There is a line that can be crossed when advertising/sponsorship on a site just goes to far. Exhibit A from Gizmodo Australia for Commbank is below.
4 banners all showing the same message and animation and the side 300x600 doesn't scroll away on the page. It follows you down the the banner at the bottom. A real wasted opportunity that will just end up annoying the user rather than persuading them.
Client must be thrilled. "BRILLIANT, NO ONE COULD MISS THIS SHIT!" should be the media release.
Have a look at the the contextual ads on the homepage and the actual article page for the Suiciding Billionaires. Oh dear.
It's worse for the actual article page. The orange banner started with "What would you do if you had more time"
Note for all brands. I don't want my banner shown on anything related to death. ie suicide, dogs killing kids, war etc etc. It's just too much of a minefield.
I guess publishers will lose ad revenue and have to settle for a "happy news site"
On a side note: Also why can I only comment on certain news articles on news.com.au.
Howard calling shotgun to Obama's place = OK,
Babysitters Dog kills little girl = OK,
Guy with pants down on ski lift (very front page worthy) = OK
but suiciding billionaires = NO and
a driver arrested speeding and wanking (again front page worthy) = NO