« Previous post
Next post »

July 12, 2007

Tailgate: Fully Transactional Web 2.0 Banners

Duncan Riley

126 comments »

tailgate.jpgBanner Advertising just got interesting again. Tailgate from London based Fhlame Limited is billed as the “Worlds First fully transactional web 2.0 banner system” that aims it to turn annoying adverts into a useful application that serves a purpose.

Tailgates technology delivers ecommerce transactions from the banner itself. Essentially users can purchase items by interacting with the banner as opposed to having to click through to another page. The benefits from web sites owners are immediately obvious: using Tailgate, advertisements will no longer take users from their sites. For advertisers, capturing impulse buyers just became that much more easy.

Fhlame is currently in due diligence with a number of large VC firms to fund the further development and marketing of the product.

It’s difficult to describe the product without looking at it; click here for a demonstration.

It’s usually difficult to get excited about advertising technology, and countless “new” offerings usually tend to be just variations on an existing theme. Tailgate on the other hand is quite simply remarkable. The simplicity of the offering combined with the wealth of potential it offers really does make Tailgate stand out from the crowd. There would be a learning curve involved in getting consumers to interact at this level with a banner ad, but it’s a small thing to consider compared to what this product could do to the online advertising industry. Tailgate could well be the banner advertising unit of tomorrow.

  • Sphere It

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 12th, 2007 at 1:31 am and is filed under Company & Product Profiles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

  1. bloggas.de

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:03 am

  2. pligg.com

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:52 am

  3. share.websitemagazine.com

    July 12th, 2007 at 6:18 am

  4. 5 Star Affiliate Marketing Blogs, Google and SEO Blog » New Tech - Ecommerce Cart Built Into Your Banner Ad

    July 14th, 2007 at 8:44 am

  5. PlusNet Web Portal Team

    July 16th, 2007 at 11:29 am

  6. product.paypal.com/pligg

    July 16th, 2007 at 6:51 pm

  7. rb.trends» Blog Archive » Buy through banners

    July 17th, 2007 at 7:32 am

  8. Shopping Gadgets & Transactional Banners: Is This The End Of Traditional Carts? - Read eCopt, Sell More - eCommerce Optimization

    July 19th, 2007 at 1:28 pm

  9. Tasty Morsels #4 | Community Site News

    March 26th, 2008 at 9:50 am

  10. mediaFORGE Launches Interactive Widget Ads

    April 10th, 2008 at 11:09 am

  11. www.teletubis.info » Blog Archive » mediaFORGE Launches Interactive Widget Ads

    April 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

  12. Duncan Riley’s “Fully Transactional Web 2.0 Banners” Revisited : The Drama 2.0 Show

    April 10th, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. secreeeeet

    July 12th, 2007 at 1:56 am

    .. because everyone is comfortable entering their credit card information to an anonymous advertiser at some obscure banner.

  2. Sridhar Katakam

    July 12th, 2007 at 2:04 am

    How/where does a publisher sign up?

  3. DzineGyk

    July 12th, 2007 at 2:06 am

    This is just a PointRoll ad with a weak attempt at eCommerce thrown in. It’ll never fly.

  4. Duncan Riley

    July 12th, 2007 at 2:09 am

    secreeet
    agreed, hence the learning curve and obviously security issues as well. DzineGyk, I actually thought it was pretty cool and remember services like Chitika have done well, this is just the next step.

  5. Jhon

    July 12th, 2007 at 2:31 am

    1. Nothing new here.
    2. No one will enter his credit card details (or even email) on a banner.
    3. Since people are doing transactions on the hosting site they would approach them for support, turning these banners into a nightmare for the hosting website.
    4. It’s amazing how much money is thrown on ideas without any sense.

  6. Howard Scott

    July 12th, 2007 at 2:38 am

    I couldn’t agree more with the comments above. Whilst this is just an expandable flash banner with some forms in it, the trust element to get a user to enter their card details here is going to be a massive barrier to get over. IMHO banners need to evolve into useful utilities that do something the user sees value in, and not extend eCommerce into a space that lacks validity. This is a tough sell for me, and I can’t see it taking off either.

  7. Ilan

    July 12th, 2007 at 2:48 am

    It will fail.

    I doubt there will be a high market of consumers buying from banners. Where is the product info? product attributes? store policies.. not to mention the security concerns..

  8. Vinod

    July 12th, 2007 at 3:03 am

    Even if this picks up. Will it be able to compete with the upcoming Google Adsense Widget (I haven’t seen one yet) - http://www.vinodlive.com/2007/.....e-widgets/

  9. Delos

    July 12th, 2007 at 3:10 am

    I agree with all of the above posts. And what about SSL/HTTPS? You could load it in something like an IFrame, but you won’t get a padlock in the main browser window without the host website also having a certificate.

  10. ben

    July 12th, 2007 at 3:18 am

    i will never enter my credit number on a banner. i have no idea who’s selling the product to me, who will give me post sale service. usually, i search and compare the stuff i want first. i will nerver buy stuff on a banner, something like blind purchase.

  11. KindAndThoughtful

    July 12th, 2007 at 3:22 am

    “Advertising is the foot on the accelerator, the hand on the throttle, the spur on the flank that keeps our economy surging forward. “

  12. Duncan Riley

    July 12th, 2007 at 3:31 am

    To all those saying that it wont take off, what will then? just because you wouldn’t use it is not to say others wouldn’t, you know its not that long ago that buying anything online was warned against as being dangerous, risky etc… The education and security DO have to be sorted out with this style of advertising but it can be done in the same way its been done with ecommerce in general.

