Slashdot Mirror
Salon Goes For Annoying Jump-Through Ads
macsforever2001 writes: "It looks like Salon is going to try to ram ads down our throat in a very offensive manner according to this Yahoo article. Now they won't directly link to articles, but instead link to a Web Ad which then links to the article you want. I think Slashdot needs a new category just for Web Advertising." Not as if web ads weren't already becoming more annoying, but the companies that run Web ads are probably as interested in ads that people don't hate as you are in not seeing the awful ones. What can we tell them?
As a web site owner, I love this. You get it for free so accept the ad.
Ya the ads are annoying, but jump throughs beat popups anyday! with these you can either wait for a breif pause or you can click a link to skip ahead to the article. Either way it's better than having to shuffle windows in order to close an ad that the page opens behind itself, like those X10 pop-ups. THOSE are annoying!
WURD!!
MSNBC does this to some of their sections. Not a big deal to me. If you don't want to see them subscribe to Salon.
Some way or another, content has to be paid for.
For example, I do not like the outdoors or games. Why show me camping information or video cards? I do like gambling in Vegas -- show me some banners for deals offered by casinos.
Click here or here.
Salon is in financial trouble. They started a premium service to get more money, but still offer a lot of content for free. I guess if more people subscribed as premium members, this would not be an issue. If they need to do this to stay afloat, then that's their business. Salon is a great site, and I'm personally willing to put up with a few ads. I just hope they keep going.
``It's less intrusive than the pop-unders. It's not creating a new window and it gives the consumer a choice. They can click it and go to the story,'' said Jupiter Media Metrix analyst Marissa Gluck.
And the other choice, presumably, is to utter a hearty "fuck you" and never go back to salon.com again?
Look... here's what web ads come down to: if it's something like a pop-up ad that keeps moving when you try to close it, that's simply not ok. But if nothing sneaky is going on -- and it's not here, because you're just detoured through an extra page on Salon's site -- we may not like it but there's no reason to say that the company is doing something wrong. Salon started a subscription service as a way to allow people to pay for the otherwise-free content they were getting before. Obviously not enough people are contributing their fair share and more drastic measures had to be taken. If you don't like it, don't use Salon's bandwidth or read the stories that they pay people to write.
Salon has been trying to find new ways to make money, the jump-through ads are much less annoying than the pop-ups, IMHO. Not much different than commercials on TV. You have the option to subscribe to Salon if you want to avoid them, just as you have the option to subscribe to HBO if you'd like commercial-free programs (though HBO does not offer a commercial channel, so you either pay up or do without the Sopranos...)
Everything can't be free. I'd rather have the click-through ads than pop-ups. Actually, I like Salon enough that I bucked up the yearly subscription fee, though it really doesn't offer so much more than the regular Salon.
Deal with the ads, stop bitching or don't be surprised when Salon goes under like so many other Webzines.
As evidenced by their 'Salon Premium' and in-page ads. It's a shame, too, because all the other good editorial sites are almost all virulently conservative.
While I hate to see it go, I think we're going to see Salon go the same way IGN did.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
There were ads.
Then there were filters.
Then there were pop up ads, pop-under ads, and ads that pop up when you close the browser.
Then new filters were devised for these as well.
Now we have jumpthrough ads.
What we have is a continuing battle, geek against geek, for control of the eyes of the content-hungry Netizen.
Of course, all arms races are a bad thing. Eventually, this one will lead to more and more intrusive advertising and more and more destructive anti-advertising.
The solution is to de-escalate the arms race.
How do you do that?
Well, stop filtering the ads. Read them and click the ones that you are interested in as compared to the other ads.
Even if you are not interested in any of them, click the least offensive.
This will, eventually, lower the overall offensiveness level of advertising while helping to provide ad revenue to some of your computer-industry brethren out there.
Remember, advertising is a legitimate industry. Let's minimize the amount of social control it has over our lives by treating it as such.
Goat sex free since 2001
Online is a different medium than TV or radio- the same rules don't necessarily apply. Especially when most of these ads seem to be for things like dry cleaning a cat, or other nonsense. I don't see Pepsi or Coke popping up all over, but even Yahoo pops up that damn X10 camera ad. I feeling is that eventually online content will split into 2 groups once a good micropayment system is worked out, the free and spam-filled side, and the pay but no ads side. Don't get me wrong, I love free content, but I can only see advertising get worse until large groups of people are willing to fork over some cash to _not_ see more ads.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Word. As one who reads it 'cover to cover' every day I can say that it is the best $50 (Two year sub) I ever spent. Their coverage of the 9/11/01 stuff has been fantastic.
