These days web users are savvier than ever. Chances are that when you're surfing, you'll ignore banners and other online advertising so much that you hadn't even realised what they were trying to communicate - or possibly that they were even there. This, of course, makes the role of the online advertiser a lot more challenging.

 

Interactive banners are an attempt to stop this happening and catch the user's attention. They're capable of expanding, containing input fields or even interacting with the content within the page. And they're becoming more and more elaborate as their capabilities extend much further than an animated gif within a letterbox banner.

It seems to me that nearly every ad on the box these days tries to annoy you into buying their products. Whether it's irritating jingles, weird puppets or damn right nonsensical industry jargon, ads seem to be more ridiculous and unbearable than ever before.

Before you start shooting me down, I'm well aware that for many advertising agencies this is exactly the intention. They want to invent situations so ridiculous or so grating that you can't possibly forget them or their brands in the future. They become part of your subconscious so that the next time you come to get insurance, sell your gold via mail(!) or use a search comparison site, their logo is etched well and truly into your brain. Whether you like it or not.

But this has got me wondering: does this mean we're more likely to buy their products? I, for example, dislike Gio Compario, the star of the Go Compare ads (see above), so much that I would rather pay more to use another brand that doesn't make me want to kill.

I admit I'm probably fighting a losing battle because I'm sure they're here to stay. They're obviously working because there are more and more. So, instead, I'll give my top 10 most hated TV ads. And if there are any that you think I've missed, let me know using the comment form below. Enjoy.

Today we're running lab-based user testing with our eye-tracking equipment. We have four participants booked to come in this afternoon and to run through a series of tasks comparing different homepage designs. Here's how a day of user testing breaks down.

Sometimes, a competitor just comes up with the best line. The best, smartest, most creative way of saying something. And when they do, you have to either live with it, or try to go one better. The worst thing you can do is copy it. Not only does it admit that they were the best, it reminds everyone that they got there first.

The example that springs to mind is the BBC's great line they used for iPlayer, their on-demand, online TV player. "Making the unmissable, unmissable". You can argue that the comma is not strictly accurate, but splitting grammatical hairs is not the point. It's a great line. Succinct, witty and memorable. So what do ITV do when they - belatedly - launch their iPlayer equivalent? "Amazing telly you can't miss". Come on ITV - that's just paraphrasing your competitor. It's the same pun, but not as well done.

Now this was a little while ago, and it annoyed me at the time, but I would not have been compelled to write a blog had Sky not joined in with their recent poster campaign. Huge pictures of Eric Cantona along with the line - wait for it - "The unmissable should be just that". Awful. The same joke - again - but a clunky, graceless construction that the writer should be ashamed of.

Come on guys! This is a creative industry. The ad writers at Sky and ITV should hang their heads in collective plagiaristic shame.

Or maybe it just confirms what we always knew, and what everyone subconsciously feels compelled to confirm, ie that BBC are just better at being creative than everyone else in the TV world.

Can't Jump? Won't Jump.

So the image of b2b marketing is still generally seen as straight-laced and stuffy.

*Yawn*

It doesn't have to be like this. Hell, it shouldn't be like this.

No room for a windbreak, even

But it's because of this perception that b2b still offers great opportunities for Creatives to make a big splash - far more visibly than on the overcrowded beaches of b2c, where even great creativity is drowning, not waving. But as far as attracting more creative talent goes, b2b marketing's image needs rebranding. Because the opportunities for b2c Creatives in b2b are many.

I've just seen this recent cross-industry survey into B2B Buyers use of Social Media which compares how decision makers use various types of media through the process of making major business purchases. Good to see some solid research in this area. You can see a quick description of the research here. It revealed that word of mouth was second only to visiting supplier websites when identifying and selecting a supplier. Everyone knows that WoM is important - it was the level that surprised me - it was used by 45% of those surveyed for indentifying potential suppliers and by 40% for actual selection. Around 70% of these people considered WoM to be very influential. It struck me that, since social media is effectively 'word of mouth' and its usage for business is increasing - especially in the up to 30s age group with around 25% already using Twitter and blogs, there is a strong case for believing social media will soon become a key method for B2B purchasing decisions as more buyers seek the opinions of others on line. Businesses adopting a marketing strategy that encompasses social media will increasingly reap the rewards as late adopters' share of online 'voice' decreases.

One note of caution - the report also revealed business users' concerns about the accuracy and reliability of information gathered through social media along with the increasing volume of information to wade through. It seems certain that buyers will become more selective in where they look online. I think it's true that many companies/brands are putting out information and opinion based on existing information found on the social networks and expecting it to work for them. It's a reasonable approach up to a point, but me-too content is as weak as me-too products. I bet the biggest winners in social media marketing will be the ones who put a big effort into creating original content to become valued voices in their industry.

Last week I attended a one-day training course in “Writing For The Web”, as part of Nielsen Norman Group’s Usability Week, a six-day event covering all aspects of web usability issues.

As a copywriter with lots of experience writing offline material, I found it extremely worthwhile to find out more about the difference between online and offline copy and what makes words more accessible for an online audience.

Most of us use the web so regularly these days we’re probably aware of the conventions that are now commonplace on the web without consciously learning them. Most people would know where to find the navigation bar or the search field, or a rough word count for a homepage just by using the web every day. We’ve learned what to expect through osmosis.

As the web has developed and grown, these conventions have appeared for a reason. And, although it can be easy to ignore them because many boil down to common sense, you should still acknowledge these conventions to ensure you’re making your user experience as comfortable as possible for your audience.