  13. warren miller

    July 12th, 2007 at 3:46 am

    The tailgate system is secure as it uses SSL between the flash banner and the Tailgate server.

    Ilan : the product detail are shown on a real tailgate banner. A real-life working example, which has been successful out in the wild on the Telegraph, Fifth gear and SKY Sports, can be seen here : http://www.gettailgate.com/navman/

    Warren Miller
    Tailgate lead developer

  14. Internet Evangelist

    July 12th, 2007 at 3:58 am

    Hmm… so the landing pages are now the banners themselves?
    But what percentage of online buyers are impulse buyers?
    So is it an CPA and probably CPM network without the element of CPM.

    These are more of sales widgets than Banners. :)

    It would be easy for widget companies to get into this type of business which makes it that much more competitive.

  15. Duncan Riley

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:02 am

    Internet Evangelist
    fair call, and the two will probably cross paths very soon.

  16. Christopher Autry

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:03 am

    There is no rich media involved. These transactional banners can be served just like any other ad over existing networks without rich media ad servers. This technology isn’t about transactional ads, it is about making the web the useful application that it should be.

    Advertising isn’t going away so why not make it tool that people can use instead of just getting annoyed by? At the very least, it’s still an ad but now you don’t have to leave what you’re doing should you care to interact.

    Tailgate is a distributed eCommerce model not just an advert. To all you doubters remember when eCommerce was in it’s infancy, look around now!

  17. mom..

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:04 am

    This is so stupid it’s pure comical…Guaranteed to FAIL … just watch.

  18. Simon

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:07 am

    It is a useless idea. No one can trust just on a banner for their secret information.

  19. Christopher Autry

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:07 am

    Well without a vision to change the way things are, in the case the poor state of online advertising, the world would in a pretty dismal state wouldn’t it?

  20. Andy

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:09 am

    I hope some dodgy site doesn’t start adding Tailgate green padlock icons and logos to their Flash banners and attempt to get people’s credit card numbers. I think dynamic ads that clickthrough to Google Checkout, Paypal or an optimised landing page are still the ways to go. Or click-to-call. Tailgate just seems way too risky. They could do with multiple ad formats, which is perhaps why the likes of Double Click did well - innovating with multiple visual ad types, giving publishers a good choice of formats.

  21. Internet Evangelist

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:21 am

    Whats interesting is that this is sort of anti-CPC.
    Good for the publishers and if it really takes off- good for advertisers also.

    I would not conclude saying this will fail, Would like to see how this distributed eCommerce evolves.

    So is this Web 3.0?
    Revenge of ‘longtail’?

  22. tz

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:29 am

    The security issues with this are just impossible to tackle.

    It doesn’t matter how secure Tailgate is, since a fake Tailgate ad (that just steals all input) could easily be placed on any site without the user noticing.

  23. compuneo

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:30 am

    Evolution from Pay-per-Click into Pay-per-Transaction. May be, a potential target for Google’s appetite for innovation in online-advertising.

  24. warren miller

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:39 am

    Andy : We have implemented a “Versign logo” type of validation for web sites wanting to host Tailgate banners.
    When a customer clicks on the logo and is taken to the Tailgate site the HTTP site referrer is checked and validated as a site serving Tailgate banners.

    A list of current banners and sites hosting banners will also be hosted on the Tailgate site for checking.

  25. tz

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:59 am

    Warren: How do you verify that all the sites hosting Tailgate banners is 100% legit and that they aren’t using any other banner networks where a fake ad could be injected?

    Having to verify the full legitimacy of each publishing site makes it hard to make use of the long tail I reckon.

    Also, wouldn’t VISA/Mastercard have to approve each site that serves these banners as well to make the card payments legal?

  26. mom..

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:04 am

    The day that I’m too lazy to click through a link to pay with money I earned working my ass off all day…Shoot me!…but cut my fingers off first and then torture my Gateway M680 right in front of my eyes…

  27. Jean Thibaudeau

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:06 am

    I think it’s good for small conversion, like a newsletter signup, but not much.

  28. Geoff

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:09 am

    The benefit of advertising on the web is the ability to inform people, in detail, about your product so they can make an informed decision they can feel good about. At least traditional banner ads take you to a landing page with some information.

    I just don’t think people will “impulse buy” like this on the web, especially if it is an item that costs more than $50 … unless it’s a very well-known product (i.e., iPod, popular magazine subscriptions). It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

  29. warren miller

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:14 am

    tz : re : VISA/Mastercard : Tailgate is PCIDSS approved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_DSS) by VISA/Mastercard. As the transaction is carried out by the Tailgate transaction engine only Tailgate needs to be PCIDSS approved.
    All the merchant requires is a merchant account, with someone like Worlpay, and Tailgate manages the transaction. Tailgate can, however, also integrate into an existing ecommerce solution where payment processing is handled by that ecommerce solution.

    regarding the site authentication, does comment 24 answer your question?

  30. Henk

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:16 am

    I love the idea. I really do. But you have to admit the questions of security.

    I know that flash can handle SSL. But how do you make a difference between the real banner and the phishing one?

    There’s certainly an opportunity here for the “next Mark Shuttleworth” to develop a system for securely AND comfortably authenticating these kinds of banners/widgets on random pages.

    I mean, if I have to click on a link in the banner, that opens a page that says the banner is ok. Why not just send me directly to the shop website?

  31. Chris

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:21 am

    Really cool, but frankly, it’s too little too late. With so many people (myself included) using adblock with a filterset in it, lots of people don’t even see ads.

