Slashdot Mirror
Distastful Advertising Continues: "Gatoring"
iforgotmyfirstlogon sent us a link to an article on CNet about
Gatoring, a fabulous new advertising technique where advertising buy key words and pop up windows over competitors. The kicker is that this is a byproduct of a commonly installed activex plugin. And its only gonna get worse.
I figure it's a matter of when, not if.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
A while ago. But the only reason was because I did some testing and discovered that you can make the ancient RealPlayer 5.0 (that didn't have a lot of spam included in its user interface) work just fine with RealPlayer G2 and RealPlayer 8 streams, by simply fux0ring around with the DLLs in C:\Windoze\Program Files\Common or somewhere like that.
Basically, you take a RP5 install, do a recursive DIR or ls over the filesystem.
Then (on an expendable system, naturally, that you've replicated from your production box), you install the upgrades required to play files encoded with the newer RealMedia codecs, and do another DIR or ls.
Then you diff the results and copy any new or modified DLLs onto your production system. Presto! RealPlayer 5 with "up-to-date" codecs.
Of course, that doesn't prevent Real from including spyware/phone-home in the DLLs, nor does it prevent RealPlayer 5 from auto-nagging you every few months to upgrade.
But it's a workable solution for all those old South Park episodes I acquired in 228K .RM files (a mixture of RealPlayer 5, G2, and RealPlayer 8 codecs) format before DiVX appeared.
Which, come to think of it, is about the only use I have for RealPlayer, since I don't have cable.
Who invited you? I didn't. Why don't you ask before you ship some extra 'goodies' along with what I downloaded? Why don't you let me deside what I want on my computer instead of almost telling me how to get rid of it? Why, why ...
This has got to be banned, because you don't have a choise whether or not you wan't it. You can turn of the TV when the comercials are on (at least look away,) you can easily ignore those banners currently advertising for Compaq and Opera and you don't have to look at all sponsor popups. (right-click, then chose close.) The regular popups we can accept because they pay for whatever service they're looking for.
I'm going to say one word: Ban it! (well, that's two actually)
Look a monkey!
With all the rants on patents, trademark disputes, and other monopolistic disputes do we really want to set a precident barring a company from advertising the competition when another companies trademark is involved???
This isn't a problem. It's clearly within a content provider's right to provide whatever advertisment they want and under whatever conditions they want.
Clearly this is in the consumers best interest if they opt to use a service that employs gatoring in the first place.
In 1999, Playboy filed suit against Excite.com and Netscape in an attempt to prohibit them from delivering adult ads when visitors searched for the term "playboy." The suit charged that the alleged practice violated its trademark. Although the court dismissed the case earlier this year, Playboy has appealed the decision, and a hearing is scheduled in a Los Angeles federal district court in September.
I can't see how anybody would want to support anti-gatoring, especially with frivilous suits like the one above from Playboy.
While we're at it, I'd like the take the time to quote Larry Flint regarding playboy.
Its like if you don't make over $20,000 a year, you don't jerk off. Gentlemen, Playboy is mocking you!
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
In traditional media outlets, particularly newspaper and radio, companies can specifically request or be GUARANTEED that advertisements for competing products or services will NOT appear within x-many column inches of newspaper or x-minutes of radio play.
If I were advertising my theoretical car dealership, what is the effectiveness of that ad if a SECOND companies' commercial runs right behind mine? What if they KNEW they could get that slot and intentionally undercut all my sale prices in THEIR ad? I'd cancel my ad run and refuse payment to the station, among other things.
This situation actually happened when I was working at a Northeast-Ohio computer company, when a popular area FM radio station ran OUR ad with a COMPETITOR'S ad right behind it! We actually called the competitor, said "do you know they are doing this?" upon which BOTH of us called the station manager threatening to cancel BOTH ad runs unless they were scheduled at least 3 minutes apart, per their agreement.
This has to be one of the better, shining examples of the "wild west" cowboy cavalier attitude so predominant on the internet running smack into the brick wall of common sense.
Hey, perhaps Microsoft should approach Andover, offer them four times their standard banner rates and plaster WindowsXP ads all over Slashdot.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Besides, such websites violate the Americans with Disabilites Act because they are not "accessible". Web browsers for the disabled rely on being able to parse out text which is then read aloud via speech synthesis. These "speaking web browsers" can speak image maps, java applets, etc. So demand that the web site offer a text only option or sue them in court for discrimination.
Linux is not an option for this man ... he has to ask questions like 'Is it okay to delete kernel32.dll?'
/vmlinuz?" Tell him "go ahead and try - the system will stop you if it's important."
You're wrong.
Linux is the only option for this man. Set up the system with the apps he needs, and let him be.
Show him how to log on (as a normal user), and how to start programs.
Then when he asks "Is is OK to delete
And then rejoice at the fact that you'll never have to go back there to remove Melissa, or ILoveYou, or SirCam.
I really hate those watermarks that appear on TV in the corners. I don't need them to tell me what station I'm watching. I don't need to know what time it is. I already know what show I'm watching. If I wanted news bulletins, I'd watch the news. I'm trying not to think about my stock portfolio. I don't care "What's up next!".
