Are popups effective marketing?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
41

I have no problem with this. It’s the owner’s website, he’s entitled to put whatever restrictions on it that he wants.

I think you may have me confused with other posters. I don’t believe I’ve expressed any “righteous indignation”. I’ve expressed my opinion that I don’t like popup ads. And I feel totally within my rights to make use of whatever means or technology exists that helps me avoid them. Just as I use the mute button on my remote to avoid listening to TV commercials, and the fast forward button to avoid watching commercials. I have no guilt about using those, nor about using popup blockers, nor do I feel like a parasite in either case.

I still don’t see it. I have made no agreement with the website owner to view or click on any ads on his site. He puts up the site, ad-supported, knowing full well that many visitors to his site won’t contribute to his ad revenue. That’s just the way it works. As you say above, if he doesn’t like that or if he’s not making enough profit, he’s free to change his business model. It is not any different from TV. Running a TV station costs money. Many viewers get a free ride by watching and not contributing to the ad revenues. There’s nothing parsitical about it with TV or with websites.

I sell software, but I fail to see what relevance that has.

42

Your “parasite” analogy is not correct in any way. What people fail to understand is the actual business transaction involved. It is the same transaction that is involved in broadcast commercial television.

ABC, for example, is not in the television business. ABC is in the business of providing an outlet for advertisers to have their advertisements viewed by people. It accomplishes this goal by buying or producing content that it broadcasts, to which advertisers append their commercials. ABC sells to advertisers the broadcast time. ABC makes more money when it can promise more viewers.

You, as a viewer, have no commercial relationship with ABC. But if ABC cannot guarantee that millions of viewers are watching its telecasted commercials, then ABC cannot sell advertising “space” to companies, which would mean it can’t pay its bills without another funding source.

Cable TV originally started out with a number of channels attempting to do just that; fund their provision of content with another source. HBO, for instance, charged viewers to watch the content. Other channels charge the cable companies to show the channel; in return the cable company charges you to watch cable TV. In many cases, this results in reduced amounts of advertising or the complete lack of advertising.

In the case of commercial TV, the viewer is hardly a parasite.

The internet is similar, but not identical. Just as television was originally something broadcast not for the purpose of selling advertisements, but for the purpose of allowing viewers to watch an art form, so the Web is still a place where a large amount of the content is there simply because someone wants to make it available. So in viewing said content, you are not a parasite; you are the intended user of the product. But provision of such content has a cost; when that cost becomes significant enough, someone has to pay it. Assuming the web site owner isn’t willing to pay it, then either the web site owner charges people to view it, or the web site owner charges someone to allow them to put content on the web site for viewing. These are the analogs to pay and commercial TV. And just as with commercial TV, if the provider of the content can’t get the cost paid for through guaranteeing the advertiser that people will view the advertisements, then another funding source will be required.

43

>>>>
I sell software, but I fail to see what relevance that has.
>>>>

Neither of us want to beat our heads against the wall.
You repeatedly use and enjoy the work of others, causing them a quantifiable, hard, expence every time you do so, and choose to make a conscious effort to avoid giving them any type of reward for their work, even though giving them the reward would cost you nothing. And your response to this spiteful behaviour is “well, if he goes out of business so be it.”

I choose to make a copy of the software you sell and give it to my friends. And if you go out of business, well, so be it." I didn’t think it was worth the $99.99 anyways.
And isn’t the world a nicer place when we all act with spite and disdain for others. :smack:

44

There is a pretty easy to understand difference between attempting to avoid annoying marketing techniques and conciously breaking the law to avoid paying for intellectual property. :smack:

45

Do you really and truly – honestly now – believe that those two situations are the same, or are you just trying to make a point? Do I really need to explain that when you download my software it comes with a licensing agreement that has the force of law and that said license makes it a criminal offense to use the software beyond the trial period without paying for it? So when you download and start to use my software, you have voluntarily entered into a legally binding contract – a contract between you and me – that explicitly spells out your rights and your obligations.

When I visit a website that the web owner has chosen to make open to the public, and has chosen to attempt to make his profit from that site by use of popup advertising, there is no contract between me and the site owner. I have had to agree to nothing in order to have the right to visit his website. Therefore, if I use a popup blocker I have not broken any law and I have not even broken the “spirit” of the agreement between myself and the website owner, because there is no agreement beween myself and the website owner. He made the choice to put up his website allowing free access and to use popups. I never agreed to anything, legally or ethically or “in spirit”. So by blocking his popups, I am perfectly within my rights, legally, ethically, and in spirit.