Salon is one of the last independant journalism sites out there. They have no relationship with AOL/TIME, Viacom, Microsoft, or errr...Anybody that would make them even halfway biased (Aside from the occasional liberal slant). If you want it to survive I highly recommend subscribing. I know lots of you kids are poor college students and whatnot, but I know there are lots of people here that read Salon on a regular basis (cause it gets linked to a lot). Pony up people! It is probably the most worth media cause out there (besides PBS/NPR). Uhh...if there could be such a thing.
You know what I mean.
Pete
The sole purpose of the Internet is to get porn and bomb making plans into the hands of children.
What really puzzles me is that these intrustive ads clearly do anger readers, and don't seem to work very well...yet this arms race of distracting ads continues unabated. There is at least one example of really effective web advertising, however, and that's Google's. Heck, they're even considering an IPO. Here's why it works:
- Their ads are entirely textual and unobstrusive, so I don't have to hotwire my brain to tune them out. They're easy to ignore, so I can pay attention to them when I want.
- They are right next to the content I care about (search results), but don't interfere with it by creating a visual distraction or a longer download time for the page. So I don't mind them being there at all.
- Above all, the ads are sometimes for things I actually care about. Google matches ads with searches, and so I actually have some incentive to pay attention to them.
The lesson, I think, is that ads have to be inobstrusive and useful. Why aren't more companies picking up on this?As a web site owner, I love this. You get it for free so accept the ad.
But will their readership tolerate it? Probably not, as most people are already feeling harassed by popups. I predict this will only hasten their demise.
Harassing customers != good business practice
The whole premise of these intrusive ads is wrong.
Intrusive ads in TV is acceptable because we are just sitting there like bumps on a log and it give us a break to go do something. We know the commercials are going to last a couple minutes and we expect it. Digging deeper we all understand that those commericals paid for the content.
Web surfing is entirely different. We are interacting with the computer to find information. Basically we are in control and are most likely actively searching, or discussing and not just trying to be passively entertained. We want to find our information, or post our comment and be done with it.
Advertisers are having a tough time on coming up with a creative way to advertise on the net since their previous method (banners) had limited success, they are falling back on what they know. But what they know is a method designed for a passive medium and not an interactive one.
The one thing they have going for them, is that like TV, web advertising for the most part is targetted at groups and not so much individuals. Slashdot is going to run tech related ads. TechTV (the TV channel) is going to run tech related commericals. Generally, the specific group you are looking for will see your ad. They need to expand on that without taking it to the extreme.
One option: large ads that are not intrusive. I wouldn't mind if an ad takes the top portion of my screen. I do mind if though some fancy javascript, it follows me as I scroll, or randomly appears or is in a fixed frame. Just give me the ability to decide whether or not your products are right for me and let me continue on with the content. If you're watching TV and you don't want to see the commercial, you see what else is on or you go to the fridge or bathroom. Basically you can decide what's relevant. Advertisers are trying to take the position that they know what's relevant and you just need to spend as much time as possible looking at their ad and eventually you will buy.
With the economy the way it is, consumers are being smarter, and web-users are getting smarter about the products they purchase. I guess I'd say that the advertising isn't failing, it's the products being offered.
I'd rather deal with them then some other popular types of advertising. Several people already mentioned the flash animations that are becoming popular. I find those horrid, for it's like trying to read a book and having the words obscured. I want to know where the ads are and choose whether to look at them or not, not have them crammed down my throat. Any ad that obscures text automatically gets my negative attention.
Rant mode off for a second, I think jumpthroughs are actually good in that it gives a solid measurement of who's looking at an ad. You can use jumpthrough instead of click-thru metrics to set ad rates, much like in TV or radio or print. I would rather see online advertising go that route rather than getting more annoying in the hopes of a clickthru that won't happen (like those darn flash anims).
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
Even for less well targeted readerships, look at newspaper ads for ideas of things that work. Announce a sale for your online store, mention a new product, or give people some other reason to follow the link! Make pretty, flashy ads, and people will tune them out. Make informative, intriguing ads, and people will follow.
Also, one more suggestion: make an advertiser index, like magazines do. Sometimes an ad will look appealing, but you don't have time to follow up on it just then. Later on, you can't find the ad again, so the site doesn't get the hit it deserves.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
It already is.
Here's the information. We love advertising.
