There's been some whispers around the blogosphere that an ad network is talking about engaging their publisher partners (read: bloggers) in takeover advertising.

What is it?

According to a recent email some bloggers received, the ad network describes it as this:

There is a lot of interest from some of our largest advertisers in what the industry calls “site takeover” ads.  These are a much more dramatic ad product than we have ever sold, and I’m hoping to gauge your interest in running these types of ads.

Basically, the advertiser would buy up all the ad space on your site, and would ask that your site’s background was changed for the campaign.  I realize this is pretty extreme, and would probably be for short bursts – a day, a week, something like that.

Oy.

For some sites this might make sense.  Photobucket does this from time to time and I think it works.  But Photobucket is a tool I use for storing photos and resizing them after making them pretty in Picnik.

I don't know about you, but I'm not a tool.

(I KNOW I'm setting myself up for some snarky comments on that one but hopefully you see the point I'm trying to make).

Here's my take on it:

• I'd have to really love a product A LOT to do something like this.  While it's not the same as tattooing a brand's logo to my forehead, it's pretty darn close.


• This would severely limit my ability to diversify my sources of ad income revenue because it'd be a hard sell to anyone else that wants to advertise on my site.  This goes beyond traffic assignment and above the fold...normal expectations when working with an ad network.


• What about new visitors to my blog?  Depending on the ad takeover campaign, will they mistake my site for something owned by the brand I'm advertising?


• My own brand integrity.  I've worked hard to build my brand, even if I only traded my own brand equity for another large brand for a day, would it be worth it?

And I guess the big question is...what amount of money would it have to be to do something as drastic as this?  It'd have to be more than a CPM deal for me because I'm taking a risk with my brand.  After the campaign, my brand will still be there along with any fall-out from doing it.

My Twitter profile background?  Heck yeah, I'll sell advertising on that, but if a brand asked to put their logo in place of my avatar photo on Twitter?  Forget about it.

It comes down to personal brand identity.

This morning I was tweeting about how posing for Playboy doesn't get one's foot in the door to being a Hollywood starlet.  And what I meant by that is that turning over all that you have, brand-wise, for a big splash isn't going to give you the big personal brand recognition you've worked hard on.  Think about it.  The few Playboy models that have become actresses?  There's always a mention of the bunny ears without fail, even years after their centerfold debut.

I won't knock others for trying it, especially if the income is life-changing.  We've all got families to feed.  But I definitely think there are lots of points to consider.  More than I've listed here.  And I'd love to have a constructive conversation about it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A Talk About Social Advertising - Performance Vs. Brand (blonde2dot0.com)


• Pricing, WOM, PR Efforts Get Recession Boost (marketingvox.com)


• Branded Entertainment Panel SXSW (dailymarauder.com)


• BuzzLogic's New Advertising Dashboard Will Help You Find the Honey (marketingpilgrim.com)


• Personal Brand Equity: What's it worth? (socialmediatoday.com)


• Meebo Turns Into One Big Ad, But Users Seem To Like It (techcrunch.com)