| 12:12 pm on Oct 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It seems to me that there are three classes of website contributor.
1) Information sites. Essentially non-commercial.
2) Commercial sites that are selling something tangible like insurance or software or cars or something like that.
I think we can all cope with discreet adverts to pay the costs (and a bit more) on information sites.
Commercial sites that have something real to sell don't use annoying advertising tactics on their own sites very often. If you have found their site they don't want to lose you.
That just leaves the parasites that are trying to grab a piece of the action without contributing anything useful. The internet would be a better place without these vampires with their popup adverts, etc. etc... I'm in favour of all measures that help to defeat them and if that means people/websites going bust then so be it.
| 12:21 pm on Oct 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The earlier argument about telemarketers loosing jobs, is a bit like sayign that better bank security threatens the bank robbery trade. Sounds crazy to me.
If hte benefit to society as a whole is les sthen the cost of supporting them then they HAVE to be cut for the benefit of everybody.
| 12:33 pm on Oct 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Intrusive ads spawn the search for alternatives, it will either be a blight-free source of the same info (your competitor) or surgical removal of the 'problem.'
TV: Death of the 30-second commercial [biz.yahoo.com]
| 1:02 pm on Oct 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
And what will the outcome be?
Nothing is actually free in the world we live at. "Free" content site (or TV channels for that matter) exist only because someone (advertiser) is paying some money to their respective owners (teams) instead of the actual consumers. And the actual consumers contribute with the fact that they consume some "stray" content (ads, commercials etc.) If the commercials are blocked by a significant number of consumers, the advertisers just stop paying to the sites (channels) and we're stuck with a paid access only (be it TV or a web-site) for the ones that do not get payment from whatever source just seize to exist sooner or later.
We can't change the ways the world exists. You want to ruin free information access - go ahead and fight the windmills. I wouldn't. If the site content is worthy - I will not complain about the fact that it is trying to survive. Nor will I use any tricks to make it more free than “just free”.
| 3:48 pm on Oct 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The comparisom between TV ads and these over-content-get-in-the-way web ads is surely about the "mode" the viewer is in.
If I am watching a TV show I am relaxing and generally switching off, my attention is not 100%. If I am reading a website I am task focused, tyring to achieve a result in the shortest space of time and anything that physically prevents me from doing that, even if it is temporary, is frustrating.
| 6:44 pm on Oct 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I'm interested in the idea, but the code generator costs around $75 & don't want to waste my money on something that won't work for very long. Is there a free way of doing this yourself? |
I received an email trying to seel me software that creates the code with some "ad templates" for about $80.00.
I emailed them back and let them know that anyone can get the code from DynamicDrive.com for free.
Just about everything has commercial today:
DVD - They are called trailers and come before your movie or at the end
HBO - The plug all their TV Drama Shows
TV - commericals of course
I have used the hover ads for a short period of time and did not see any negative affects. I made sure the X to clode was visible enough to be seen and the hover ad was not so big that it was annoying.
I think if used conservatively they are ok.
| 11:07 pm on Oct 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Nothing is actually free in the world we live at. |
Yes, that's why I would pay for a site with good content and no popups (any kind!).
| 12:28 am on Nov 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
---Yes, that's why I would pay for a site with good content and no popups (any kind!)---
Then the problem becomes nickel and diming ourselves to death by subscribing to all of the various sites that we are interested in. I regularly visit many sites, but if charged directly, would not subscribe to most, despite the valuable content. Choices have to be made - by owners, advertisers and visitors. Internet business models will be in flux for a long time as the many options and nuances play out.
| 1:00 am on Nov 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Personally, I am not totally against advertising, if a site offers free content there should be some kind of sponsors ads to cover costs. It's just that the ads shouldn't be that annoying! There are many ways to advertise on the Internet, I don't understand why advertisers insist on the annoying way?!
I don't think it's the most effective way either. At least on my sites the best CTR still get the old good 468 x 60 banners. Of course it depends on a banner. It's probably hard to create a really attractive little eye-catching banner, so they go easy way: create something huge, that covers the text, that is hard to close, hard to get rid of. That looks more like a spam to me.
| 2:48 pm on Nov 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Does anybody know what the typical CTR is for those nice creations. I doubt they are higher than for targeted adwords.
Maybe many click on them because they don't find the "close me" X or miss the X and accidentally hit the ad. But on purpose? I don't remember what any of the last 10 popups was all about, do you?
Think of shoe-shop owner. You open his door and he slams a 3 by 3 feet cardboard with a donut ad on it into your face. You'd be 100% sure he's gone nuts. He could, however, put some leaflets close to where you sit and wait for another pair of shoes. If you get bored, you might take one and read it. That's the way Adsense works and I like it.
