how we have changed

Stumbled across a 1997 website that asks why internet advertising doesn't work. It seems strange now that the web was once a place where commerce was struggling, let alone the internet being a place devoid of advertising, but it once was.

The internet now seems to run on advertising, which is I think a good thing. Much like network television, internet advertising - and I'm referring to legitimate internet advertising here - plays it's part in keeping things free. And keeping it free keeps people coming back.

Not that everyone seems to quite be there yet. The Herald insists on seeking a fee to read the latest dross from Deb Coddington, Stuff neglects to place many articles on it's pages, key retailers fail to entice customers into the stores by neglecting to display product information - and those that do keep it light.

We've come a long way with online advertising since 1997 - but we're not done yet.

oh, deb

Just when you thought it was safe to read the newspaper, Deborah Coddington comes out this this bunch of trash. Coddington blunt analysis of the Telecom leak centres around her belief that

Thanks to the State Services Commission conducting its inquiry in secret, we don't really know what led to this extraordinary leak.

Well, we do. In fact, we know extraordinary detail about how the document got into Michael Ryan's hands, how he went about providing that information to his friend. Plus, given that the whole affair had to be balanced against the finer provisions of employment law, it's hardly reasonable to expect that a public trial take place before any facts are established.

Coddington continues with demands to know if

Telecom [was] asked if it received this information from any other sources? Were the phone logs of staff in the offices of Communications Minister David Cunliffe and other ministers examined?

Well - no and no. Telecom was only asked about the document and no forensic evidence was gathered, both answers from the State Services Commission Report into the affair. The next question borders on bizarre

Was there something the Prime Minister did not want to find? ... Which makes you wonder whether the Prime Minister wasn't quite as upset as she appeared to be at the inquiry's result. We still don't know the extent of Telecom's relationship with the Government.

Such as? Give me an example of how the PM benefited from the leak, how the leak changed the facts in substance or any reason anyone within the government would have reason to inform Telecom early. Considering that the Government had been actively showing it's frustration with Telecom in the past months and that the leak only shifted events by two weeks, I fail to see how there is a even a small conspiracy floating around this issue, which makes Coddington's accusation that the PM/the Cabinet/ministerial staffers are being blackmailed/bribed/bullied/fornicated by Telecom seem like she's complaining for the sake of it.