    -Chris
    http://www.nerdcouncil.com

  32. mathew johnson

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:24 am

    what about a banner where people can input their credit card information without buying any product (and without all of the choices, shipping options, etc. that surround a purchase)?

    that could really streamline the process, i think.

  33. Reiver

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:31 am

    ..embrace change…

  34. tz

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:35 am

    Warren: The security issue comment was actually a question for comment 24. I must agree with Henk. Our company is also using “Pay per transaction banners” a.k.a. widgets, but we don’t charge the end user any money, so we don’t really encounter the phishing problem. However we do use user accounts/passwords and we don’t even allow the end user to input his password in the widget since we haven’t come up with any way to prevent phishing. We have a different solution for authentication.

    My question still remains. How can you ever prevent phishing in a feasible way if you want this to become a big thing?

  35. Internet Evangelist

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:35 am

    Been thinking about how they intend to roll out, I mean how their target market would evolve over time.

    Considering the other drawbacks like security,learning curve and other aspects pointed out by others, this should work fairly well for up-selling and cross selling which would help the eCommerce vendors see more sales.

    Any thoughts !?! :)

  36. Connnector

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:53 am

    If people say it’s a bad idea or don’t do it. You are probably doing the right thing.

    This is a good idea. There are research and impulse shoppers in the market, this will appeal to impulse shoppers. As for security issues, the same fears were present during the early ecommerce days.

  37. William Ryall

    July 12th, 2007 at 5:55 am

    Why are people so scared of entering their credit details? If somebody bills your account wrongly, you ring up your credit firm and it’s the responsibility of the organization to prove that they shipped the item or provided the service to you.

    There is no way of providing proof if you haven’t done that. But the simple fact that people don’t know this means they have a battle on their hands.

  38. Jonny

    July 12th, 2007 at 6:06 am

    Wait - let me get this right - We’ve been trying to educate the web users to only enter their credit card info on trusted site (padlock, https, etc) and we are finally getting to something approaching site verification, and all of a sudden we’re pasting flash ads re-educating users to enter the credit card info there??

    I think this is the way to go in the future, but the security issue must be solved first. I hope that Visa and other transaction companies but a stop to this potential security nightmare.

    I mean… 5 minutes on a flash decompiler and you’ve got an identical banner, except the cc info goes to your own server!

  39. scott

    July 12th, 2007 at 6:17 am

    Everything old is new again…

    http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=225381

    Sometimes things fail because of the idea, and sometime because of timing. I’m not sure about this one.

  40. Rebecca

    July 12th, 2007 at 6:22 am

    The only way I ever might use this is if it was branded with a trusted retailer like Amazon or eBay. Otherwise I wouldn’t trust it.

  41. Concrete Stain

    July 12th, 2007 at 6:34 am

    how does this get past banner blockers?

    - If paypal did this it might work; or atleast if it was paypal backed.

    - but “whatevercompan.com” can’t start this radical.

  42. MikeM

    July 12th, 2007 at 6:36 am

    @warren miller,

    I maybe trust whats TailGate saying about they are secured and legit but how about the some scammer and hacker putting bogus banner and asking the consumer to put their CC information.

    This is a good idea but the concept of securing consumer information might be weak.

    Thanks.

    MikeM

  43. Jay Tillery

    July 12th, 2007 at 6:59 am

    I don’t think it’s a bad idea. I think the better idea would be to register your credit card and shipping details in a secure area on their site. Then you have a password or some sort of pin to authorize your purchase. This way it’s secure and efficient.

    Jay Tillery

  44. Ebrahim

    July 12th, 2007 at 7:30 am

    Nothing innovative here.

    Besides security as already mentioned earlier, I think 80% of the banner ads don’t display products directly for sale. Take your ad banner for example, can any of your buyers display products directly that a user would like to buy instantly? No, I guess.

    A very very very narrow niche, that I think won’t be too successful.

  45. Thierry Schellenbach

    July 12th, 2007 at 7:51 am

    Well as much as I like new innovations, don’t think this will be going anywhere.
    Most convenience goods and impulse goods are simply not sold over the internet. I would love to get a mars chocolate bar from the banners at Techcrunch right now, but probably there will be some implementation issues.

    So first problem, lack of products. Not saying there aren’t any, but it is just not that common.

    Secondly the value of transactions for most impulse goods will often be pretty low. Again this is not always true, but it won’t be helping either.

    Thirdly there is a huge trust problem with buying through banner ads.

    I am not sure about security, but I think that definitely the website hosting the banner ad will also have access to your private data. (Not sure though)

    However this thing might really pick up for the market of buying virtual goods. Does anyone have any idea on the size of this market?

  46. socialmd

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:06 am

    Typical example of a “hammer searching for a nail”.. There is no problem here that this solution is trying to solve. If the user is a probably customer of the product he/she will be more than happy to click on the banner.. go to the site.. and buy the product. The extra few seconds it takes for them to get to the site is not a real issue if the customer is really interested in buying a product (even if they are impulse buyers).

  47. Dan

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:06 am

    Sorry, but I would never use this. Ever. It looks like a credit card scammer’s paradise. Who would trust entering their credit card details into a little banner box?

  48. Shelley

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:13 am

    “If people say it’s a bad idea or don’t do it. You are probably doing the right thing.”

    Connector, it’s a bad idea to go play tag with a semi. It’s also a bad idea to cover yourself with chum and swim with the sharkies. Have fun.

    This is a security nightmare waiting to happen. We just got through a bunch of security notices because of malware laden sites posing as legitimate web pages, and now we want to confuse people even more by building up trust in inputing sensitive information into a banner ad. Oh, it’s OK, folks — see that little lock icon?