I just want to watch my television show without interruption.
But I guess that's the price I have to pay because I'm not paying for my reception.
Dancin Santa
when i think of companies i can get a webcam from, sure i think of x-10. but i also remember how much they got on my nerves with their damned pop-ups. and though i'm not really in the market for a computer these days, all track record aside i sure as hell don't care to encourage a company that puts that fucking fevvercorn commercial on all day and night. and 1-800-collect with their long run of bullshit most recently crowned by carrot top of all people...
i guess negative association is association nonetheless these days.
hoping your rules and wisdom choke you, since 1976
Advirtising seems to be a fact of life now. Get used to it. This new strategy by Gator and others is just part of that. We should not fight against advirtising itself, just to keep that advirtising from adversly interfering with our lives.
The big issue we (as consumers, businesses are another story) should have with this type of practice is it should be voluntary. As long as someone knows they are getting the gator competitor advertising service it is fine, even useful (reference the car buying service). It's when they secretly install the software and make it difficult to get rid of when we sic the slashdot trolls on them.
DD
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
You all know very well that there are reasons why you have to put up with this.
All of these are technologies that you can turn off in your web browser, whatever the web browser may be.
C'mon, even if you don't want to turn on Javascript, you can even *shock horror* get a different browser that doesn't implement this stuff, or wasn't considered when they did the popunders! Gosh darn!
Frankly, as far as I'm concerened all of your having to put up with these ad issues is a direct result of your choices.
I do have sympathy for those who don't know better. My grandmother doesn't even know what Javascript is; I can't talk to her about deactivating things like that. And because of those people I still don't think all that highly of companies that pull this crap.
But, geez, people, we're all geeks here. You ought to know better. Right? Shouldn't you try dropping your bloat^H^H^H^H^Hmodern browser setup for once instead of bitching all the time and whining about how "this bothers me oh so much" and so on?
(to moderators: My apologies. It's just that in one particular circle on IRC I'm the local Web Expert and I get a *ton* of back-of-hand-nailed-to-forehead whining about this stuff, and so I'm kind of a loose cannon on the subject. :) )
--Jo Hunter
Smile! It makes them wonder what you're up to.
There are a lot of these types of things going on right now... Kazaa is another one. A lot of what they're doing is illegal - you can't change someone else's copyright content (and web pages *are* copyrighted, at least as far as I can tell), and most of these services do change it to some degree, *for profit*. That's an important distinction.
I just say no to:
I you didn't buy into all this crap that you don't need then people will not be able to take advantage of your machine.
If enough people say no, then the web pages have to cater to the masses if they want the eyeballs.
Think adversiting DoS. Even if you actively agree to do something, if you are misled (they don't tell you what's going to happen, do they?) then that's fraud (in my book anyway).
Madness takes its toll. Exact change please.
When will ad companies realize that your not going to have alot of positive interest in the product when all you do is annoy the userbase? They really need to find a medium for advertising that doesnt involve irritating the customer.
Well, when my daughter is just fucking around with her bottle (chewing on the nipple, spitting her formula back out, etc.) my mother-in-law calls it "gatoring."
This practice seems similar. The page owners are fucking around with our browser windows and stability, our irritation levels and patience, and accomplishing no REAL positive results. I know that it makes me less interested in visiting them.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
So what the heck, I click on it. They're trying to gather some information to help with their advertising. No problem, that's what these surveys are usually for. I'm merrily filling out the survey, and everything's fine, until I hit this question:
Did you notice that second item?Now I'll be wondering if the articles themselves have been bought by advertisers...
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Where does Burger King build a new store? Generally across the street from a McDonalds, right? They do this why? To attract people who are interested in their competitor's similar products.
/.
I myself majored in advertising, and this is exactly what you are supposed to do. You hit people who are interested in your product. If I go to a site looking for memory, and another site pops up an ad with free shipping on all memory orders, this ad is going to have a much higher success rate then if say, it were at the top of the page on
You're right, pop-up ads will get worse. Significantly, but these ads aren't the beginning of the end. It's the end of the beginning. The industry is starting to wise up and realize that silly banner ads don't work when they aren't tuned into you. The geeks and traditional advertising washouts are getting out, and people who know what they're doing are taking over.
These types of ads are going to be much more successful, because we will learn to live with them. This may seem underhanded, and it may very well be, but people will tolerate them because they don't want to pay for content. Banners caused the same response as this.
At this point, the last thing you need to do is shove more ads into people's faces trying to get them to buy your product. Instead of trying to force people to buy what you make, you should be making what people want to buy.
You're a marketing major? That will be your job someday, bud. Your job is going to make people need what you have to sell. People don't want the product? Fix the people, or hit the street.
If you're a marketing major, and afraid to piss people off (or piss on them, for that matter), or think that ethics should get in the way, you're best of to change your major. Geology would probably be nice because you don't have to deal with people. A customer your competitor has, is a customer you don't have.
Marketing and Advertising are certainly not the place for people who are idealistic about privacy, or believe "the truth will set them free". Myself, I was lucky enough to get into programming.