In the early days of the Web, those of us trying to make sense of this new medium (especially business-wise) used to hear the phrase, “content is king” bandied about all the time. It was, in part, because there was so much emphasis on the new and startling technologies that the purpose of it all sometimes got lost in the shuffle. Admittedly, it was also a way to raise the value and visibility of content providers, to be at least slightly commensurate with the exalted status of the geeks. Everyone needed to get invested if this thing was gonna work.

Content is still king, but it rules increasingly by committee. The biggest web content provider is now the vast array of users themselves. Whereas once it took resources and expertise to disseminate information online, friendly formats like blogs, social networks, and tools like Twitter now make it possible for anyone to be a broadcaster. What makes any particular content valuable, however, is the degree to which it is embraced and shared.

Providing sharable content is already a new fundamental for online marketing. It starts with the notion that branding is as much about expertise as it is about image and message. Ideas and information comprise expertise, and can be offered in a range of formats — text, image, video, and even games, widgets and apps — and through a variety of delivery systems. It’s no surprise, then, when even the likes of Microsoft gets in on content sharing. And though it’s an all-too common hobby to bash them, particularly when it comes to their inattention to detail, here is yet another good idea that went bad in the hands of Microsoft.

In this accelerated world of ever-evolving modes of marketing communications, some traditional principles still apply. “It’s all in the execution,” and “the devil is in the details,” for example. Embracing new paradigms is not enough. Smart strategy is useless without tight tactics.

Here, Microsoft runs a banner ad on Wired, and right inside the banner is the offer of what appears to be a useful article. So far so good: Create expert content, share expert content. And from the looks of things, they are apparently making it very easy to get — my initial expectation is that I can download it right from the banner.

Except that I can’t.

These days, any banner requiring a click with the expectation that it will take me away from my intended location to where the advertiser wants me (which is not where I want me) is an enormous and, in most cases, unnecessary hurdle. This is naturally the reason that click-through rates are so low — not because people aren’t interested in what brands have to offer, but because a banner click means a redirect away from where a user wants to be. Inexplicably, this remains the behavior of a vast majority of banners, despite the fact that today’s technologies allow for virtually every type of interactive feature a web site could offer right inside the banner itself.

By this point I am intrigued enough to see how Microsoft’s advertisers are managing things, so I persevere. They haven’t quite gotten around to putting the download right inside the banner, okay. My next expectation is that I will be linked directly to the article that has caught my interest.

Foiled again.

Now, at this point, as a user, once I realize I am not being given what I was promised on that click (after already being disappointed that it didn’t come right from the banner in the first place), I’m out of there. I don’t hang around long enough to give the advertiser the benefit of my attention to try and figure out how to get what I was promised in the first place. As an online marketing professional, however, I am now rather amused at how transparently self-serving and cynical their approach is, and so I persevere yet again.

Amusing turns to laughable when after a good 20 seconds or so, I still can’t find the article.

Microsoft’s online advertising concern may very well be reporting impressive click-through rates on that banner. But I suspect the “brand impression rate” of bait-and-switch is just as high.