    As for having it at sites such as Amazon, it already exists. It’s called One Click.

    If an ad is interesting enough for me to want to buy, it’s interesting enough for me to be willing to click through to and make a legitimate transaction.

    File this one under “dumb as bricks”.

  49. Richard Miller

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:14 am

    You see, the problem with all that is that people are being offered gazillion things they don’t want. If they were offered things that they needed at the right place and time, then it would not have been regarded as something intrusive and pushy.

  50. Fidel Guajardo

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:16 am

    To alleviate some of the security concerns, follow me through on this scenario and tell me if it makes sense.

    You are the website owner and have signed up to display random banners from Tailgate. On your website, other than on the banner, you display to your visitors that you approve of Tailgate banners, perhaps with the Tailgate logo.

    If people can trust your website and you tell your visitors that you trust Tailgate, then your visitors should also trust Tailgate. Moreover, if Tailgate trusts its advertisers then any random Tailgate banner should be trusted by your visitors.

    So the idea is to associate the Tailgate logo on both the banner and your on your website. If you visit another site that you don’t really trust, then don’t trust their Tailgate banners.

  51. Jon

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:22 am

    Perhaps every aspect of the transaction can take place at the banner/widget and the credit card process at a secure site. Wouldn’t that add value in itself?

    Of course, the whole banner/widget discussion is more then relevant…among other things because one wonders how these guys would stand next to people like widgetbox and clearspring who hold an advantageous position both in terms of costumers and distribution.

  52. Shawn

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:33 am

    I agree with #27 Jean Thibaudeau . Quick, low-risk transactions could work well (like newsletter signup). But I guess at that poiint we’re talking more about widget more than a banner anyway.

  53. Tony

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:34 am

    If it could be converted into a One-Click buy from trusted sources like Amazon etc, without having to enter CC’s, it could be get a lot of impulse.

  54. HH!

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:43 am

    And who is willing to buy trough a banner anyway?

  55. bdb

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:44 am

    My mom still won’t purchase anything on the web, and most people here are quite savvy and comfortable with the conventional way of ecommerce. The responses here tell of the acceptance issues ahead.

  56. Adrian Keys

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:48 am

    @Howard cott

    “I couldn’t agree more with the comments above. Whilst this is just an expandable flash banner with some forms in it, the trust element to get a user to enter their card details here is going to be a massive barrier to get over. IMHO banners need to evolve into useful utilities that do something the user sees value in, and not extend eCommerce into a space that lacks validity. This is a tough sell for me, and I can’t see it taking off either”.

    At a first glance I thought wow! However, after thinking about it and reading Howard’s comment I immediately tempered my excitement. He is right…the trust issue here is the big hurdle and I am not sure there is an easy way to overcome.

    Also, seems most tangibles would fit nicely into the program but what about many intangibles? I guess it would be the same old mundane advertising banners….

  57. Hashim

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:48 am

    I can’t see myself buying through a banner ad, but i would sign up for something through it. Perhaps the demo should show a user inputting their email address

  58. Adrian Keys

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:50 am

    Sorry Howard…that should be Howard Scott…

  59. Len

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:50 am

    Reading these posts, something crossed my mind.

    Evolution happens in small steps, and quite often is impossible to see day to day. On the web it’s quite the opposite for those that work hard at keeping up with it’s daily and sometimes hourly changes. I guess which is why most of read techcunch. As such in evolution the weak die, and those that adapt to their environment and thrive, are what survives. Business is no different.

    So does that mean tailgate is the final stage and the advertising holy grail, I doubt it. That being said, all of you people who read this blog are apparently smart enough to come up with your own ideas and if tailgate falls short in your mind, how would you change it to make it better, and/or start your own company and evolve the concept even further.

    You don’t have to post your ideas, but seriously think about how easy it is to doubt, versus conceptually visualizing what the next step in this process is. Sure there’s going to be failures along the way, but that’s okay because anyone that comes after the failure should be that much stronger.

    When some company finally comes through with a winning formula like google did with adsense, everyone will be saying how obvious it was all along, all the while forgetting all of the bumps in the road that brought that company to their pile of gold concept.

  60. Gary Gray

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:54 am

    Seems some of you are missing the point, that any given company could use this functionality on their own site. Sony could sell DVDs via a banner on their sites. Apple could sell iPods directly from the product page without having to go through the Apple Store interface.

    People will buy from banners on sites they trust.

    Also, this type of technology is also being used for the mobile content site http://www.bikinicocktailgirls.com to sell mobile content directly from a banner. Further, the banner can be syndicated, as I’ve seen it on a number of MySpace sites.

    Enjoy…………..G

  61. Michael

    July 12th, 2007 at 9:11 am

    Let me just pile on here and say I don’t believe this idea will work. I think it really demonstrates the creators poor understanding of how conversions occur on an e-commerce website. The one click from the publisher’s page to the retailer is not preventing conversions. To convert you need ALL of the following:
    1. Customer trust, which is made up of:
    a. secure website
    b. indications of reliability (bbb,truste,customer testimonials)
    2. detailed shipping/handling information
    3. detailed product information
    4. easy access to customer service
    5. a real phone #

    The days are long gone when just putting up a product and a price will lead to sales.

  62. Reiver

    July 12th, 2007 at 9:14 am

    When it is recognised as another secure method, I’m sure that many people who don’t wish to spend even more time at a computer screen will embrace Tailgate’s use. Anything to ease and quicken on-line purchasing/booking has got to be good.
    Others will always be wary of such innovation.

