I would be interested to know who people email more if an ad on a page they visit is so annoying that is causes them to contact someone. Do people contact the advertiser to complain? Or are they more likely to contact the website directly to complain about the ad? I think most people would agree that you usually get ticked off if the site is running a a particular type of ad you don't really care for (rather than the content). I mean how many times have you visited a page and it runs the same streaming video that you rush to shut off for fear of hearing it for the tenth time? Or what about the websites that use ads that go around the "pop ad blocker" technology? Or what about those fullpage ads that interrupt you before sending you to the secondary page you wanted to see all along?

I can't tell you how much I disagree with this quote from the article:

"Bad advertising really hurts our business. It hurts our user experience, and that's never really been the case before: On TV, you can run bad ads, and frankly, nobody knows," Gillespie said. "In our world, if we're running ads that are irrelevant or intrusive, people show up and tell us about it, or just vote with their feet and don't show up at all." On TV you can run bad ads and no one knows?!? That's such a jaded, online-guy's statement. Of course people know. Bad TV ads don't geneate response -- and, contrary to the belief among many online ad people, TV ads are designed to do just that. And believe me, if you run a bad ad on TV or radio, the audience lets you know -- they write emails, call broadcasters and clients and you hear from them, loud and clear. On the other hand, I've created TV ads that increased calls to clients by over 100%. I've sat in call centers receiving almost no traffic and watched how airing of a commercial suddenly makes the phones ring. I've run print and internet campaigns that generated a modest amount of traffic, only to see that traffic double and tripple when the TV component was added. There's a reason advertisers run TV ads -- when done well, they work.

That isn't to say that there isn't bad TV -- most TV advertising is terrible. Most print advertising is terrible. Face it, we work in a business in which there really are no standards. It's up to each and every one of us to fight for good work. Online, offline -- wherever!

Great online advertising is not just important from a user standpoint, but obviously also in effectively delivering clicks to the company advertising on your site. So there are two big reasons to get it right. Great NikeID ad on Yahoo earlier today, maybe still there...very cutting edge, let's you customize colors of your shoes right there within the ad and made me click to Nike site.

Bad banner advertising has actually contributed to my selection of desktop patterns for my Mac. A few weeks ago I signed out of my Yahoo® account and was hit in the face with a horrendous banner ad for "Lowermybills.com". It featured an abnormally long black pig (perhaps a hog) with the initials of ALL 52 United States sprawled across its length (I counted them.) Even for me as a designer the logo was way too small, the type treatment hurt to look at, ("refinance" couldn't fit so it was "refi") and even the tagline was obscured by the graphic. I originally scoffed at this ad which I'd see each time I logged in or out of my Yahoo account, but then I noticed that each time it was a different banner ad! Next it was a flock of 52 sheep holding hands with the states' initials on their chests. As I noticed the art change each day I started to marvel at the consistent badness of these banners. I now have an impressive collection of about 18 different Lowermybills.com ad banners from which I can choose to grace my computer screen. They not only earn merit for consistency and repeat offenses in design crime, but they also serve as a constant reminder to be the best designer I can be. Thanks Lowermybills.com!