Forum Moderators: skibum
With the fervor of a newly converted teetotaler, America Online, which swore off selling pop-up advertisements in October, is now giving its users software that will block pop-up ads on other Web sites.
AOL Providing Software to Customers to Block Pop-Ups [nytimes.com]
AOL pioneered the often annoying but effective pop-up format
AOL pioneered popup ads? Is there any truth in that statement?
Pop-unders were pioneered by X10 (I think) a web-cam on NY Times. Pop-ups instead I think were pioneered by some adult-site.
Given that AOL is part of an old-media business now, which thrives on advertisement, I think this will be a short lived attempt to bring some customers back into the fold. When advertising budgets start overflowing again, this feature will become hidden, for premium paying customers only.
Also it will be difficult to distinguish a legittimate pop-up-under from an advertisement.
I feel more and more websites will have to go subscription based. "Surfing the net" will be a thing of a past, soon it will be called "melting the credit card". I don't mind a pop-up or two if it means I am getting free content.
Of course, I am a hypocrite because I love what products like Tivo and Replay TV do, but that doesn't make it right.
I really have a problem with pop-up blockers. If a legitimate webmaster wants their visitors to see one pop-up whether it be informative (some of my sites have informative pop-ups that are related to the sites content) or for advertising, it doesn't really matter. Pop up blockers censor what a webmaster intended their viewers to see, and considering webmaster's foot the bandwidth bill, they should be able to serve pop ups.
Using words like "censor" or "censoring" to describe ad filtering ignores the fact that readers, not Webmasters or publishers, have the right to determine what they read. The Web is no different from other media in that respect. When I get a magazine in the mail, the first thing I do is fan the pages and shake all the tip-in advertising cards into the recycling container. And when I sit down with the Sunday newspaper, the first thing I do is separate the editorial and advertising sections, dumping most of the ad sections into the recycling bin. Am I obligated to read all those ad sections because the newspaper wants me to? Of course not. (I have a right to click away to another channel if I encounter a series of boring TV commercials, too. Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if TV networks tried to make TV manufacturers disable channel-switching when a commercial was being transmitted?)
The best way to keep readers from blocking ads is to use ads that aren't annoying. Most people don't mind banners or targeted text ads. Popups, interstitials, and other intrusive ads are different because they take over the user's browser or screen (traditionally a mortal sin in the Internet world) and interfere with the reading or browsing experience.
As for "more and more" Web sites going to paid subscriptions, that's unlikely except for sites that users consider essential (such as the WALL STREET JOURNAL) or that offer material of compelling interest that readers can't find easily for free. Even if people were willing to pay for subscriptions, subscriptions would work only for sites that draw most of their readers from an existing audience of regulars. Subscriptions obviously wouldn't work for sites that draw most of their users from search engines. (To use a fictitious example, if you were a tourist searching for travel information on Springfield am Elbe in Germany, you wouldn't subscribe to Springfieldamelbe.com just to get tourist information for an overnight visit.)
Typically webmasters are only paid after their banners perform. Whether it be per click, per impression, or per lead. Where as tv commercials and magazine ads don't work like that.
So, as a rebuttal you may say that w/o a known circulation/viewership these TV and Magazine ads would not be sold, which makes it very similar to website ads...But, in regards to magazines, those magazines are paid for, whether through a subscription or from buying them off of a newsstand.
Also, pop up blockers eliminate the chance of branding and/or making a sale. I agree that most people dump out ads in a magazine, etc. There aren't many people out there that enjoy ads, people typically avoid them. But in TV or in a magazine you have to actively avoid ads. Especially in the magazine example...Even though people dispose of magazine ads they are still exposed them, which too an advertiser can be of value. But if all website surfer had pop up blockers there is no chance of branding through pop ups.
About "more and more" websites becoming subscription based...You are probably right in saying that only sites with loyal readership will be able to change to subscription based and survive. So, I'll alter my statement and change subscription based to a micro payment based website. A person who is going to a tourism site about a city is probably not going to subscribe to a site for $10/month as you said. But they could be very willing to pay $0.05 to visit the site once. I myself will find it annoying even if I have to pay pennies for most sites that I end up on.
I'm not saying pop up blockers are an end all to free websites...I'm just saying it is a significant step in the wrong direction...Wouldn't you be opposed to an ad blocker that blocked all images that were 468x60 in size?
