Forum Moderators: martinibuster
However, I exchanged emails with a site visitor who described himself as new to the web and I mentioned removing the ads for repeat visitors. Their response indicated they knew they were ads, and that they never clicked on them, and thus was a non-issue for them. Even though this guy was a senior citizen new to the web, they clearly understood the difference between content and advertising.
That response goes against the commonly held belief that those who are new to the web are click-happy. Google ads are prominently labled as ads, and it's not unusual for them to display in promiment colors, despite best efforts of publishers to blend them with content. Because of those reasons and more, I'm beginning to believe that being new to the web does not necessarily make a site visitor more likely to click.
I work as an IT Technician and naturally my co-worker/supervisor is also an IT Technician. We're very computer literate compared to the general population, but apparently we are at vastly different levels when it comes to the internet. A couple of nights ago at work we were discussing a certain radio personality and wondered if he was even still alive as neither of us had heard his syndicated radio show in some years. I did a search and found the fellow's website.
The first thing my co-worker wanted to check out was a banner ad at the top of the page. The ad was totally unrelated to the person and wasn't even related to music of any type, let alone the type that he usually aired. It simply caught the eye. My co-worker had absolutely no idea that it was an ad.
Make of it what you will.
Is the question whether users can identify the ads or not or is it something else? I'm not "fooled" into clicking ads. It may not be helpful to think fooling people into clicing links is what internet advertising's all about. What a frightening thought that is!
Compelling, well-targeted ad copy touting something useful should be enough to make anyone click shouldn't it? If your business model depends on people being fooled into clicking because they don't understanding the difference between an ad or content your days are numbered.
Do sites that newbies frequent have higher click rates than sites for experienced users?
For instance, I know people who read unsolicited fliers that are dropped in their letterbox, yet when I receive them automatically I throw them out without even looking at them.
Remembering that Google clearly labels AdSense ads so they're apparent, not cloaked, it seems even harder to fathom that being new to the Internet somehow makes them contemptibly naive. Can it be that the derisive commonplace that Internet newbies don't know what they're clicking is exagerrated and not quite accurate?
suddenly becomes a moron when they turn on a computer and visits one of our sites?
Because some webmasters (present company excluded) are short sighted greedy asses. Hopefully we'll do much better with year 2050 technology , and the newer generation will understand our aging limitations better instead of labeling us as "morons".
Here's what I just wrote in the other thread:
it's getting wild out there and blending has turned into a dark art, lately Google is shyly discouraging 'excess blending', expect the rules to get tougher with time to the extent of disallowing blending all together to protect advertisers
One additional possibility is human's tendency to skip over and mentally approximate details (az well dcumented in a highly cerculated enail joke), and this is what over blending plays at.
The same way a TV commercial can never be confused with regular programs, there are instances where "Ads by Google" is not enough, the secrecy of pay per click is causing this, how many of your visitors know that you are getting paid for the click not just the ad impression (not our responsibility yo educate them I know), understandably it is underplayed to protect the advertisers and the network, but this is a gray area for an 'average' internet user who wouldn't care anyway but have the right to easily distinguish the difference.
Then there's the expired domains infection and trickery (but that's for another thread).
There is obviously money being made from all this, and apparently Google is trying to gradually ween itself out of that kind of business.
When we look at the sites we've created, we tend to see the whole page, and we're instinctively looking at the page as a whole, to make sure our navigation looks correct and the color scheme makes sense and maybe complimenting ourselves on the work of art we've created.
Whereas, a user who is is looking for something specific doesn't necessarily see the page that way at all. He's looking for information on purple widgets, so he scans the page quickly until he find the link that says "purple widgets" and he clicks on it. This process doesn't necessarily take more than a split second - maybe not even enough time to realize he's clicked on an ad instead of a navigational link. He just wants the purple widget.
Which behavior is pretty much why we make money with AdSense.
That bookmarked parked domain with the ads? Makes perfect sense to me why the person would bookmark it, if he found the ads on it relevant to his interests. Of course, the next time he looks at it, it probably won't be showing the same ads, but he doesn't know that. To him it's a bunch of links to information he wants.*
That's the way normal (non-webmaster) people think. We're too used to being on the other side to maybe remember that.
* Disclaimer: I have a bunch of parked domains myself
Can it be that the derisive commonplace that Internet newbies don't know what they're clicking is exagerrated and not quite accurate?
Not if the questions that I get in my e-mail inbox are any guide.
