Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the growING-groWING-GROWING dept.
cardhead writes "The Washington Post is reporting that "studies found the larger, more intrusive ad formats were, on average, 40 percent more effective than the banner ad." It went on to say that ads that pop up between you and the page you're trying to read are the most effective."
I'm really not ready to bitch about any kind of web advertising at this point. I'm willing to accept annoying popups if it means that sites won't go out of business. I'd rather be hassled with an annoying flash popup than go without The Register or slashdot.
That said, if it gets to the point that it is more trouble to get rid of the ad (IE, autorespawning popups or something), I will not hessitate to complain. Just not yet.
Re:Annoying Banner Ads that get you busted.
by
Tackhead
·
· Score: 4
> The latest thing on the seamy side are banner ads with.WAV files attached.
Favorite quote:
"If I want your website to make sound, I'll lick my finger and rub it against my screen. Now fuck off while I delete the damn MIDI.DLL from my Nutscrape install."
Re:boycott popup companies
by
Tackhead
·
· Score: 5
> You can kinda-sorta opt out of X10 ads by going here. Although I believe the net effect is that it loads the ad, reads your optout
preference from a cookie, then immediately closes the ad window. Plus, you have to re-opt after 30 days. Better than nothing, I guess.
No, firewalling them, HOSTS-blocking them, or using Junkbuster to filter them out is "better than nothing".
Opting-out is not a solution, because it relies on the good behavior of your adversary.
But you can't trust your adversary -- because the reason you want to opt out is because they've demonstrated themselves incapable of abiding by the rules of polite society.
Which makes more sense:
1) Get down on your knees and beg "please, known-privacy-invader or annoying-ad-maker, track my movements for 30 days but promise that if you can continue to track me, you won't show me the ad until a month from now, when I'll have to jump through the opt-out hoop again?"
or
2) Blackhole them, so that (because you can't send packets to them, and they can't send packets to you) you're immune, no matter what the marketroids decide to do next, you remain unaffected.
By way of analogy: You leave your door unlocked, and someone walks in, shits on your living room rug, and leaves, with a note saying "Cool shit, huh? I'll leave some more samples next week!"
Do you lock your door? Or do you leave it unlocked, but tack up a note on the door saying "Thank you for not shitting on my rug today. Please continue to not shit on the rug for 30 days, because I just had it cleaned."
If anyone thought about the fact that this 40% increase is due to accidentally clicking the popup when attempting to click the site the user visited instead. Advertising people can be such A**holes sometimes.
Re:possible bias in studies
by
Sarcasmooo!
·
· Score: 4
This seems like a good thread to ask if anyone else has noticed the Doubleclick ads on Slashdot. I've asked before and even tried an "ask slashdot" submission to no avail. It just find it very annoying that I have to block ads from a doubleclick server on my way to read stories like these. Out of all the sites that have banner ads, I would think that Slashdot would be one of the first to refuse to support Doubleclick's idea of ethical business practices.
Look who conducted the "studies" (4th paragraph)--the Interactive Advertising Bureau (a Web advertising industry trade group), DoubleClick, and MSN. These organizations have a vested interest in selling this type of advertising to advertisers. Shame on the Washington Post for not reporting this "research" more skeptically.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really not ready to bitch about any kind of web advertising at this point. I'm willing to accept annoying popups if it means that sites won't go out of business. I'd rather be hassled with an annoying flash popup than go without The Register or slashdot.
That said, if it gets to the point that it is more trouble to get rid of the ad (IE, autorespawning popups or something), I will not hessitate to complain. Just not yet.
Favorite quote:
"If I want your website to make sound, I'll lick my finger and rub it against my screen. Now fuck off while I delete the damn MIDI .DLL from my Nutscrape install."
No, firewalling them, HOSTS-blocking them, or using Junkbuster to filter them out is "better than nothing".
Opting-out is not a solution, because it relies on the good behavior of your adversary.
But you can't trust your adversary -- because the reason you want to opt out is because they've demonstrated themselves incapable of abiding by the rules of polite society.
Which makes more sense:
1) Get down on your knees and beg "please, known-privacy-invader or annoying-ad-maker, track my movements for 30 days but promise that if you can continue to track me, you won't show me the ad until a month from now, when I'll have to jump through the opt-out hoop again?"
or
2) Blackhole them, so that (because you can't send packets to them, and they can't send packets to you) you're immune, no matter what the marketroids decide to do next, you remain unaffected.
By way of analogy: You leave your door unlocked, and someone walks in, shits on your living room rug, and leaves, with a note saying "Cool shit, huh? I'll leave some more samples next week!"
Do you lock your door? Or do you leave it unlocked, but tack up a note on the door saying "Thank you for not shitting on my rug today. Please continue to not shit on the rug for 30 days, because I just had it cleaned."
Does that count the people who frantically aim for the X button and miss, inadvertantly rewarding these bastards for being so annoying?
120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
Anyone buy my wife in the next room,
;-)
Post a picture and a price, please.
--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
If anyone thought about the fact that this 40% increase is due to accidentally clicking the popup when attempting to click the site the user visited instead. Advertising people can be such A**holes sometimes.
This seems like a good thread to ask if anyone else has noticed the Doubleclick ads on Slashdot. I've asked before and even tried an "ask slashdot" submission to no avail. It just find it very annoying that I have to block ads from a doubleclick server on my way to read stories like these. Out of all the sites that have banner ads, I would think that Slashdot would be one of the first to refuse to support Doubleclick's idea of ethical business practices.
Look who conducted the "studies" (4th paragraph)--the Interactive Advertising Bureau (a Web advertising industry trade group), DoubleClick, and MSN. These organizations have a vested interest in selling this type of advertising to advertisers. Shame on the Washington Post for not reporting this "research" more skeptically.