  63. rod / techfold.com

    July 12th, 2007 at 9:15 am

    USAGE SCENARIOS!!!!

    I’d love to see the use-case analysis conducted for this product.

    Compare tailgate to other advertising scenarios for example: when was the last time you opened a magazine, saw an ad in it, and called the company’s 1-800 number to order whatever was in the ad immediately? Likely never.

    More likely, you put that item on your list to look at the next time you’re at Best Buy, or popped open the website listed in the ad to learn more. i.e.: The ad drives top of mind awareness, and/or a comparison shopping activity scenario, and/or an information seeking scenario.

    CHAIN OF ACTION

    Advertising is part of a chain-of-action to drive a purchase, and consumer behaviour doesn’t generally call for or react well to the shortening of that chain. An ad prompts the next step in the chain - further investigation, or whathaveyou - this is consumer expectations, as well as need - few are likely to make completely uninformed purchases.

    My $0.02: this concept is due to persist in a marginal capacity without ever really taking off in a mainstream way. That marginal capacity may meet the company’s business plan goals.

  64. Shelley

    July 12th, 2007 at 9:16 am

    “People will buy from banners on sites they trust.”

    To be honest, I doubt they will. You’re all making an assumption that we can change behavior that has existed now for several years, which is that clicking on a banner ad takes one to a different site. That was can throw a form into a banner and tell folks it’s OK to type in their credit card numbers because you trust the site on which this ad is placed.

    What does this kind of ad save us? A second page being opened? Wow, what a bloody hardship. Golly, I can’t even understand why this natural progression hasn’t happened before now.

    You’re all assuming we’re breathlessly waiting for more ads, and more distractions, and more crap. Or that if we wave the magix(tm) Ajax wand over the whole thing, ads will become anything more than a nuisance. Is this the same philosophy behind the ads that fly across the pages and plant their butts in our way when we’re trying to read a story?

    How about the ones that tell us to click the bug to win a prize?

    Or the ones that feature annoying sound?

    Or the dancing ones that make me glad some sites syndicated with full feeds?

    Maybe like the creepy eye following ones, or that one that tells me to please, please, type something in, because it uses cool tech and can ’speak’ the words.

    What next? Scratch and sniff?

  65. Shelley

    July 12th, 2007 at 9:18 am

    “That was can throw a form into a banner and tell folks it’s OK to type in their credit card numbers because you trust the site on which this ad is placed.”

    Sorry

    “That one can throw a form into a banner and tell folks it’s OK to type in their credit card numbers because you trust the site on which this ad is placed.”

  66. Henk

    July 12th, 2007 at 9:30 am

    @60. Gary Gray:
    Making a flash banner that sends CC information to their own store is so easy that there would be no point for apple, sony etc. to order the service from tailgate.

    the point of tailgate is distribution. and that means the banner for the iPod would be on some other random page… that i might not trust.

    @59. Len:
    A dynamic content banner (much like the ones tailgate already has), that sends me to the store where my cart is already filled with the stuff I clicked on, would be a nice move. There I could check for all the things #61. Michael pointed out and make the purchase with peace of mind.

  67. bdb

    July 12th, 2007 at 9:32 am

    @Gary, do people really purchase direct thru OEMs rather than more cheaply thru distributors?

    Maybe for sweepstakes entires and other promo sign-ups.

  68. Grzegorz Daniluk

    July 12th, 2007 at 9:35 am

    I just wonder how much lines of code that product has. It looks like 8 weeks effort of one programmer. Do they really need VCs money do develop so simple product?

  69. Drama 2.0

    July 12th, 2007 at 9:54 am

    “There would be a learning curve involved in getting consumers to interact at this level with a banner ad, but it’s a small thing to consider compared to what this product could do to the online advertising industry.”

    Educating consumers and changing consumer behavior is an expensive undertaking. Many VCs go so far as to state that they’re not interested in investments that look to change consumer behavior. Tailgate, and the VCs who are looking at funding it, should look at the quantitative data that exists on how consumers make online purchases. Most are not “impulse” buyers. In my blog entry on Tailgate, I reference a study done back in 2005 which found that as consumers became more sophisticated online shoppers, they were increasingly prone to online “window shopping.” The same report also detailed that trust was a major factor, and other posters have pointed out that most consumers are going to weary of making a purchase through a banner advertisement.

    So the real question to Tailgate and VCs is: if all of the research and data has established certain consumer habits, why would a “solution” that flies in the face of that research and data make for a compelling investment?

    http://www.drama20show.com/200.....-deadpool/

  70. Czaries

    July 12th, 2007 at 9:58 am

    This is certianly an interesting idea that could potentially work, but it will likely be a long time before this is ever acceptable or mainstream, unless one of the larger players picks it up and starts running these ads.

    I know security has been mentioned, and the remedy that has been brought up is to “place a tailgate logo that the user has to click on to verify the website”. I hate to be so negative, but this simply won’t work. The VAST majority of internet users are not technically inclined enough to expect them to do this. Can you imagine trying to explain all these steps to your technically-challenged mother or father? The goal should be to ELIMINATE steps in the buying process to create a more “impulse” purchase, but the extra security barriers are actually CREATING additional steps for the user that will be harder for most to comprehend. Additionally, the verification link could also be faked, as most users are also not savvy enough to check (and make sense of) the originating URL.

    It’s a good idea that will probably one day be a part of the whole Internet experience, but the maturity of this will likely be over a very long time span. There are just too many barriers to overcome for something like this to be adopted quickly.

