voice.

I agree with Clemens that banner advertising, commercials, and other undesired “push” advertising are failing. That’s why we’re seeing the old-world media models of TV and print bite the dust. But there are other ways to engage with brands and to get a brand’s message out there to people who actually want to hear it.

I’m in good company: here’s some likeminded thoughts from Noah and Rick of The Barbarian Group.