Now, if the website has an opening page that says something to the effect of “If you proceed beyond this point, you agree to not use a popup blocker”, that would be different. While some could question the legality of such a stipulation, I would agree that if I proceeded into the website with my popup blocker in place, I would at least be in ethical violation. The website owner has given me a choice to either agree to his terms or not, and so to use the website but not adhere to the terms would be unethical.

Do you see the difference?

You brought up the TV analogy, and have been ignoring it ever since. I’ll ask the question directly: What is the difference between watching TV and muting the commercials, and visiting a website and blocking the popup ads?

I’m not acting with any spite or disdain, it’s clearly quite the opposite. Those who make the choice to use popup advertising are acting with disdain for those who don’t like them. As I believe you (or perhaps some other poster) have said, they make the choice to accept that their mode of advertising will annoy and chase away some potential customers; they believe that the gains from that form of advertising will outweigh the losses. That’s their choice, they’re free to make it. But it’s also my choice as to whether I fall into the gain or loss column.

46

The comparison will be better justified if you can show that pop-ups will still be around 35 years from now. TV ads have the advantage of a longer track record. How you know pop-ups won’t go the way of those relatively harmless “plugs” and be replaced by a more effective marketing tool in the future is a mystery to me.

Don’t get my message wrong: you may be right and pop-ups may be here to stay; but they may also vanish. 100% faith in them doesn’t seem justified.

I couldn’t agree with you more. I just wish their ignoring me made it easy for me to ignore them! :smiley:

47

I thought of something else. It’s interesting that you should make the above statement because, in reality, that’s just what you’re doing by engaging in marketing via popup ads. The reality is that a large number of people find popups annoying. That’s just a fact, and you’ll never be able to change that fact. If there is data to show that sufficiently more people use them than find them annoying to make them profitable, I can’t argue with that. But for you to get on this highhorse and try to convince me that I somehow don’t have the right to be annoyed at popups, that I don’t have the right to avoid them when possible, well that’s just not right. By having that opinion, that we who avoid popups somehow don’t have the right to do so and we’re being parasites, you’re are, in fact, beating your head against the wall. You’ll never change the fact that popups annoy some people. You can either accept that annoyance as part of the cost of that way of doing business, or you can change that way of doing business. But you can’t change that some people don’t like that way of doing business.

48

Roadfood,

You need to step back and take a deep breath. You, and CandyLover, keep takling about that the website owner has no “right” and you have no “obligation” etc. I never mentioned anywhere about anyones rights or obligations, take a moment and scan thru my old posts if you like…

First, there is a difference between skipping a commercial on TV and blocking a pop on a website. The website owner incurrs a specific, quantifable bandwith cost for every visitor to their site.

Second, As I repeatedly state, but everyone lets their righteous indignation carry them away before they comprehend, is that the website owner is providing you with his website and content and bandwith for FREE, and all he asks back is for you to view his ads. It’s not costing you anything, it’s the respectful, polite, and courteous thing for you to do, and it keeps the site in business so it can keep producing the content you enjoy. So why begrudge the website operator his 2 1/100’s of a penny? You like the site, help keep it running!

Let’s come up with another analogy:

Every day on your way to work there is a table and it has a big basket of fresh apples on it. The apples are there from a group of schoolkids raising money for a class trip. The sign next to the basket says:
If you’d like to take an apple, please leave a small donation.

Now, would you:
a) Take an apple every day without leaving any money, laugh to yourself, and say
“I have no obligation to pay for this apple, and they have no right to charge me for the apple, and if the kids don’t go on their trip because I take all the apples than so be it!”?

or

b) Would you take an apple when you felt like having an apple, and leave a small donation?

99% of us would chose (b).
Well…if you visit the site, especially if you visit it regularly, you’re taking the apple. Why begrudge the site operator his small amount? Especially when it costs you absolutely nothing?

49

PecanSandy, when you started out in this thread, I thought you were pretty accurate in your explanations and comparisons. But your most recent posts show that you fail to comprehend what it is an internet content provider is doing. To attempt to compare your content to the concept of apples on a table accepted for a donation is no more accurate than your attempted comparison to illicit copyright violation. I note you did not bother to address my remonstration about that analogy.

A broadcast television station pays to broadcast. A cable television channel pays to broadcast. In many ways, they have an even worse set-up, because they have no guarantee that anyone will watch. But I don’t have any “obligation” to watch the commercials, any more than they have an obligation to broadcast at all.

An internet content provider provides content at his/her/its choice. He/she/it has no guarantee that there will be anyone viewing it. He/she/it can choose to pay for the cost of offering that content any of a number of ways. If the provider chooses to pay by selling advertising space, the provider is gambling that advertisers will agree that sufficient people will view the ads to make purchasing the space worthwhile for the advertiser. If not, the provider simply will have to find another revenue source, or cease to provide content.

