I’m glad my attempt at humour was successful.
And you have a good point about opposing all these intrusions. However, I do think a person just picking on only one form of intrusive advertising should be “added to the choir”, rather than “singled out as a hypocrite”. The latter was what I got the impression that your original post tried to achieve.
Elethiomel: Hmm. Yes, hypocrite is definitely a strong word! It was sort of generally and self directed (meaning I meant "hey, we’re all being hypocrites including me).
We differ in opinion on tactics, clearly. I think the focusing in just leaves any movement to oppose this sort of thing open to hypocrisy.
Maybe I should go start my “Spam is not evil” thread and really cause a ruckus…
I saw the infinite popup once.
which is why i loathe popups.
That’s about as legitimate as saying “I once saw this horrible infomercial for VideoKing and loathe all TV ads.”
That is to say… It might be.
OK, you caught me. I love pop-ups, I wish they were more intrusive, and where can I get a computer that blocks all webpages and just shows the pop-ups. That’s what I really meant, sorry for confusing you.
Not true. I can change the channel. They do not seize the resources of my television, making it effectively disabled until they are finished.
I would liken pop-ups to those extremely annoying animated blurbs that appear at the bottom of the TV screen while a show is running. I only have one brain - I can’t watch the show and watch their little promo at the same time. Now THAT’S evil.
What is the legal basis for a pop-up intrusion into your train of thought? Not only should we be indignant over this arrogant presumptive action by faceless jerks, we should pass laws to have them jailed.
[No offense to you who think otherwise. This is a free internet and you can, of course, think as you please. And please notice that I did not call you sheep. Sheep can’t read.]
Time to hear from somebody who runs four websites, including one that is the most popular on the Web in that particular category (okay, I have no way of knowing if anybody who has posted runs a site, but I haven’t seen anything to indicate that you do).
Let’s take a look at some of what’s been said:
tschild said:
This is a false comparison. Popups don’t take away your control. You can close the window just as quickly as it’s opened – that’s what I do. And your comparison would be correct if your computer were hopping into your lap – which I presume it doesn’t when a pop-up appears.
Sock Munkey said:
So do regular ads with large graphics. So that doesn’t seem to be a legitimate grip against pops in particular.
Why? Because that way you can ignore them? If so, that’s exactly the reason pops exist – because advertisers don’t want to pay for ads that will be ignored.
Crusoe said:
Precisely. The e-mails I get complaining about ads are generally of the type that say, “I love your site, but you’ve got to get rid of this ad.” (Usually they are complaining about the flashing banners more than the pops, actually.) I reply that the only way the site that they love can stick around is to run such ads. If people want something for free, they need to accept ads. If they don’t want the ads, they’d better be prepared to pay – and most people simply aren’t.
Libertarian said:
No, they just take up a good portion of the page and therefore force you to continue on to another page. Frankly, I find it easier to close a window than to turn pages of a newspaper. Of course, pop-unders don’t move themselves on top of any text, so are you saying those are okay?
blowero said:
Well, sure, but you won’t be watching the same thing anymore. You can also change the website you’re reading.
You don’t seem to be talking about simple pop-up ads. What, exactly, are you talking about?
Actually, those are much worse. You can click off a pop – you can’t get rid of those.
if someone commits murder they are taking TIME away from the victim.
all ads waste peoples time therefore advertising is similar to murder.
if you were to calculate the total amount of time that americans waste watching television commercials each day, how many lifetimes would that amount to.
pop ups are just another version of time wasting. you don’t have to point and click to get rid of TV adds. pop ups may be less evil than TV.
Dal Timgar
I think the only kind of popups that I consider evil would be those that pretend to be a warning dialog. The rest are merely annoying.
No, the ones that are evil are those that spawn five or six other pops, and the ones that reset your homepage to their website.
But those are not the usual pops.
It should be noted that we don’t complain about banner ads - the sort that are built into a web page. They’re still ads, but they’re not obtrusive and in your face - like a newspaper ad.
So we don’t have a problem with the idea of web pages making money.
So, I’m guessing our problem mostly comes from the popups overriding the user interface and forcing us to open stuff we have no desire to open, and make us go out of our way to close them.
And then there are popups that spawn more popups that spawn more popups until your computer is dying…
It seems that the closest comparison in ads to web pages would be newspapers or magazines. We don’t mind ads that take up part of the page in magazines, and we don’t really mind banners on web pages.
If magazine pages start jumping up at us so that we had to swat them away to get back to reading, I think we might be similarly annoyed.
Popups make many people hate the products they advertise by associating them with the annoyance of the popup.
I don’t like popups and I think the comparing them to newspaper ads is wrong.
Newspaper ads don’t suddenly pop-up in your field of vision, blocking out the words you’re reading. Like banner ads, most do not impede the flow of information.