  71. bigpe

    July 12th, 2007 at 10:25 am

    Just want to tell, they are NOT the first ones to come up with this idea.

    It was already a topic in 2006:
    http://viala.hu/bannershopping/

  72. Mike

    July 12th, 2007 at 10:28 am

    I can see this working for getting more details about a product but I don’t think it will ever take off right now for buying an item. It took many years to convince people to buy off the Internet. They already hate banner ads so getting them to input their user information in them is highly unlikely.

  73. Alaska Miller

    July 12th, 2007 at 10:28 am

    Haha, this is one of those rare times when TechCrunch discussions is actually relevant, on the mark, and intelligent. All brought on by a bad technology implementation. Hooray web 2.0!

  74. Bill Hartzer

    July 12th, 2007 at 10:39 am

    I didn’t know that the word “banner ads” and “useful” could be put into the same sentence, but you managed to do it. Tailgate does appear to be useful, however. ;)

  75. Fidel Guajardo

    July 12th, 2007 at 11:01 am

    I like the name Tailgate for this service and makes good sense.

    A few hours before each football game at Stanford University, folks used to park their pickup trucks on the grounds around the stadium and popped open their tailgates to have a picnic/party. By popping open the tailgate, the party goods would be instantly accessible.

    Similarly, these new banners make the products they advertise instantly available for ordering.

    @comment 63 Chain of Action: When the product is of limited edition or a “blue light special” the consumer does not have time to follow much of a chain. The consumer must act fast to get in on the sale or product. Otherwise the product will be sold out or the sale will expire. It is especially relevant for very uniquely designed products in which the consumer is already well familiarized. For example, every consumer knows what a mousepad is, so for mousepads with unique designs, the consumer does not need to do any research other than to consider its design. If he likes the design appearing on the tailgate banner, then the banner saves him lots of time to get it.

  76. Blake Senftner

    July 12th, 2007 at 11:04 am

    I like #59 Len’s perspective. This is an evolution, and here’s one step.

    For everyone shouting “security issues!”, I just have to point out the new RFID enabled credit cards that are being pushed. No signature required, just wave your credit card near a cash register… this horrifies me, yet people are adopting these insecure new credit cards like crazy.

    It’s an evolution of ideas and techniques, and transactions like this will be figured out and become mainstream. Personally, I like the idea of something like an Amazon account that holds your purchase & shipping preferences, and the banner/widget simply facilitates your purchase with that stored in a secure place… but we’ll see… smart people are thinking about this issue in a “let’s make it work secure” frame of reference… they’ll get it right sooner or later.

  77. Ely fall

    July 12th, 2007 at 11:22 am

    To all the guys with negative thoughts on credit cards etc… Wait until they partner with paypal and see if they don’t clear millions every week.

  78. Viet

    July 12th, 2007 at 11:28 am

    Seems cool, but only time can tell if it actually works.

  79. Drama 2.0

    July 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am

    Security concerns nothwithstanding, if you’re optimistic about this service, how do reconcile that optimism with the fact that the studies and quantitative data show online shoppers are not typically “impulse” buyers? Even if your gut tells you that this is “evolutionary” (or even “revolutionary”), the data leaves a lot of questions. Why would you want to build or invest in a service that flies in the face of an established trend that relates to consumer habits? It’s like trying to herd cats. That’s not to say that technology companies have never been successful in changing consumer behavior, but it’s an expensive, time-consuming task that ends in failure a lot more often than it ends in success. Following the trend works a lot better when it comes to consumer behavior.

  80. AdvertiseSapce

    July 12th, 2007 at 11:35 am

    LOL. This is really funny.

    I get a real kick out of how someone packages a really old idea as something new, even better as the “world’s first”!

    This not new. I’ve been in the online ad world for over 7 years and seen different companies and agencies try variations of this many times. Hotel booking, flight bookings etc have all been done directly in the banner before. Even with credit card purchases. Yes it has been done. One thing I certainly remember is the dismal results. Do I thin this one will fail? In its current state I think it will. Nothing about their technology makes me feel like it is totally secure. Is this a potential concept that could work? I think it could. Some type of secure integration with a desktop widget or awallet that syncs up with the ads and confirms the identity and validity of the source might work.

  81. Jacob Levy

    July 12th, 2007 at 11:42 am

    Ads are pre-sell, as are affiliate sites. NOT sell. So you’re addressing the 0.2% of potential customers who are already actual customers (0.2% is just a number I made up, no factual basis). People (publishers) are just too lazy. So now we get this escalation where the banner ad is doing the selling and preselling. Traditionally it’s been the job of publishers and affiliates to do the preselling through reviews, advice, opinions, recommendations, etc. Is this an indication that affiliate programs and presell are a failure? IMHO hardly, for the 1% of affiliates that work hard and sweat it there’s lots of cash to be made.

    IMHO this is not the way to separate customers from their moolah.

  82. ggmike

    July 12th, 2007 at 11:46 am

    I can really see this taking off, especially for really simple and cheap items. Hell, I could see this especially taking off for websites that want to sell simple branded merchandise (like cafe press stuff).

    Yes, this does have some hurdles to clear in terms of adoption and building trust, but if they can build a brand that people trust and associate with buying things inside the banner ads, then this could really be the next big thing in e-commerce.

    The only problem I see is that it’s so easy to copy the idea… let’s hope that being first to market allows them to build momentum and turn this into a viable business.