But a viewer of content has no duty, moral or legal, to willingly participate in the scheme. If enough viewers learn how to pre-empt advertisements, another method for deriving cost revenue will result, and some content will be driven from the web. That’s called Free Enterprise; stop trying to lay a guilt trip on those who don’t willingly act like sheep. :rolleyes:

50

>>>>
But a viewer of content has no duty, moral or legal, to willingly participate in the scheme. If enough viewers learn how to pre-empt advertisements, another method for deriving cost revenue will result, and some content will be driven from the web. That’s called Free Enterprise; stop trying to lay a guilt trip on those who don’t willingly act like sheep.
>>>>

Depriving the website owner or revenue because for absolutely no reason other than to smirk is simply petty and spiteful.

Some folks pat themselves on the back for living their lives that way. Others appreciate whats given to them and are thankful.
>>>>
But I don’t have any "obligation
>>>>

There’s the “O” word again. It’s not an obligation. It’s common courtesy and respect. Again, some folks have it, and others mock it.

>>>>
But your most recent posts show that you fail to comprehend what it is an internet content provider is doing.
>>>>

I have about 25 million “examples” that I’ve earned since 1995 that can prove that I know EXACTLY what internet content providers do. :wink:

51

Hey there. Content provider here.

I think you guys are going at this the wrong way.

  1. Content is placed out there with the expectation that doing so will generate revenue by the means of applying eyeballs to ads. Simple enough.

  2. This content, however free to the user, does NOT come free to the provider (trust me on this one).

  3. By minimizing the effectiveness of these ads one runs the risk of killing the goose that lays the free content eggs.

In short, if enough people use pop up blockers (heck, I use Mozilla) to the point where pop ups don’t make money then that revenue must be replaced. And if there is no marketing avenue that replaces that revenue then the only option for these content providers will be to fold or go subscription-based.

And that’s the dichotomy right there. Pop-ups are what works, even if there’s a goodwill cost from a certain percentage of the market. But without them many content providers will simply go away. And the amount of information that is available for free will decrease significantly. That will includes sports sites, news sites, entertainment sites, etc.

And I don’t think anyone is foolish enough to say that they will be replaced at that level of professionalism by amatuers, right?

So that’s really it. While you have no ‘obligation’ to view such ads you have a certain amount of self-interest in insuring that the remain effective in the marketplace…lest the content go away.

Just like television. If those ads didn’t work commercial television would fade away in a month…leaving only cable (which gets license fees from providers who pay them from the monthly subscription) and premium services like HBO.

And the same applies to radio.

And the same applies to newspapers. You don’t really think that the costs of a newspaper are made up by 35 cents per copy, do you?

And the same for magazines.

And the same for all media. If the ads don’t work you can see prices skyrocket or the media fail. There is no other choice.

52

Actually, that’s usually not true. Most web hosting providers charge a flat fee for bandwidth up to some amount. So one visitor or thousands costs the site owner the same.

And as I have repeatedly stated, but you let your righteous indignation carry you away before you comprehend, absent any prior agreement between myself and the site owner, absent any notification by the site owner of any rules binding visitors to his site, there is no reason for me to endure the annoyance of the popups. I am doing nothing disrespectful, impolite or discourteous in blocking them. it is the site owner’s choice as to how he runs his site, and it’s my choice to either look at or block popups.

As would I. But your analogy is flawed because the websites I visit from which I block popups have no analogy to that sign next to the basket. This is the point that you seem to continue to fail to grasp.

No, I’m not taking the apple. I’m partaking of something that has been put on the web, and for which the site owner has asked me for nothing.

53

You know, what you seem to be missing here is the simple fact that a lot of people don’t like popup ads. I’m not depriving the website owner of revenue out of spite, I’m depriving him of revenue (if I’m doing that at all) because I don’t like the form of advertising that’s being used! Isn’t the intent of advertising to induce people to buy the product or service being advertised? Isn’t the intent of advertising to make people like the product, want the service, feel good about the company, etc.? And if an advertisement instead makes people annoyed, makes them feel negative about the company, hasn’t the advertisement failed?

Now, certainly you can say that popups do generate sales, that they generate a higher percentage of sales than banner ads. So overall, they are succeeding. But I submit that popups also generate a higher level of negative feelings. In other words, of the people who are not induced by an ad to purchase (or even look at) what’s being advertised, there will be a lot more people who actively hate a popup than hate a banner. There will be more people who respond to a popup by saying, “I’ll never patronize that company” than who respond to a banner like that.

