In the long run, up until the Civil War, slavery DID work. Slaves provided a high ROI for the investor.
I’m stretching with that one, I know, but the concept is the same.
Just because something has been shown to work over a short period of time (1996 to present) does not mean that it is foolproof and will continue forever. See my previous post.
I really like the way you pick and choose which specific points you answer. What about Microsoft? Why did Microsoft decide to put a popup blocker in SP2?
You mischaracterize what I’ve said. Where did I say “popups don’t work”? I said that advertisers are shooting themselves in the foot. Popups work compared to banner ads, and I’ve never disputed that. You’ve said that popups don’t negatively impact a website’s traffic, and I’ll accept that.
But what I’ve been saying all along, and what you still have not addressed directly, is that popups engender a negative feeling towards the products, services, and companies being advertised in a not-insignificant segment of the potential market.
When I brought up the possibility of a backlash earlier in this thread, you responded by saying that there is no dropoff in website traffic, and I let it go at that. But measuring website traffic is not how you would determine if there is a backlash. You would have to survey web surfers, potential customers of the company doing the advertising and see if their opinions of that company have changed negatively as a result of the popups. See, I (and likely others) don’t hold it against the website for using popups, I hold it against the company doing the advertising (just like with TV commercials; when I see a TV commercial that annoys me greatly, I don’t stop watching the show that it’s sponsoring, I boycott the product being advertised).