Maybe the same thing happens in the offline world, and:
- The NEW YORK TIMES food critic gets calls from people who want to book tables after he/she has reviewed a restaurant.
- The WALL STREET JOURNAL gets buy/sell orders from investors who have read the JOURNAL's company profiles and stock listings.
- Readers of ROAD & TRACK call up the magazine to schedule service appointments for the Porsches or BMWs that they've bought after reading R&T's car reviews.
There are always a few idiots out there. The percentage goes up as the traffic goes up. I don't think that makes them a trend.
> Whereas, a user who is is looking for something specific doesn't necessarily see the page that way at all. He's looking for information on purple widgets, so he scans the page quickly until he find the link that says "purple widgets" and he clicks on it.
Which is even more likely when Google matches the Adsense Anchor Text to the search engine query they just used to find your site. That's a pretty big temptation to click for many people, I'd imagine when the ads appear on the top of a page or are seen within seconds.
I think a lot of clicks are caused by the speed and laziness of the user. How many visitors would click less if they bothered to scroll the page once. (Where ads are above the fold.)
It'd be nice to see the results of a major research project into ad text links and user behavior (specifically Adsense links).
p/g
How many visitors would click less if they bothered to scroll the page once
That would also be depending on the site's brand strength. CNN for example is a destination and a recognized brand, there is almost no one that is "new" to CNN, this buys them user time on page and deeper navigation clicks. A less recognized site brand gets more ad attention and higher exit through ad odds, take it down to MFA and expired pages and you'd observe close to 100% ad ctr.
[edited by: Hobbs at 7:39 am (utc) on Aug. 20, 2008]
Every webmaster should go to church or get involved in a local civic group or join a glee club. That is to say, get into the real, non-commercial, world. It keeps one very, very humble.
There are (successful, fun, interesting) people who can't handle quite handle email effectively yet. The other day I was trying to set up a meeting and the people kept responding to just me instead of "reply all" as we tried to set up a time. ("I'm available on Monday after 7." Well, you need to tell everyone on this list, ya know.)
What is fun and interesting about the web is that many of the communication theories we have had for 50 years are proving true. For example, people remember the information but they don't remember the source. Or, people only read about 10 percent of the newspaper. (Dirty secret of the newspaper industry is that the average page view is just over 2 per unique. No, that's not true of the NYT or the WSJ, but overall, yes.)
We have known this for years, but we all pretended otherwise. You bought an ad in the newspaper on page B4 and you told yourself that you had communicated to the entire community. Sorry, no.
For example, it explains that I'm clueless as to what people want and need:
[nytimes.com...]
suddenly becomes a moron when they turn on a computer
I'm no psychologist, but amazingly, it seems, many people do not see what is in front of their eyes. I had been working at the coalface on the web for several years before the penny finally dropped that you can put large-type bold instructions in the middle of the screen and people still won't see them.
When I realised this, it really disturbed me, because it occurred to me that if people don't see what is in front of them when they are web-browsing they must also not see what is front of them in daily life. Instead, they have a constructed image of what they expect to see... and that is what they see, not what is there.
I think learning to exercise and pay attention to your senses and let your senses inform your mind rather than letting your mind inform your senses is probably like exercising to keep fit. You have to learn how to do it in the first place and you have to keep practicing to stay sharp.
I would think most people who click on Google Adsense panels never ever see "Ads by Google". Those who do see the logo, will see it regardless of whether they are a web-neophyte or an old-skooler.
[edited by: ronin at 2:31 pm (utc) on Aug. 20, 2008]
>> I once saw a person bookmark a parked domain displaying only text ads. They thought it was a decent resources page. I got creeped out.
confirmed: this creature exists, I have witnessed it in its natural habitat. They are rare and fragile and very important to the PPC ecosystem. When you discover a nest, do not disturb it!
I don't think clickhappiness has much to do with newbiness. Occam's razor falleth elsewhere. The propensity to click on advertisements has a lot more to do with whether the ads are relevant, visible, and offer the user what they're looking for. This may seem like the same old marketing blah blah blah, but it's true.
You won't find a more web-savvy user around than me, but I will click on an advertisement - knowing full well the economic machine running behind the curtain - when I'm seriously in the market for the item being advertised. For instance, if you show me an ad claiming there exists on this good earth a weed whacker that doesn't get jammed, I will click on it to learn more.
Even if it's provided by Goooooooooooogle.
Banner blindness is a separate factor, and the I-wont-click-on-ads-out-of-principle attitude is another. It's a messy soup of psychology.