If all you care about is the overall success rate, without regard to what level of negativity is being engendered on the failure side, then go for it. But do so with your eyes open. Don’t think that you can change anyone’s mind. Don’t labor, as you have here, in an attempt to convince people that they are doing something wrong by blocking popups. It doesn’t matter what words you use, “obligation”, “courtesy” “respect”, whatever. You’re trying to tell people to like, or at least tolerate, something that annoys them. Popups are, to me and many others, a worse-than-ineffective method of advertising. That’s never going to change.

54

Now this is an argument that makes sense. I can’t argue with it, but it doesn’t suddenly make me not annoyed at popups. I think it’s a loathsome advertising practice, and I’m not about to reward those who use it. If that means that eventually some free web content goes away, I’ll then decide if that content is worth paying for.

55

Nyeh. I can understand your being annoyed. But many people are annoyed at television ads, too. Or radio ads. Or public radio pledge drives. That doesn’t make them unnecessary.

Until something more effective comes along (and banners ain’t it for big sites) they’re what you’ve got.

56

It occurs to me that popup blockers might even increase an advertiser’s sales. Like others have said, I’ll never buy an X-10 camera, even if I had use for one, because I was so annoyed by their ads. For me and many others, those ads had a negative effect. Presumably, there are others for whom those ads had a positive effect, and presumably, there were enough of them to justify the ads to the X-10 company. I can accept that. But now, fast-forward: Because I find pop-up ads annoying, I now block them, as I imagine most other folks do who feel the same way. As a result, I don’t see the popups any more, and I don’t know what the current equivalent is to the heavily-advertised X-10 camera. I’m not annoyed by those ads, since I never see them, and as a result, I won’t be deterred from buying that product or service. Meanwhile, however, those folks who are not so annoyed by popups, and might still buy from them, are still seeing them and buying from them. Without popup blockers, you generate some new customers, and alienate some other potential customers. But with blockers, you still generate new customers, but you don’t alienate anyone.

To put it another way, no advertiser is losing anything by me blocking popups, since the amount I would buy from popups is still the same, zero. And they’re not losing my goodwill, either, nor spending the bandwidth on delivering any ads to me. At the very least, they lose nothing and may gain something. I also lose nothing and gain something. So as far as I and the advertiser are both concerned, it’s a win-win proposition, or at worst, a win-neutral one.

57

The trouble, Chronos is that pop-up blockers are not something that are going to be used only by those who want to block pop-ups; by integrating them into XP’s SP2, virtually the entire universe of web users will be using pop-up blockers, without having made any choice. This results in those who are attracted to such ads not being attracted to the product.

What technology can prevent, technology can circumvent. It will take legislation to stop intrusive marketing on the Web, in much the same way legislation eventually killed off telemarketing as a tool for for-profit merchandisers and service providers.

If web content providers ever get to the point where their method of advertising upsets enough people, legislation will be the inevitable outcome.

58

And if we polled the “entire universe of web users,” I’m sure the overwhelming majority would not want to see the pop-up ads.

I hope not, especially considering that virtually the entire universe of web users will soon be using pop-up blockers.

Telemarketing is much easier to regulate and fine than web content. On this, you can not disagree.

59

Well, it also ocurred to me after I replied to your earlier post that, while you’re right that it’s in web surfers’ self-interest to keep web sites freely accessible, it’s also in advertisers’ self-interest to not piss-off potential customers.

I mean, why do popup blockers exist? Google didn’t decide to add one to their toolbar on a whim. And Microsoft – Microsoft, of all companies – decided to include one in their latest free update. Microsoft isn’t making any direct money from the popup blocker; so why did they go to the trouble of including it? It must be because they believe that some substantial number of their customers want to block popups.

If Microsoft decides to include something like that for free, that’s gotta tell you something. It tells me that significant numbers of web surfers want it, which means they don’t like popups, which means that in the long run, advertisers are shooting themselves in the foot by using a form of advertising that a lot of people just don’t want to see.

60

>>>>
Google didn’t decide to add one to their toolbar on a whim
>>>>

Certainly not. Google decided to add one a few months before they launched their own advertising program which directly competed with popups for advertising dollars.

>>>>
which means that in the long run, advertisers are shooting themselves in the foot by using a form of advertising that a lot of people just don’t want to see.
>>>>

Cite? Take your time searching, you won’t be able to find one.

In the long run (1996 to present) popups DO work. They provide a high ROI for the advertiser and a good return for the web publisher. They are an effective form of advertising that do NOT negitively impact a websites traffic counts. I speak from experience of working with thousands of websites. It’s not my opinion, it’s fact.
Saying “popups don’t work!” is no different than saying “brussels sprouts don’t work!” because you don’t like brussels sprouts. The fact that you do not like them does not make them less nutritious. It just means you don’t like them.