I can only guess, but I know that I run into more and more sites that have the dreaded pause ad. You get a full screen window with an advertisement, and often without any really obvious way of moving on to the main page of the site you intend to visit.
Banner ads don’t work because they are like “noise.” They are the computer analog of television advertising that runs across the bottom of the screen in soccer games, or the sponsor logos run with score boxes, etc. Pop-ups, pop-unders, floaters, etc. work because they get in your way; you can’t treat them as “noise” as easily. Most computer savvy people (I venture to guess 99% of the people who view this website and make comment) simply ignore them, or find ways to keep them from happening, but the world is full of chumps, marks, or whatever you want to call them (see, for example, information about the famous Nigerian Inheritance scam). And, after all, pop-ups, etc., are the analog of the television commercial. Without some method of avoiding them (like TiVo), you end up watching something you don’t want. Has this resulted in people flocking to adless channels (either broadcast or cable)? No.
Popups started out as bullets, or zap messages, that administrators send to users and or friends, noting a new event, shutdown time for maintenance, etc. Then business have the idea that these bullets are the best way to force the user’s attention. They started out on the Internet innocently enough, then porn site, especially those from Russian servers, made popups obnoxious.
Popups on network TV–now that’s inexcusable. That’s why The Weakest Link fizzled out after two seasons, despite being a great game.
It’s great to see that companies interested in getting my dollar are actively looking for ways to circumvent technology that I’ve actively placed on my computer. Nothing makes me want to spend more money on an advertiser than when they piss me off.
From a logistical standpoint, I’d say that it’s a bad, bad idea to circumvent the popup blockers. In many cases, people like myself have put them there purposely to avoid the popups. And in my case, if a website manages to get around that, then they definitely lose my traffic to a competitor who will not skip around my preferences. Losing traffic because you’ve pissed off a consumer by ignoring their preferences is different than losing traffic because of a popup that the consumer has not chosen to go out of his way to block.
What you (and others who have posted similar thoughts) fail to comprehend is that these ads aren’t intended to encourage YOU to spend. The company engaged in the advertising isn’t pitching the product to you; it knows a certain number of people will be made unhappy by its marketing techniques. But if they cared about that, telemarketing would never have achieved such a comprehensively intrusive status.
I say again; if it is being done, it’s being done because it works. For every one person who gets annoyed, there are ten who click. That is all the advertiser cares about.
And for anyone minded to note that telemarketing managed to finally piss enough people off that it got itself banned from our phones, effectively, I’ll just note that a) Telemarketing companies are making a comeback pitching exempt products, and b) we don’t know that we’ve ended the issue for good; in much the same way that advertisers are working their way around pop-up blockers, advertisers will try to work their way around the Do Not Call list.
I agree with the intent of your post, but I would guess that the ratio is more closely the inverse. For every 10 annoyed, there is one who clicks. However these things are so cheap to do, that one out of 10 (or 1 in 100 or whatever) is enough.
Multiply caphi’s sentiments by about a hundred, and you have my feelings on spyware.
I can’t believe there are people are there out there who think, “Gee, these nice ‘ntsearch’ people have infected my computer, causing it to slow down or even crash. I really should click on their link and buy something from them. I’m sure my credit card number is safe with them.”
Actually I’ve been hearing it since 1998. And pops command a higher rate now than they did back then.
The 5 largest pop window publishers on the net (sites that open pop windows to generate ad revenue) are AOL.com, MSN.com, Yahoo.com, Weather.com, and CNN.com. They are all huge sites, and will always be huge sites.
If you don’t like the pop, simply click the little “X” and close it. But allow the website that is working hard and providing you with FREE content to earn its ad dollars and remain free.
There isn’t a “consumer” in the transaction above though.
The web publisher is providing his time, effort and content for free, in exchange for for you viewing his advertising. You are benefiting from his effort, and consciously by passing his source of revenue.
If you so despise a pop window than you should not view any sites with pop windows.
If you’re viewing content, consuming bandwith, and deliberately preventing the website owner from generating the revenue the sites needs to exist than you are a parasite, not a consumer.
Now this is turning into a lecture on how I should look at the pop ups because the web host so graciously provides his content for free. But, that’s not the case. The content is provided at the cost of the advertiser; who, by what you’ve said, is going to pay for it regardless of whether or not most of us ignore it.
[QUOTE[If you so despise a pop window than you should not view any sites with pop windows. [/QUOTE]
Or, I’ll just turn the feature off. And if websites circumvent my preferences, then I will find an alternative to the content.
The logic of this part of your post is flawed; history is replete with examples of business strategies that turned out to be failures. Merely because it is being done does not show that it works.
Running tests to see if they will work can show that it works in some situations. You describe some such tests in your reply to Roadfood. Showing that it works in some instances is not the same as showing that it is a successful long-term business strategy. It is possible that in ten years pop-ups will be rare or gone. It is also possible that they will be replaced with something worse .
I point again to television commercials, the much more intrusive “pop-up” of the broadcast and cable world. They didn’t start out as 30 second advertisements strung endlessly through 6 of the 30 usable minutes in a half-hour broadcast, you know. Indeed, they started out as fairly harmless “plugs” that were incorporated into the shows. Kinda like banner ads, if you think about it.
