Comments on: Startup #77 – AdSqueeze http://astartupaday.com/2007/07/20/startup-77-adsqueeze/ Each day I'll post an idea for a new Web 2.0 startup Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:13:45 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: astartupaday http://astartupaday.com/2007/07/20/startup-77-adsqueeze/#comment-382 astartupaday Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:52:01 +0000 http://astartupaday.wordpress.com/2007/07/20/startup-77-adsqueeze/#comment-382 Great analysis, Colin. Agree that there are a ton of details to be worked out on this one. Great analysis, Colin. Agree that there are a ton of details to be worked out on this one.

]]> By: Colin http://astartupaday.com/2007/07/20/startup-77-adsqueeze/#comment-379 Colin Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:39:39 +0000 http://astartupaday.wordpress.com/2007/07/20/startup-77-adsqueeze/#comment-379 Excellent idea, but I wonder about the long term aspect of it. For example, all "participants" would have to see the show at the same time and, reasonably quickly, start looking for the treasure. How long until groups are dividing up the work to split the prize? How long until people say, "Someone else has already won..?" In my view, you would need to offer a prize to everyone who completes the treasure hunt, which could get expensive. Presently in a big city, a 30 second ad costs about $250 on a daytime show like Oprah for a local audience. In that case, if you had 20 companies displaying something in the 30 second ad, you'd need to charge all of them an amount that made the company money AND financed the prize. But you can't charge close to $250 as they could just have the full ad to themselves for that amount. So, let's say $20 per participant. That gives you about $900 to (1) get paid (2) produce the ad and - which can probably only be used once and (3) pay for the treasure. The next problem would be one of content distribution - no doubt branding intent could be fulfilled as people gave their undivided attention to each frame, but the loss of sound and motion as a medium means the still ads must be REALLY strong to have any affect. Great idea, but tons of logistical details would need to be worked out to make the trouble worth going through. TV advertising is effective over time. No TV rep on earth would sell a company only a couple of ads. Interesting thoughts though... Excellent idea, but I wonder about the long term aspect of it. For example, all “participants” would have to see the show at the same time and, reasonably quickly, start looking for the treasure. How long until groups are dividing up the work to split the prize? How long until people say, “Someone else has already won..?” In my view, you would need to offer a prize to everyone who completes the treasure hunt, which could get expensive. Presently in a big city, a 30 second ad costs about $250 on a daytime show like Oprah for a local audience. In that case, if you had 20 companies displaying something in the 30 second ad, you’d need to charge all of them an amount that made the company money AND financed the prize. But you can’t charge close to $250 as they could just have the full ad to themselves for that amount. So, let’s say $20 per participant. That gives you about $900 to (1) get paid (2) produce the ad and – which can probably only be used once and (3) pay for the treasure. The next problem would be one of content distribution – no doubt branding intent could be fulfilled as people gave their undivided attention to each frame, but the loss of sound and motion as a medium means the still ads must be REALLY strong to have any affect.

Great idea, but tons of logistical details would need to be worked out to make the trouble worth going through. TV advertising is effective over time. No TV rep on earth would sell a company only a couple of ads. Interesting thoughts though…

]]> By: thirdgradeteacher http://astartupaday.com/2007/07/20/startup-77-adsqueeze/#comment-374 thirdgradeteacher Sat, 21 Jul 2007 01:46:31 +0000 http://astartupaday.wordpress.com/2007/07/20/startup-77-adsqueeze/#comment-374 OK, that is SLICK. I like it -- dare we say that you have just invented TV 2.0? OK, that is SLICK. I like it — dare we say that you have just invented TV 2.0?

]]>