Pop-ups startle you with their appearance. Many trick you into clicking on them by having phony close buttons. If you accidently click wrong, you end up taking even more annoying detours. Some of them don’t function properly and WON’T close, making slow computers move even slower. Some of them make scary noises. Many of them consist of flashing colors. If ads in magazines and newspapers flashed and made noises, they would be a lot more irritating.
They are different from TV commercials because when you’re watching TV, you anticipate the commercials. You know that ten minutes into a show, there will be a fade-out and then you’ll hear a jingle. There is little “startle” factor so you get acclimated. With pop-ups, you don’t know when they are going to show up. This may sound trivial, but it isn’t to me.
Finally, there’s the issue with content. Most pop-ups advertise things that makr me feel uncomfortable. Bikini clad women advertising x-cams. Get rich quick scams. Lose weight fast scams. Gambling websites. Porn websites. Not stuff you would see in the NY Times or on network television. And definitely not stuff I want hanging around on my computer, either at home or at work.
Sorry for the short reply…
Popups very very very annoying
TV ads very very very very annoying
(so I agree)
I don’t mind popups in the general course of browsing. I understand why they’re there, and in general, I ignore them. what really chaps my ass is when doubleclick or gator or some other little bug gets itself on my computer and infests it, so even when I am not browsing, I get popups. When I’m making a video in Adobe Premiere, it’s really annoying, because Premiere is a sensitive bitch.
So not all popups are evil, but the kind that makes more, redirects you to a new window, or infests your computer are evil, pointless, and extremely aggravating.
Sock Munkey: My point exactly. People hate popups. People even boycott advertisers who use them… Nobody’s arguing this reality. My question is why/how everyone can justify this, but nobody’s out there organizing campaigns to boycott these “stinking” TV advertisers…
Lots of interesting points here.
Senor Beef: You say you don’t mind ads that take up part of a magazine page, but you would mind if they started jumping at you… What about the fact that most magazine ads don’t take part of a page, they take up all of it – if not two. What about all those “special advertising sections” that not only take up many pages consecutively, but are quite clearly intended to mislead you into thinking they’re not ads? What about those blow-in cards that drop all over the place when you open a magazine? I’m willing to accept that a small, partial-page ad on a magazine is not analogous to a popup ad – but believe me (worked in publishing), 98% of the magazines out there wouldn’t exist if that’s all they had. The revenue isn’t enough because the ads aren’t effective enough because they’re too easy to ignore (which is why you don’t mind them)…
It all goes to David B’s point: you can’t get something for free, and what you’re willing to accept won’t generate enough revenue – for precisely the same reason you’re willing to accept it – it DOESN’T get in your way.
The point is simply that it’s difficult to get into underlying questions about advertising without it instantly becoming clear that we can’t single out one ad format on one medium without the argument falling apart.
Frankly, I think dal_timgar’s post is the most consistent one here. At least he has a consistent opinion about advertising across the board.
Finally, there’s this question related to the whole thing: which one do you find more to “blame” – the media that sell the space to continue providing content, or the advertiser that fills it. It’s rather a chicken/egg argument, but I find it interesting that typically in the “real” world the advertiser who pays for the ads (and they wouldn’t exist without) is more often castigated… but in the web world, the media (the site) which enables the ads (and they wouldn’t exist without) is more often criticized…
PS - David B: It wasn’t in the front of my mind when I asked, but I happen to run two websites, one of which is #1 in its category. We don’t currently sell popup ads on the site, but may have to shortly in order to survive. We tried pay-for-premium-content (i.e. content that’s most expensive for me, most-visited by my readers, and also most-exclusive [to be specific, it’s a summary of latest wholesale prices for commodities in the marketplace we address]). That floated like a lead balloon (as expected, but we had to try), and I got a barrage of letters about how I was “betraying” my loyal visitors. So then I kept the site free, but quit providing that content and got a barrage of letters about how I was “betraying” my loyal visitors… Banners command a price of at best $0.20 per click (which works about to about $3.00 per day on a VERY high traffic site – why, because nobody clicks banners because they don’t get in front of you which is why nobody minds them). $90.00 a month won’t keep my site going, much like yours I’m sure… That being said, it’s rather moot to the point. I’ll make my decision based on reality, not the debate here which is more on a theoretical plane.
Newspaper, magazine and TV ads don’t crash computer systems like pop-ups can.
Because they are two different things?
Pop-ups aren’t television commercials. For every similiarity the two share, there is a difference.
I don’t know why you think people should just accept pop-ups just because we’re onslaughted with other annoying advertising. I gather people find pop-ups more annoying than telvision commercials because there’s something about them that is simply more annoying to most people. How can you argue that pop-up critics are wrong when this is simply a matter of opinion and personal taste? It’s sort of like arguing that someone who likes (or tolerates) spinach should like (or tolerate) kale, since they are both leafy green vegetables. Yes they are, but this doesn’t make them the same.