Shelby Bonnie - CNet, cheif executive officer - Interview

Brandweek, April 9, 2001 by Michael Schrage

CNET's CEO is out to convince corporate America of the Internet's power.

When CNet founder Halsey Minor proclaimed his company would become the CNN of the Internet, people laughed. Then, as the Net Bubble swelled to previously unimaginable proportions and CNet's own market cap exceeded those of its Old Media rivals, people stopped laughing. They went dead silent when CNet acquired its arch- and hated-rival ZDNet for 47 million shares of stock in July 2000.

Post-bubble, of course, people are back to smirking and oh-so-knowing "I-Told-You-So's." CNet CEO Shelby Bonnie is picking up the pieces of shattered expectations and valuations to argue that, indeed, CNet is supremely positioned to be both content-provider and commerce-enabler for the Tech Set and the Silicon Collar worker. He thinks CNet is a leader in moving beyond the banner and becoming a value-added marketing partner--as well as channel--for the world's most important tech companies.

In this IQ interview, the 36-year-old Bonnie--who has worked at CNet since 1993 (he was employee No. 3)-- explains why, even though content isn't king anymore, the CNet brand and its marketing-services oriented digital infrastructure will make his company more than just a surviving dot-com in the year ahead.

Adweek IQ: What do you think is the most important thing people need to understand right now about advertising and the technology industry?

Shelby Bonnie: Well, the most important thing is that technology, as an industry, is here to stay. There will be more money spent on technology than is being spent today, even though there are all these questions about the overall vibrancy of the technology industry. If you look at the fact that CNet Networks is the eighth-largest network of sites on the Web and we're technology-centric, it actually does speak to how important this has become as an overall category; both for individuals and in businesses.

I don't think anyone would argue with that, but one of the things that I'm bothered by is that the Ciscos, the IBMs, the Intels, the Dells, they should be spending more on advertising on the Internet than they are on paper. They're not, What's the problem?

You're right. People should be spending more money on the medium. If you look from an overall media consumption standpoint, what has changed in the last four years is that for C-level executives, IT professionals and tech enthusiasts, the most important place for them to get information about technology products is the Internet. People ultimately need to spend money where their buyers are. And if there is a conclusion today, it's that the buyers are on the Internet.

There are a lot of different factors that probably have not allowed people to capitalize, or be as effective as they should be. You look at the IAB standards that were created in 1996 and you ask, in an industry with lots and lots and lots of change, why haven't they changed? And the IAB standards, until recently, had not changed. So here we are, while we've had a lot of data change, technology change, the formats have not changed.

We would all agree the basic banner is limited in its ability to do effective messaging. It can, however, be very effective if you think of it as in-store signage. And irrespective of whether people click on our services like CNet or ZDNet, they're of high value. If you can get someone walking down an aisle looking to buy a product and say, "Compaq is great," that is of enormous value.

Is the issue the format? Banners created with Flash may just cause more confusion. There are only certain things you can do in terms of "eye candy."

We have to remember how people use the Internet. People don't say, "Gosh, I have an hour to spend. I think I'm going to go around and check things out." It's a medium that's used with purpose. People are reading something, looking up something, buying something, researching something. So the idea of putting an ad banner at the top of the page is saying, "I know you came to read this news story, but I am now asking you to leave and you won't be able to read the story." You create a great impediment to people clicking on the ads. Part of the environmental problem was that we created ads that were somewhat inconsistent with the way people wanted to use the medium.

Think of another medium--the Yellow Pages--where, again, you go with purpose. You don't just sit around and thumb through the Yellow Pages for the fun of it. Ads in this environment are highly useful, and the notion of context is that much more important. Seeing ads about pizza parlors in the restaurants section makes sense to you. If you put ads for car dealers in the pizza parlor section, it would not make sense. You've got to create ad programs that are consistent with how people use a medium. One of the big benefits of content sites is their ability to provide contextual environments. A lot of the criticism of online advertising relates to run-of-site, noncontextual banners.

Let me give you an alternate analysis. You guys are a focused site. For all intents and purposes, I still can't tell whether the purpose of an ad is to a) create awareness; b) build brand; c) give lead-generation; or d) some combination of the above. And I think there's been a worst-of-both-worlds situation. Content sites are so Intent on selling ads as a unit of space that those questions about awareness, brand and lead-generation have been subordinated to your sales efforts, and the companies dealing with ad agencies can't decide whether the brand people or the direct people should be the point people.