Think about that the next time you realize that you allowed yourself to feel tickled pink over watching Bird and Jordan shoot “Horse” while in reality allowing your enjoyment of the Super Bowl to be interrupted by a shameless plug for America’s worst-tasting fast food.
As for those who are amazed to think that people would actually click on the ads; first of all, most people using a browser don’t use it for its pop-up blocking ability, but rather because it came with the computer. That’s why PecanSandy noted that there was no drive to overcome pop-up blocking software until major browsers started blocking them. So the technological effort to overcome such coding is not done to annoy you, the internet and computer savvy user who downloaded Mozilla to avoid pop-ups. It’s done so that users of Windows XP with its tied-in MSIE 6.0 using Service Pack 2 can still see pop-ups. As I said, the advertisers don’t care about YOU; you’re such a small percentage they simply ignore you.
Nor is this something surprising: retail always is about maximizing sales, not trying to satisfy every customer, no matter what the “official” line is.
Hey, easy on Cecil. I run two firewalls, a pop-up blocker, and all of the Norton stuff, and scan the computer about once a week for spyware, and continually find stuff. I have to be over that number by now, even as cautious as I am. (My kids use this machine as well).
Besides, he probably means his computer at the Reader, and Og knows where the hamsters have been surfing overnight (“Hey, Ed, who placed an order for pornographic Hamtaro comics from Japan on the corporate card?”)
Anyway, as Candy Lover mentions, the target audience is not US, the target audience are the masses. And unless the spamvertiser or popvertiser can have it proven (with dollars, not beliefs about good will) to them that going to unobtrusive ads will (not may, but will, guaranteed) result in more sales for the same or less investment, the incentive is to go intrusive.
This is pretty bizarre logic. You seem to be implying that I am somehow obligated to purchase from the advertisers of any site that I visit. Or at least that I am obligated to view or click on the ads on the site.
Sorry, but that’s just not the way it works. I have no obligation whatsoever to the web publisher. He made the decision about how he was going to run his site, what business model he would use, and what sort of a deal he’d make with the advertisers. I was not involved in any of that, so why do I have any sort of obligation to him? If the advertisers on his site aren’t making enough return on investment, then they made the wrong business decision. If the web publisher then doesn’t make a profit, then he made a wrong business decision. If his site then gets closed down, oh well, that’s the way it goes.
This is just wrong. You yourself made an analogy to TV commercials in another post. What you say here is like saying that if I don’t like TV commercials, I shouldn’t watch any shows that have them.
That’s just wrong. I watch a lot of commercial TV (too much), but I don’t buy Coke or Pepsi or any beer, I don’t drive a Lexus, I don’t have a cell phone, and I rarely use long distance. In short, I am little influenced by TV commercials, and I rarely buy the things that are the staple of TV commercials. In fact, I go out of my way to avoid watching them; I either mute the sound (if I’m watching “live”) or I fast foward (if I’m watching something taped). Still, I benefit from the free TV shows that they sponsor. Does that make me a parasite? Do you think I am obligated to watch TV commercials and buy what’s advertised because I benefit from watching the shows?
Remember, if enough people do what you’re doing then that content (web-based or television) will either disappear completely or go pay-as-you-go (as our fine SDMB has).
Not that I would mind if all the sites I liked went pay-to-play and TV went away completely (or just pay). I’m an XM Radio subscriber and have enough money to get my info ad-free in exchange for dollars. But not everyone has.
I am completely converted to Opera (browser), which is available for free (w/ignorable small banner) or for something like US$35…
One of the best parts is that it is so geek-worthily customizable so you can block ALL popups, just UNWANTED popups, or open popups in the background, or just let 'em all pop.
So I never deal with popups, unless I’m on a site that, if I want to get to an info box that’s formatted as a popup instead of new page, I can get that popup, but not the ones with overly chesty women or encouragements for me to gamble or lose the weight I don’t even have.
No, I have nothing to do with Opera or its developers. But seriously, try it.
>>>>
This is pretty bizarre logic. You seem to be implying that I am somehow obligated to purchase from the advertisers of any site that I visit. Or at least that I am obligated to view or click on the ads on the site.
Sorry, but that’s just not the way it works. I have no obligation whatsoever to the web publisher. He made the decision about how he was going to run his site, what business model he would use, and what sort of a deal he’d make with the advertisers. I was not involved in any of that, so why do I have any sort of obligation to him? If the advertisers on his site aren’t making enough return on investment, then they made the wrong business decision. If the web publisher then doesn’t make a profit, then he made a wrong business decision. If his site then gets closed down, oh well, that’s the way it goes.
>>>>>
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. You are certainly under no “obligation” to view the ads on the website. However, the web publisher is under no obligation to provide you with acess to his website either. There are sites that detect pop-blockers and present the surfer with a message explaining that the ads pay for the site and if they don’t wish to voew the ads then they may not view the site.
The web publisher is giving you his website to view for free. The way he pays for that website is thru advertising displays. He’s asking nothing of you. But because of pettyness, spitefullness, or whatever issues you have you need to go off on this path of righteous indignation and rage about clicking a box to close a window.
Also, my “parasite” analogy is correct. When you view a website you do consume bandwith and that bandwith has a price. It’s not like TV.
.