Joseph takes issue with things that go bling, blink or ring on the Net.

Personally, I can’t stand it when people come out with absolute statements about what they believe should or shouldn’t be the case with regards to the Internet.

TV on the Web, branding or direct response, CPM or CPA -- these are but three common black-or-white arguments that almost always ignore the possibilities of the 256 shades of gray which exist in-between.

Don’t get me wrong. Having an opinion is leaps and bounds better than the non-committal on-the-fencers whose best attempt at “it depends” is so diluted and strained that a cup of dishwater would taste better on the palate than their serving of opinion tea.

So where does that put me? Actually, I tend to float from one side to the other, often nestling in at the median port of call (between the 128th and 129th shades of gray to be precise). In fact, the more time that goes by, the more I see myself perched as an advocate of “both”, as opposed to the positions “either” and “or.” I don’t have a problem with those who have strong polarized points of view; however, I do take issue with those who tend to comment without foundation, expertise and any credibility whatsoever.

Creative is one such example where ignoramuses voice their beliefs without hesitation or a second’s thought.

I certainly don’t believe that one has to be compartmentalized as a “creative” to best understand and articulate the various tenants, merits and demerits of the craft. There are countless marketers, agency media directors and publishers whom I would consider to be creative soul mates.

However, for every one eloquent activist, there are dozens more without any tenure, focus or aptitude whatsoever, who would do well to do a little bit more listening and learning.

With that said, I’m going to make a fairly absolute statement and take a pretty firm position on the subject of uninitiated audio (with one tiny “it depends” caveat that I’ll expand on shortly):

UNINITIATED AUDIO HAS NO PLACE ON THE INTERNET.

There. I said it. And by uttering these eight words, I have instantly polarized 95 percent of you as either my best friend or worst enemy.

Ironically, it is precisely the “it depends” argument that supports this claim. The Web is so many different things to so many different people. It is way too personal to be labeled as one-size-fits-all. In some cases, TV-like intrusiveness may work fine on the Web, even be welcomed as a distraction -- in others it won’t. My point is that it is way too hard to predict and damn near impossible to call on a one-to-one basis. So unless you’re comfortable with pissing nine people off to make one person happy, stay the hell away from uninitiated audio.

In earnest, there are probably two caveats when it comes to uninitiated audio. Both are squarely context-based. The first is a function of the type of site and specific makeup of visitor: 100 percent Flash-based sites, sites targeted or frequented by predominantly Gen-Y type audiences (actual or aspirational), and sites with primary focus on areas such as entertainment (music, movies, etc,) are all examples of notable candidates for slightly more liberal policies towards sound.

A second plausible case could be that the time of day or day of the week might lend a little more latitude towards making this kind of judgment call.
 
I do believe that in some rare -- and well executed cases -- just a fraction of sound can achieve the improbable balance of getting attention without causing consternation. But guess what? This is tantamount to giving a child a box of matches and expecting him to do the right thing.

In truth, we are fairly hopeless at doing the right thing when it comes to leveraging intrusiveness and figuring out the best way to integrate sight, with motion, with sound. As the market comes back, and TV ads continue to migrate their way onto the Internet, I fear for the mess that we will no doubt land ourselves in.

Last week, I was delivering a presentation to a client, and made the error of visiting one so-called premium publisher’s Web site live. I was horrified and embarrassed by the litany of pop-ups, clutter and one case of uninitiated audio -- video, rather -- for a certain Japanese-based luxury vehicle. The site, in particular, is supposed to be exclusively targeting the at-work audience, and so you can imagine my unpleasant surprise at seeing this disjointed smorgasbord upon my arrival.

To publishers: You need to be doing a lot more in this space -- spend more time with agency creative directors; hire a creative director if necessary. Take a little time out of your schedule to reinvest some of those function dollars into form areas. Don’t blame the agencies as owners or initiators of the creative. If you don’t like what you’re getting, reject it!

To agencies: You should know better. You need to be taking a leadership role here to set down a firm set of parameters, expectations and best practices when it comes to dealing with audio (with apologies to Clark Kokich, “shit that rings”). Likewise, if you don’t like what publishers are doing with their environments, put your money where your mouths are and demand that they clean up their acts. Or else.

To rich media vendors: If you’re distributing guns to the masses, you had better make sure you’ve done proper background checks on your customers, and that you put them in touch with shooting ranges to improve their aim and control, and self-defense classes to hone their instincts, senses and reactions.

Rich media guidelines are useless. Common sense guidelines will go a lot further in terms of stamping out unnecessary use of bling, blink or ring.

In the coming weeks, I’ll focus on several examples where I think audio has been expertly and intelligently implemented, integrated and executed. If you have examples you’d like to ante up and share with the Juice faithful, do your part by e-mailing me (pitches welcome).