December 15, 2001
2:19 PM Subscribe
Is it just me or does AdCritic.com suck now? I remember a year or two ago it was a great place to check out the latest, funniest commercials. It's been months now since I've even been able to successfully view a commercial there, and their Top 10 Lists never change -- and usually only feature ads that contain allusions to women's underwear. Did "new management" take over?
and usually only feature ads that contain allusions to women's underwear
I don't have a problem with this.
posted by noisemartyr at 3:25 PM on December 15, 2001
I don't have a problem with this.
posted by noisemartyr at 3:25 PM on December 15, 2001
When I loaded the site the ad running down the right hand side was a horizontal ad in a vertical space. And you're right: they need more server juice if they're going to be hosting all that video (I'm getting like 7K a second throughput on a DSL line that ordinarly sees around 60K/sec). And they need to do like the New York Times Bestseller list: retire long-standing number ones so that other candidates can have a chance.
posted by Mo Nickels at 3:27 PM on December 15, 2001
posted by Mo Nickels at 3:27 PM on December 15, 2001
I don't have a problem with this.
Yeah, where else could you that on the net?
posted by todds at 5:04 PM on December 15, 2001
Yeah, where else could you that on the net?
posted by todds at 5:04 PM on December 15, 2001
er... where else could you find that.
...and smartass karma bites me in the ass yet again.
posted by todds at 5:10 PM on December 15, 2001
...and smartass karma bites me in the ass yet again.
posted by todds at 5:10 PM on December 15, 2001
This is an End of Free type of problem. These days you need to register as an adcritic user, or your download speed is capped.
posted by dhartung at 8:34 PM on December 15, 2001
posted by dhartung at 8:34 PM on December 15, 2001
Initially I marvelled at AdCritic's ingenuity... I figured they were savvy enough to charge heartily for an ad to be featured on their popular site, with such a captive audience. They were the epicenter of viral marketing... an ad agency's dream.
If a site whose raison d'etre is to showcase advertising can't make enough money to maintain itself, well then the rest might as well just throw in the towel, doncha think?
posted by Fofer at 9:26 PM on December 15, 2001
If a site whose raison d'etre is to showcase advertising can't make enough money to maintain itself, well then the rest might as well just throw in the towel, doncha think?
posted by Fofer at 9:26 PM on December 15, 2001
Well, at least the "rest" who rely on advertising to survive might see this as writing on the wall... memberships, micropayments, and fee-based transactions still have yet to be disproven as effective business models.
posted by Fofer at 9:38 AM on December 16, 2001
posted by Fofer at 9:38 AM on December 16, 2001
The advertising market is also depressed right now. There might not be as many high-budget, entertaining ads as there were a year or so ago.
posted by scarabic at 10:54 AM on December 16, 2001
posted by scarabic at 10:54 AM on December 16, 2001
AdCritic has several things against it:
1) It's run by only a few people, possibly a few ad grunts in their spare time.
2) It's free, and the ads are not run on commission. (Otherwise, they'd probably have to deal with mountains of legal paperwork, which isn't fun.)
3) Crappy web design. It's rich in content, but the site is sluggish, even when not loading video. The pages are filled with junk code and clutter.
4) It's grassroots. During the last Superbowl, AdCritic was literally video-taping the ads, and then converting them into QuickTime and uploading the video themselves. It's a labor of love, and I'm sure the love is starting to fade.
Maybe it could bounce back, with some extra money and support. I don't see that happening any time soon, however.
posted by Down10 at 1:16 PM on December 16, 2001
1) It's run by only a few people, possibly a few ad grunts in their spare time.
2) It's free, and the ads are not run on commission. (Otherwise, they'd probably have to deal with mountains of legal paperwork, which isn't fun.)
3) Crappy web design. It's rich in content, but the site is sluggish, even when not loading video. The pages are filled with junk code and clutter.
4) It's grassroots. During the last Superbowl, AdCritic was literally video-taping the ads, and then converting them into QuickTime and uploading the video themselves. It's a labor of love, and I'm sure the love is starting to fade.
Maybe it could bounce back, with some extra money and support. I don't see that happening any time soon, however.
posted by Down10 at 1:16 PM on December 16, 2001
It has a lot to do with the SAG strikes. AdCritic allows people to watch ads without taking responsibility for the talent residuals that should be paid out accordingly. As a result, many companies and their ad agencies, in an effort to avoid litigation, have decided not to submit their spots to the site.
posted by pudders at 10:39 AM on December 17, 2001
posted by pudders at 10:39 AM on December 17, 2001
Wow, am I prescient, or what? It is sad, though. I love advertising (for the most part, it's what I do) and I spent many an extended lunch hour going through the archives. It was where I first saw the Superfriends "Wazzup!?" spoof, and they hosted some great speculation ads which may be impossible to find now.
posted by robbie01 at 7:47 AM on December 18, 2001
posted by robbie01 at 7:47 AM on December 18, 2001
http://www.adcritic.com/why/
A Suck-style retreat.
posted by NortonDC at 1:14 PM on December 18, 2001
A Suck-style retreat.
posted by NortonDC at 1:14 PM on December 18, 2001
Adcritic.com: A Victim of Its Own Success? asks the New York Times.
posted by Carol Anne at 6:00 AM on December 20, 2001
posted by Carol Anne at 6:00 AM on December 20, 2001
« Older Bin Laden 'heard' in Tora Bora | Throwing Yourself Down a Flight of Stairs: Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mathowie at 2:25 PM on December 15, 2001