According to a report from the New York Times, the next phase of Microsoft's latest ad campaign is set to begin -- sans Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld. Apparently, the new ads do away with the unusual (and somewhat ill-received) banter and "real life" experiences of the two celebrities, and trade them for an earnest embrace of... Apple's "PC" character. Apparently, one of the new ads even begins with a John Hodgman lookalike stating, "Hello, I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype." Beyond the flip on a rival's depiction of its brand, the campaign will feature cameos from Eva Longoria, Deepak Chopra, Pharrell Williams, and even Gates -- though Seinfeld doesn't make the cut.

While we're curious to see what the company cooks up in the new ads, it does strike us as somewhat odd that the supposed narrative Microsoft was establishing with Gates and Seinfeld has abruptly been abandoned in favor of these new spots. Is this a decision which was made long ago, or did the largely negative / confused reaction to the last set of ads force the company's hand? We only have its official statement to go on: "We will be executing the second phase of our advertising campaign tomorrow, as planned from the start." [From: NY Times]

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

Whoa, whoa. Wait a minute. Is this report really saying that those obnoxiously loud used car commercials aren't any louder than the programs they accompany? In fact, yes. Tom Feran has taken the time to actually explain how loudness works in television here in the US, and the resulting report is pretty fascinating.

In essence, a typical drama will have moments of loudness and moments of quiet, and commercials that follow the show have to respect the same maximum as the show. However, unlike the program, commercials can simply max out the volume from start to finish, causing a "perceived" or "inconsistent" loudness that's just barely lawful.

As you well know, British regulators are stepping in to make sure no ad is "excessively noisy or strident," but the situation in America could get worse post-2009. You see, digital broadcasts have a wider dynamic range (or loudness spectrum), leaving more room for annoying salespeople to totally invade your eardrum. Nevertheless, the article linked below is a must-read for anyone who has ever been enraged by a "ridiculously loud commercial." [Source: Cleveland.com]

[Image courtesy of Derrick Logan]

As you may have noticed, much of the content you devour is free -- Including this site you're reading right now. But while no one is asking you to buy this article or pay a subscription fee for the site, you are paying for the content in another way by looking at advertisements.

A debate has been building slowly in the far corners of the Internet over a little plug-in for the popular Firefox browser. The extension in question is Adblock Plus, a bit of code that filters out most advertisements on Web sites so the user can browse without being bombarded with product pitches. The debate is really starting to heat up as Firefox's popularity with Web surfers continues to grow (along with the popularity of Adblock Plus).

The question at hand is whether or not it is moral to block ads on sites that rely on advertisements to stay alive. Noam Cohen of the New York Times rightfully points out that if Firefox and Adblock became popular with the masses, they would pose a great threat to the online advertising business model. Other folks have questioned the legality of the extension -- though from a rather feeble copyright infringement angle. The argument is that by displaying a page without ads, Firefox is creating an unauthorized derivative of the original work. Like we said, it's a pretty weak case. The more convincing argument comes from the economic side. If users start blocking advertisements, then how will many smaller Web sites that rely on ad revenue continue to remain in business? Some of the more vocal champions of this side of the debate have actually begun blocking FireFox users from accessing their sites at all -- AdBlock or no AdBlock.

While there are several strong arguments against using Adblock Plus from an economic perspective, they are premature. Adblock is only used by a portion of FireFox users, and Firefox is still only used by a minority of Internet users (roughly 15 percent). These users tend to be very tech and Internet savvy -- not the kind that is likely to click on advertising, anyway (which is how many advertising networks utilized by the smaller sites are monetized).

These tactics to avoid advertising are little different than fast forwarding through commercials, or just walking out of the room during the advertising breaks on television. However, there is potential for problems. If Internet surfers block ads, then companies will stop buying advertising space. Less demand for ads will drive down the costs of Web advertising, which means less revenue. Less revenue means there will eventually be fewer places in business, and therefore fewer places to visit online.

In the end, perhaps many advertisers can take a cue from Google. Adblock Plus is born out of frustration with pop-ups, noisy seizure-inducing flash banners, and full-page ads that delay access to Web sites. However, few people complain about Google's minimally-invasive AdSense text ads. In fact, even the creator of Adblock Plus, Wladimir Palant, told the New York Times that he found Google's ads 'useful and unobtrusive.' The simple text boxes have almost singlehandedly built Google's unfathomably deep war chest. If text-only boxes have made Google richer than most third world countries, then why do we need those screeching Smack the Monkey banners? Surfers and advertisers will have to come to some kind of truce, or we'll just have to get used to a different, less-appealing business model: paying to visit sites.

Further Reading:

• Why Adblock is Bad for the 'Free' Internet
• The Morality of Blocking Ads

Related Links:

• Has YouTube Already Halted Video Ads?
• Apple Pulls "You Can't Be Too Thin" Ads