The users that are most likely to click on ads are those that are most perfectly targeted, like unjammable weed whacker ads to a lawncare aficionado, or widget enlargement ads targeted to a microwidget support group.
By the way, I'm serious about that weed whacker
Can it be that the derisive commonplace that Internet newbies don't know what they're clicking is [exagerrated] and not quite accurate?
Yes it can, but in reality it is accurate*. :)
*It's a bitter pill to stomach that a whole lot of people don't know what is going on when it comes to websites and the Internet. Also, these are not people who are complete morons. Often they are 'accomplished' in other fields.
Once in a while we get this question: "How much does your FREE submission cost?"
That scares me.
So if a certain percentage of the population is confused by the term 'FREE submission' then I'm certain that a much greater percentage is confused when it comes to online ads.
Aside from that, I've many times been the recipient of the exclamation "Oh those are ads?" (referring to Google ads on SERPs). This from people who I felt were not mentally lacking.
If it was in my power, I would make that experience a requirement for everyone in this business.
Do it and you will understand.
Having tailored a lot of sites/pages to this demographic, yes they are click happy which is why these clicks don't pay so well.
But they're kids so ya gotta love 'em (and their click happy ways).
corrected typo in edit
[edited by: OnlyToday at 3:33 pm (utc) on Aug. 22, 2008]
many people do not see what is in front of their eyes
This was my adult epiphany as well. Some people see what is in front of them, and some people don't. I have the ability, for example, to look at a Windows application, drop-down the menus, analyze them and find the function I need that I might have never used before. Many adults who use Windows can only do what they've learned how to do by rote, they do not "see" the application or the desktop and therefore cannot use it to solve a problem.
These same people do not "see" a web page the way we do. They don't see the navigation, they don't see ads. I'm not exactly sure what they DO see, if I knew, perhaps I could build better pages...
Or could I? Is it practical to "dumb down" our web pages in an effort to get our audience to see what we think is important? Will those who don't "see", never "see", no matter how hard we try to help them to see?
A very large percentage of the "new users" out there are new people, that is, children or recently children. They have barely left the stage of putting everything in their mouths and have graduated to clicking everything.Having tailored a lot of sites/pages to this demographic, yes they are click happy which is why these clicks don't pay so well.
I tailored in this demographic too. Also participated in a large study about ad clicking behavior among children. The outcome was that they are not click happy at all. When children are on the internet, they want entertainment and hardly read anything at all. They did enough of that at school. Also they are more banner blind than most parents (proven by eye-tracking).
The only ads they click are those confused with content on very busy sites.
Most sites aimed (partly) at children, also attract parents, teachers, grand parents etc. Those are the ones clicking the ads.
Icedowl makes a good point. I've had inquiries from people who apparently saw a display ad and thought I was the advertiser. (It was the equivalent of my having a recipe site, displaying a skyscraper display ad for Auntie Widget's Corn Flour, and getting an e-mail a couple of weeks later from someone who wanted to know what happened to his order for a bag of corn flour.)
I get this as well - people who would like to order something from my site. I know instantly they are probably new to computers or the internet (and one of my sites would draw people like that).
I just politely refer them to the proper sites (in some cases I get commissions, but more importantly, I'll probably get repeat traffic or good word of mouth).
...participated in a large study about ad clicking behavior among children. The outcome was that they are not click happy at all.
Perhaps your pre-schoolers and toddlers don't click much, I really wouldn't know or care.
a lot of clicks are caused by the speed and laziness of the user
Yep, and we have to take them as they are if we want visitors.
Someone earlier mentioned the book, "Don't Make me Think". It really opened my eyes to what works in terms of navigation and much more. I've accepted the fact that people tend to skim, need to have the navigation jump out in their face and don't seem to have a clue that they could use my search function instead of writing to me expecting me to do the searching for them.
My mom (who I see as the stereotypical non-savvy Internet user) has about 6 different toolbars installed and uses the largest possible text size in IE. Her actual browser window is tiny and full of gigantic text. This means that half the time she can't even see the text telling her she is clicking on ads. If she sees a link she thinks is interesting, she'll click on it.
Also, for some reason, the background colour for Google's sponsored link at the top of the search results appears much closer to the background colour of the rest of the page in her browser, making it seem more like a standard link.
There is also, of course, the old argument of many people not having a clear idea of what "sponsored" means in the context of a link. It doesn't outright say "this is advertising". TV shows are sponsored too.
Also, the text is not particularly prominent if your attention has been drawn by the link.