  83. Jason Billingsley

    July 12th, 2007 at 11:50 am

    This has a fighting chance. Google is going this route, and we all know what happens when Google puts its stamp on something (yes, yes, they fail at some). I blogged about the new Google Checkout gadget today - upon signup they ask for permission to show you the gadget on Google.com (beyond just the iGoogle start page). See my post with screenshots: http://www.getelastic.com/goog.....ce-gadget/

  84. Stephen

    July 12th, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    Interesting idea but I’d rather see a “shopping list” widget that records all of the banners that I see and allows me to purchase items from there. I think people will feel more secure buying something from a more centralized or ubiquitous app. than some random banner ad.

    Also…would a website be responsible if the ads they have on their site connect to phishing scams? I can see a potential lawsuit (several actually) the first time someone gets their personal information stolen buying something off a banner ad they saw on a reputable website.

  85. Rockstar

    July 12th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

    NO SLL NO BUY! Why would anyone risk it. This will not work. But if the VCs want to throw away money they can throw it my way. :)

    Rock on!

  86. bdb

    July 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    I never realized, until it was a concept near to *me*, that leaving a story “on the top” of TC would make me so annoyed.

    Next please.

  87. Nemrut

    July 12th, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    ..this is an interesting take on the ‘impulse buy’ via the web. the only problem is with so much customer intelligence available about products(eg, reviews, ratings, prod data, etc), why would a saavy, money conscious consumer be inclined to enter credit card data w/out doing some research first.

    granted there may be an audience for this such as events or concert tickets, but for purchasing anything over $25, one would at least need to see ratings from other customers.

  88. Dabo

    July 12th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    Working in online advertising, I think I’m looking at this from a different point of view to most here. Personally, I can’t see why any publisher would use it. If you run normal display it doesn’t really matter to you as long as the banner gets the required number of impressions for your cash, why take on the hassle? If you are an affiliate, who cares about banners? You are going to generate better clickthroughs and conversions with targeted text/info on the site.

    Sure clickthrough rates have been falling over the years but this isn’t just about the banner. People want to use sites from recognised merchants they trust, comparrisson sites or the more savvy will use cashback sites. People are getting to know where to buy things on the internet or howto find their best deal. If someone gets an ‘impulse’ they can open a new window and find the best deal in seconds.

  89. kt

    July 12th, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    Also in online advertising….yes, it’s an old concept, but a good one. Obviously it’s a sensitive subject on many levels. There are posts from those who love it to those who use adblockers.

    The fact is that digital media is growing massively and facilitating transactions is part of the user experience. It should be discussed and solutions of security presented. Simply saying it will fail shows ignorance, or lack of conceptual thinking. Mash it up

  90. kster

    July 12th, 2007 at 3:00 pm

    I don’t know the demographics of TC readers, but my guess is that most readers of TC fit the early adopter audience/demographic so coveted by the advertising world…and to a company like Tailgate.
    From reading these posts, the opinions are universally negative about Tailgate’s potential. It’d be interesting to see how much adoption they get in the next 6 months to a year. It certainly will be a mountainous challenge given the fact that they’d have to convince/educate both publishers and visitors about the safety, security and potential fraud that would come about from a service like this.
    Perhaps future would be startups and vc’s out there should consider putting concepts and ideas in front of the TC ringer from now on to get some feedback from this audience….and Mike Arrington, if this becomes a service on TC, i expect to be compensated for the idea :)

  91. Rahul

    July 12th, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    Just because it is possible to widgetize ecommerce and seems technically cool does not mean this will be useful. However I am open minded about techies pushing the technical limit and coming up with nifty ideas like this.

    This could fly if inserted appropriately in the blogs. The blog builds the confidence and the ecom widget takes care of business. Thats a good case study.

    Rahul
    http://www.OblinQ.com

  92. Peter Cooper

    July 12th, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    I can’t see it working as a “buy from some unknown store from a banner” technology, but I can definitely see it working in affiliate type situations where, say, TechCrunch runs an “Amazon” banner that has a bunch of Web 2.0 books/other products in it, and I can do one-click ordering through that banner. That would be killer.

    Like most of these radical new ideas, once you tame down the radical parts, you’re usually left with a /workable/ idea.

  93. John DeMayo

    July 12th, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    ““Worlds First fully transactional web 2.0 banner system””

    This is ridiculous. Companies have been offering similar functionality since 2001-2002 or so. Consumers, for the most part, do not want this, and it is rarely effective.

  94. Jon

    July 12th, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    One small problem- where’s the barrier to entry? Give me a few days and I could build that widget. There’s nothing there that gives these guys any leverage- no reason why an ad co wouldn’t simply ask a few programmers to spend a week bulding it in-house.

    This is a good idea but you’d better take execution a lot further before showing it to the world.

  95. Simon

    July 12th, 2007 at 4:16 pm

    This is basically a widget that an interactive agency can create.

  96. Rhys

    July 12th, 2007 at 6:02 pm

    You can bet that someone has already mocked up an ad that looks exactly the same and sends the credit card number to their email.

    and this can be done by….

    anybody who can make a flash animation.

    (love the picture of a little lock in the ad. that PROVES it MUST be secure)

  97. chroot

    July 12th, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    @80

    I’ve been in the online ad biz for years, too, and this thread is making me chuckle. Nothing new here. Every time I see a campaign with form-based creatives, I think “horrible click rate”.

    Why would a major agency bother with this? They could just as easily implement a cross-channel CPA-based campaign using existing tech (Klipmart, Motif, whatever), and some really smart click tags that put people right into the product page.

    As for newsletter signups - you don’t need the serving fees that’ll surely come with this new form of rich media. You can do it with your own tech - either simple dumb HTML form banners in an iFrame, or using something cool with your existing ad server.

