About a year ago, I blogged about how Pay Per Post was a bad idea. Here’s a pretty complete list of mostly similar bad ideas.

Takeaway for marketers: On the Internet, pimpin’s easy.

I was interviewed last week for this ClickZ article, but my quotes were left on the cutting room floor. No biggie, except that probably the most important point about marketing in virtual worlds got left there, too. Thankfully, though, Jay Goss of Numedeon (creators of Whyville) and Ian Schafer of Deep Focus touched on it in the piece.

“Unless you understand the behavior of the people in that virtual world you are going to come across as disingenuous or inauthentic,” Schafer correctly says. Goss takes it to the next step, noting that it’s important to give virtual worlders “something to do while interacting with the advertiser’s message, as opposed to passively receiving the advertiser’s message.”

Exactly. It’s all about what the inhabitants of the virtual world want to do, not about what the company wants the inhabitants of the virtual world to do.

Takeaway for marketers: If you’re an advertiser getting involved in virtual worlds , you need to be asking, “How do I best enhance someone’s online experience?” before asking, “How do I best slap my ad somewhere in that world?”

I like what Erik Hauser says over here on ChiefMarketer.com about consumer-generated content. The fad is slipping. The marketing waters are once again seeking their own level. And so it goes with every new Internet trend.

In his closing paragraph Erik notes that creating good advertising is still a valuable professional skill. In doing so he writes, “Great singers don’t come along every day, and great creative directors are just as rare.”

To which I’d add great editors are equally rare, and becoming more important all the time: With the virtually infinite content out there (consumer-generated and otherwise), it will be the talented editors who can smartly aggregate and package the best and most relevant content in a way that makes sense and, ultimately, makes money.

Takeaway for marketers: Many have ideas. Few have good ideas. Fewer still can recognize good ideas when they see them.

Here’s a Variety article about how the major TV networks are drooling at the potential for adding Web traffic to TV ratings to boost ad dollars.

I think it’s an indication that a raising of the bar is coming in a big way: Many more dollars spent by networks (and their advertisers) to try and create more engaging online experiences. Most will fail, a few spectacularly. But a few will succeed, perhaps one or two spectacularly.

There’ll be more opportunity for online marketers of all stripes, and that’s always a good thing. Fundamentallly, though, the dynamic of the Web won’t change: Users will continue to be in control.

Big dollars and big networks may mean big contracts for big agencies, but it’s the little guy, the end user, who fundamentally controls the success or failure of any online effort.

Takeaway for marketers: Keeping the little guy first and foremost in your efforts doesn’t assure success, but ignoring the little guy almost guarantees failure.

Bryan Eisenberg presents this very good article about Web copy over on ClickZ. It’s well worth your attention if you’re involved with words online: writing them, editing them — heck, even reading them.

Takeaway for marketers: It’s tough enough for professional writers to agree on whether short copy, long copy, this copy or that copy is the right copy. When everyone thinks they can write, and when so many people get involved in the copy review and approval process, is it any wonder that marketing messages get muddled by the time they reach the customer?