In which case, this serves primarily as an argument as to why advertisers need to employ multiple marketing approaches, not least through direct communication with the social web via contact with connectors. I don’t think it argues for new behaviours with CPC.

The CPC model seems to be working on a general mass appeal basis, but the concern for advertisers and publishers alike is the danger of ad-blindness creeping into this model.

I saw the fall out for publishers and their income crash when the dotcom bubble burst – as a publisher today I need to be concerned about the value contextual CPC advertising can add to a site, rather than detract from it.

For that I need my content to be regarded as valuable for advertising purposes – with issues such as clickfraud, value perception is a very real issue.

You can run site targeted ads via Google Adwords and similar ad models, so that remains an option – but we need customers to feel drawn to explore what is being advertised, not encouraged, pushed, or co-erced, in such a way that may denigrate whatever ad model is being used.

2c.

In fact, the most “worthy” potential consumers are the very people who never ever ever click on an online ad. These are people who buy a lot online, usually from trusted merchants like Amazon. They are curious and early adopters and likely to buy a new thing as soon as they are sold on it.

But they’re not showing up via cpc ads. That’s because many cpc ads are seen as a come on or a waste of time.

I wasn’t recommending click fraud. I was recommending the very thing people do with magazines they like. If you see an ad in Stereophile, or Field and Stream, take a second to consider it, possibly buy from it. Don’t dismiss it out of hand.

That was my goal. I didn’t make it very clear, but that’s what I meant.