    This is a solution in search of a problem, and even worse, there are any number of better solutions at hand already.

    “Tailgate could well be THE banner advertising unit of tomorrow.” Heh.

  98. Jozian

    July 12th, 2007 at 6:20 pm

    I like the idea of using the banner for interactive information conveyance. With a banner system like this, you can actually draw users further into your offer and USP *before* the are required to click-through. Done well, this might greatly improve click-through rates.

    Unfortunately, banner interactively isnt new. The full transaction model is cool, but seems a bit forced. I would settle for moving the transaction further along and getting higher CTR. But that likely isnt patentable or fundable from a Tailgate perspective.

    The trust issue is surmountable, despite the flat earth crowd jeers, especially where the brand and/or site is already trusted, but the uptake might be way to slow for Tailgate investors.

  99. David Mackey

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:07 pm

    This is a great idea. Looking forward to its implementation. I’m guessing this is made possible by AJAX.

  100. Luke G

    July 12th, 2007 at 8:40 pm

    So many haters…I think it’s pretty brilliant. Wish we could trade Intrade futures on this one, or on all these startups in general. Duncan?

  101. Tom Lyons

    July 12th, 2007 at 9:32 pm

    I can’t see this working, it’s going to be pretty hard to build trust through a banner. an the item woudl have to be a hign impluse buy. There’s the whole scam effect, people will never be sure that the banner is really the trusted brand. If you go to Nike.com you know you’re buying form Nike.

    I hope they prove me wrong. I just don’t see me buying through this process.

  102. Gaurav

    July 12th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

    Idea is innovative but won’t work. Users can’t accept this on compromise of security. Its good for newsletter n all…

  103. Andy Huang

    July 13th, 2007 at 12:36 am

    Interesting concept. Perhaps it could work in the right market.

  104. Edward

    July 13th, 2007 at 12:45 am

    I fully agree with your insightful perspective, actually there is a similar thread at Frontier Blog
    ( http://www.hwswworld.com/wp )

  105. Jack

    July 13th, 2007 at 1:14 am

    I fully agree with you Duncan - this is a really big deal. I think that it’ll work really well, particularly when web users realise that the banner isn’t just a banner - it’s an ecommerce proposition as well.

    There will probably soon be competition as well.

  106. Michael

    July 13th, 2007 at 7:25 am

    I think it’s a fantastic idea. Before you crap all over it, consider this is isn’t a fully functioning product yet, it’s just a flash demo. They are still looking for funding, so it’s likely not fully baked.

    You can bet their #1 concern will be security and ensuring people feel safe putting their CC # into a banner.

  107. Erik

    July 13th, 2007 at 10:54 am

    @ Warren Miller, Comment 24: “When a customer clicks on the logo and is taken to the Tailgate site the HTTP site referrer is checked and validated as a site serving Tailgate banners.”

    Yes, it’s not like anyone would spoof the referrer, right?

  108. jackmayhofferr

    July 13th, 2007 at 11:03 am

    Who are these later commenter’s who think this revolutionary and brilliant?? Do you guys work for Tailgate. Seems that way. I’ve been in Online Advertising for a long time and agree with the majority of the comments on this post, there is nothing new here and nothing that can be programmed fairly easily.

    What troubles me is Duncan’s obvious bias towards this company. A few negative comments and you chime in with a lame defense that shows your lack of understanding of online advertising and consumer behavior. Duncan are you and investor or friend of the Tailgate folks? Sure seems that way. How about some neutrality in your reporting or at least some disclosure. Very strange that you would defend this product because you thought it was *cool*.

    TechCrunch stick to posting rumors about start ups and stay away from talking about the online media business until you do your homework and can actually talk about the industry in a educated manner.

    You ARE an online media business selling Ads, time to grow up and act like it.

  109. mathew

    July 13th, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    Ooh, a Flashblock icon. Revolutionary!

  110. ade

    July 13th, 2007 at 2:59 pm

    I’ll put my credit card number if it is a good deal and tailgate can guarantee the store’s credibility.

  111. skye

    July 13th, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    i dont think this is a bad idea, e-commerce aside, the ability to display an entire catalog, or appropriate pieces would be very useful. just in the sense of expanding the realestate you are able to present things. for me it would be to add itunes or amazon links for various cds, from one banner for a peticular artist. as most banner ads are very constricting.

  112. RJ Pauloski

    July 13th, 2007 at 10:36 pm

    This is an old idea.

    The concept was executed (with a real product!) by a company named AdPulse in August 1999.

    The banner sold copies of Thomas Harris’ bestseller “Hannibal” directly through the banner (with full ecommerce functionality).

    See: http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=187211

  113. Raja Ramachandran

    July 16th, 2007 at 2:03 am

    I am unsure as to how many advertisers would really feel comfortable in having all the conversions stored in 3rd party server(Tailgate)

  114. Girish

    July 17th, 2007 at 11:13 pm

    Brilliant idea - My take
    Security issues - can be overcome, - Go register in Tail Gate’s site with your CC and Shipping info. When the ad loads, you are logged into the flash banner and have an option to buy. Confirm with a pin number and an RSA token may be which is synchronized with tailgate.

    Purchase characteristics: Fairly impulse based purchases, will work for items whose transactional cost is bearable. I feel this needs to evolve further with the web savy user

    Strategic Impact: Amazon can do this. The advertisement provider needs to guarantee the Ad and the seller. Credibility comes from him. Give the right to the user which would restrict him to viewing ads coming from reliable sources or places where he has registered. This actually would shift the power from Online retailers to Ad/Banner Providers. Yahoo!, Google shou