So if you’re thinking about writing for a website any time soon, you may appreciate this guide, Words For The Web, that I compiled detailing some of the techniques covered on the Writing For The Web course.

Although the day gave a complete overview of usability, including writing for search, accessibility and how to organise content, (as a copywriter!) I’ve focused more on the writing style you should employ to ensure your readers find visiting your site informative - and enjoyable.

Download your free Words For The Web guide.

A while ago I wrote a blog post about the effect Twitter has had on news reporting. In this blog I said that Twitter had increased the speed of information transfer so much that online news services that were once seen as the speedier upgrades to newspaper reporting had now become the slower alternative to Twitter.

Yesterday, the day that England football team manager Fabio Capello named his squad of 23 players, summed up my sentiments perfectly.

Capello was due to tell seven players who had been training with the provisional, 30-man squad that they would no longer be needed. All the news agencies and broadcasting companies were expecting a low-key FA statement, probably on their website, that would list exactly who would be on the plane. It was predicted to be a very stark contrast to the all-singing, all-dancing, overblown news conference that previous manager Sven Goran Eriksson delivered for the World Cup in Germany, four years previously.

What we got was neither, really.

Instead, we were drip-fed player names from journalists, player agents and their clubs telling us whether their players had made the cut or not. And Twitter was the primary means of communication.

Matt Law of the Daily Express was one of the first to break the news of Theo Walcott’s shock omission. “Walcott out of England World Cup squad,” he tweeted. “Gutted for him.”

Then Neil Ashton of the News Of The World told us that Michael Carrick, Shaun Wright-Phillips and Jermaine Defoe had made the cut. “Relief for Carrick, he’s in the England squad,” he tweeted. “Shaun Wright-Phillips in squad, Defoe in too.”

In the Sky Sports News TV studio, it seemed as if the reporters had given up trying to contact the FA for the latest news, or, at the very least, continuously hitting the F5 button on the FA homepage. Instead, it seemed as if they were now using their Twitter network to find out from players or people close to the players whether they were going or not.

It wasn’t until 4pm that we were all finally put out of our misery and an official announcement was made. But by this time we pretty much knew all seven names of those who wouldn’t be on the plane to South Africa - it was old news.

The FA certainly didn’t do themselves any favours by acting so slowly and perhaps it was naïve of them to assume that they could be so unprepared and get away with it. The longer they delayed the official announcement, the greater the chance that leaks would surface.

The fact is that online communications platforms like Twitter have completely changed the landscape of mass communication. Like it or not, any unofficial, transient word spoken intended to be disclosed information can be made public knowledge within a matter of seconds, with just one tweet. In this digital age, large organisations with public relations at the top of their agenda need to ensure they can adapt - and fast. And making sure they understand the way that digital communications platforms like Twitter work is fundamental to their success in doing so.

The World Cup is fast approaching - and there’s no hiding from it. For weeks before a ball is even kicked, the free wall chart promotions, the media hysteria and St George’s Cross flags hanging out of every other car make sure that, when it eventually begins, everyone with even the slightest interest in the national sport is struck down with football fever.

And in the same way that the build-up to Christmas wouldn’t feel like the build-up to Christmas without the Coke adverts, the World Cup wouldn’t feel the same without a big-budget, overblown Nike TV advert.

First they gave us Eric Cantona saying au revoir to the devil, then they treated us to some Brazilian flair in the departure lounge. And now we have the Write The Future ad, created by ad agency Wieden+Kennedy Amsterdam and directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu, previously responsible for Hollywood blockbusters Babel and 21 Grams.

A main ingredient to these Nike ads is usually a selection of the world’s best footballers, and this ad doesn’t disappoint. Ronaldinho (who, amusingly, didn’t even make the Brazil squad), Wayne Rooney, Franck Ribery and Cristiano Ronaldo all star.

The full-length version was aired during the Champions League final and, despite being more entertaining than the final itself, has already drawn criticism from some quarters. The Guardian saw it as more of a triumph of huge budgets than creative talent. A big budget helps, but there’s no denying it’s another very impressive ad.

The way it draws on the thin line between success and failure is an interesting concept. One mistake can certainly define a footballer’s legacy. (Unless, of course, you’re David Beckham, who successfully turned from pantomime villain into national hero.) Similarly, one moment of skill, or perhaps fortune, can not only elevate that player to god-like status, but also have a massive effect on all elements of popular media - from traditional print media to digital platforms like YouTube.

The ad successfully avoids feeling overly sentimental, and despite being action-packed, is also quite funny. (Perhaps solely because one would suspect that if Wayne Rooney wasn’t a multi-millionaire footballer, he probably would be slightly overweight with a wild ginger beard.)

Write The Future goes social

If the TV ad doesn’t float your boat, the Write The Future campaign has spread to social media. Nike are running a competition in which fans can write a message that will be stitched to Wayne Rooney and Ashley Cole’s boots in South Africa. Supported by both Sky Sports and The Sun, it uses a Facebook app to let fans see what their message would look like on their chosen player’s boots.

Will those words have any effect this summer? We’ll have to wait and see.

Cruising around online, I recently came across a website called Chatroulotte.

 

Created only last December by a 17 year old student in Moscow, Chatroulette pairs random strangers for webcam-based conversations. Visitors to the website randomly begin an online chat using video (with audio and text) with another visitor. At any time, either user may leave the current chat by initiating another random "spin."

 

And as with most new, unregulated and free internet technology, a lack of censorship and structure brings the worst "parts" of people to the fold, and my Macintosh screen.

 

However, once I was over the initial shock, many other aspects of the site really surprised and intrigued me - it was such an effective, exciting and seemingly simple idea.