If I get served a pop-up I leave immediately. Why? The site probably hasn't got anything decent for me - otherwise they wouldn't try to send me away at the entrance. The only raison d'etre of the site probably is so sell those ads.
| 8:28 pm on Nov 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Re: Hover ads - I don't think they're an alternative, they're a workaround which will be smacked down by blockers in short order :)
Re: popups, I really like popups (in a non-advertising sense) because they've helped me solve legitimate user interface issues.
Advertisers that pop unrequested windows (like newsletter signups... oh god, please stop) are really making life tough for me because they are causing all these pop-up blockers to be used.
Hopefully these blockers are smart enough one-day to allow popups that get requested through a click because that's really not intrusive.
re: the TV commercial thing. I'm pretty sure this is true in other places as well, but here in Canada we have to sit through commercials before a movie in the theatre. As a marketer, I personally really liked the idea... talk about captive audience, it's almost like you have them tied down to the seat :)
| 9:36 am on Nov 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ads per se have to be accepted.....all site owners need to make a buck or three.
Hover ads on the other hand are without a doubt the most annoying type of ads anyone could ever display. Popup ads can be intrusive, pop-unders are a cool mechanism IMHO, hovers are incredibly annoying.....floating around the screen like some packman game you just have to kill and often covering the info you want to read.
I use one pop-under per site, it doesn't seem to upset the users (most probably don't even know where it came from). A bit like watching a TV show....once your done here are our sponsors.....you choose if you want to see more of them them or not.
I would never use a hover ad, even without running a test I have to believe it would be fatal from a user perception point of view.
One of my competitors now uses hover ads on several major pages that you have to pass through. The ads block out the form you are supposed to complete.......go for it boys, you are shooting yourselves in the feet :)
| 7:15 am on Nov 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Intrusive ads spawn the search for alternatives, it will either be a blight-free source of the same info (your competitor) or surgical removal of the 'problem.' |
TV: Death of the 30-second commercial
The worldwide "traditional" advertising community says it is very scared of TiVo and the other tools to delete ads out of mainstream TV.
The reason: TV ads are where the money and prestige are. Paper? Pah. TV ads though -- that's sexy cash.
Anyway, the worldwide agency I worked was planning ahead and went so far as to hire an interactive TV specialist to start selling interactive product placements in tv spots and even interactive 30 second ads. Result: Nothing. No sales after a year.
Basically they were ahead of the curve -- as much as the traditional ad world seems to be fretting, the 30 second TV ad works for now, and is therefore around for the foreseeable future.
| 8:01 am on Nov 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well, we operate an ecommerce site, and we use moderate advertising on the top, bottom, and far right. We only have text ads, 486X60 ads (on top), 760X90 (on bottom), and three text ads on the right. We do not run pop-ups, pop-unders, or hover ads. A lot of ecommerce sites have advertising on them. eBay, shopping.com, Yahoo!, Amazon, etc. Face it; it helps pay the bills when you have a slow spell on sales. It also helps building contingency funds for future issues that may arise. I do agree, pops (under and up) and hover ads are incredibly annoying, and I do not know how anyone puts up with them. I guess it is something we would have to deal with.
| 8:08 am on Nov 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|We only have text ads, 486X60 ads (on top), 760X90 (on bottom), and three text ads on the right |
LoL, it took me a second to realize this, but you don't mean all at the same time right? ;) That would give about 2x2 inches of actual content area on a 800x600 monitor. Heh.
Good text ad writing is a serious skill that will be rewarded well, now and down the road.
| 10:02 am on Nov 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Oh, Ok - so 'many' of you guys wouldn't be really p*ssed off if Brett started running pop up, DHTML hoovers etc here on the 'free' part of Webmasterworld?
I wonder if you could use IP delivery technology so Brett could serve up ads to those who 'expected' to see them?
As RCJordan said - there is a place, and an appropriate way, to use advertising. But like many technologies - DHTML hovers are destined to be misused - just like all the other technologies before them - pop unders, pop ups, flash, and animated gifs....
I don't have flash loaded - so my pet hate - of all the misused and abused technology - is when I land on a site, and they expect me to install flash so I can see the banner adverts!
| 2:40 pm on Nov 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You don't want someone else 'improving' your surfing experience?
| 9:51 pm on Nov 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ads are fine if you can choose to block them out, like fast forwarding the VCR, or taping your favourite progammes to watch when it suits you, (and skipping those annoying ads :) )
Problem with the web, is it is still evolving so fast that I cannot seem to stay ahead all the time. I do not download flash, (so that cuts out some rubbish); I can turn off images (that spoils my viewing though) and I can now kill pop ups (and get that crude satisaction everytime my computer goes ping).
These DHTML thingys are just more INVASIVE again. Where is the blocker, Googleguy, have you done one yet please? I want ads when I ask for them, not before.
I KNOW they make me buy, and I hate it!
| This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 48 ( 1  ) |