Why aren’t ads on the iPad as clever as they could be? I get that this technology is new for the most part so advertisers haven’t had a chance to fully explore the opportunities available to them, but I think some stuff is basic. Let’s take a look at some ads in the first issue of WIRED for the iPad.

Here we have an ad for Tissot, makers of Swiss watches since 1853, showing us their trademarked Touch Expert watch. It comes with 15 functions! One of those functions is a compass. Another device that has a compass is the iPad. Wouldn’t this ad be a hundred times better if it didn’t feature that black and white photo of a guy showing us how to wear a watch and instead had a giant Touch Expert watch we could touch? We could use the iPad’s touch interface to explore those 15 functions. Nothing on this ad is interactive. You can’t even touch that link to go to their website like you can with other ads.

Here we have an ad from VW. The copy tells us they replaced that annoying middle back seat no one sits in with space because they made the back seat into two bucket seats and gave riders more leg room. That’s pretty cool. It might have been better if we could touch that door and open it, then go inside and see that roomy interior all for ourselves. Then we could use the built-in accelerometer to turn our way to the front of the car and use its built-in GPS system to find driving directions via the iPad’s built-in maps application to the nearest VW dealer. Gimmicky? Maybe. But that’s probably better than that less-than-intriguing tagline.

Here we have another picture of a car. This one is slightly better because you can play a video of the car in action. The action shows, among other things, blind spot detection technology. When you try to change lanes the car alerts you if there is a car beside you. Wouldn’t it have been great if instead of watching a video that told us all about their great technology they created a little mini game wherein you drive an Infiniti and  experience it?

Here’s an example of an ad that wasn’t thought out completely. This line is supposed to intrigue me, I suppose. I’ll be so intrigued that I’ll turn my iPad for the big reveal. Lets do that.

I can touch it! Great. I saw it’s not well thought out because the advertiser assumed I’d enter their ad from the portrait orientation. I didn’t, so I read yes you can first. I still don’t know what that means but it’s beer, so who cares, right?

Here’s an ad for an iPad application. Finally! This ad will be great because I’ll touch that obnoxiously placed orange glow button and go right to the store and download this app and be set. Wrong. You can’t touch anything here. And it’s on the iPad.

My 3G iPad couldn’t get AT&T’s fastest in the nation 3G signal where I was when I viewed this ad, which isn’t really their fault but it kind of stings, I think. The juxtaposition of “more possible” with no faint signal is jarring.

Finally, I saved the best for last. My alma mater, the university for creative careers, the one with the most comprehensive degree programs in film and digital media, created an ad for a device that can display 3D graphics, video and audio that’s totally static. Wouldn’t it have been great if this graphic were animated, or a film played, or music? Sort of like the magazine I’d just been reading did? Or better yet, perhaps the ends of those pipes could be dragged around the screen making it interactive, and when you moved them it created noise or played music.

I suspect part of the static nature of these ads has to do with WIRED’s technology. A lot of media-heavy ads would add weight to their download. I also suspect that they’re probably charging a lot for interactivity that takes people away from their content, since some ads do show more basic functions than others.

It’ll be interesting to see how journalism embraces new technology both for publishing itself and for how it deals with advertising.