When we don't respond to it, it'll go away.
Or, rather, when we who hate advertising can teach those who respond to advertising not to respond to it, then advertisers will become defunct, like the folks who used to bring big blocks of ice to your house throughout the summer, having carved them out of the local lake all winter...
The ad-man goeth...
information is immaterial
I'm not sure what the current situation is, but as of a few months ago Salon was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. If you enjoy reading the news and articles that they post, then you have two options:
1) Buy a subcription to their premium service. You won't have to click through the annoying ads.
2) Don't buy a subscription, but continue to feel that you have a right to read the news stories that they provide. Spend 0.5 seconds a day clicking through an ad which I'm sure they're able to charge more money for.
I guess there is a third option, and that is to do neither of the above, and then moan that quality internet journalism has disappeared once they and many other online magazines go bankrupt in a year or two. I really hate invasive pop-up ads, but they do need to make money. If you value the service they provide, quit whining and click through the bloody ad, or subcribe! If you DON'T value the service they provide, well then, don't visit the site anymore. If I sit down to watch the evening news on TV, I have to put up with 5 minutes of ads for every half hour of actual programming. I don't have a problem clicking through an ad for a second if it will allow me to read quality news stories online.
Do you subscribe to magazines?
Got ads there. Even have to pay for the privledge to see them. Ok, so you obviouly don't do that.
Newspapers?
See magazines above.
Do you have cable?
Ads there too. Ad free channels (HBO, etc.) cost even more on top of the regular cable fees. Ok, so no cable for you.
Watch regular TV?
Commercials. But it's free. Unless you are one of those people who only watch PBS but never contribuite. In which case you're (not 'you' specifically, anyone who does this) just a cheap bastard.
Salon.com?
(I know, work with me here). Commercials, but it's free and you don't have access to all the content. Or no commercials and access to all the content. Is anyone else seeing the TV analogy here too? Yes? Good.
Bills have to be paid. There are four options for this:
a) Charge for content
b) Ads
d) donations
c) A&B
IANATroll, but I like Salon and you just bashed it. I feel like I need to stick up for it or something. I also think your rational is baseless.
Pete
The sole purpose of the Internet is to get porn and bomb making plans into the hands of children.
What's most important about this is only obvious if you're a regular Salon reader - it's overall the best news site on the Web. Especially for politics and consumer/corporate issues, Salon is simply indispensable. I paid for a "subscription" the day it was offered, and I'd pay again, and pay more, for the kind of kickass independent journalism only a site like Salon can provide.
Ads? I don't see them with the "premium" service, but who cares? I don't understand why
There's other places to get news - but they don't make money! There is no Internet-only news site that makes money - period. Salon is a very high-profile experiment that will, one way or the other, guide many decisions made by corporate managers about whether online is a viable market.
News organizations pay a LOT of attention to Salon and how it's doing, because they know it's a bellwether. Take it from a media professional - if Salon goes down you will feel the repercussions. Even the most insular geek sitting in the dark will feel the absence of useful journalism on the Web. And it will be because you, the Slashdot reader, didn't care enough to make it happen.
Pay! It's only thirty bucks, you know you can spare it. You'll be doing yourself more of a favor than you know. And if you can't be bothered to shell it out or deal with ONE ad a day for a few seconds, fuck you - no free lunch for you, asshole. Thanks for ruining it for everyone else.
Salon is NOT "extorting" money by running ads-- they're trying to find a model that will support themselves and their *outstanding* journalism. I've seen many, many stories on Salon that I didn't see anywhere else until Salon reported it...many of which have been linked to on /. over the years.
Contrary to your expectations, Salon Magazine is not a God-given right, and the heady days of free shit on the Internet are over. The majority of businesses who followed that model are long gone, and I dont' see how you can blame Salon for being so "belligerent" as to want to be able to sustain their business.
As for "They'll get my money if they ask nicely." -- they've been asking nicely for six months, and apparently it didn't work for you, since you never subscribed. You know what though? I've been meaning to sign up for that whole period, and now I'm going to-- because Salon is awesome, and you've made me realize that it's worth paying money for.
So Jesus Christ, grow up and quit being a goddamn crybaby who wants everything for nothing.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
And yet you are hanging out on an ad sponsored board?
Pete
The sole purpose of the Internet is to get porn and bomb making plans into the hands of children.
I agree. Moreover, I am troubled by what appears to be the majority, if not near consensus (but certainly not unanimous) attitude of Slashdot users: "We want all digital content for free." "We want to read it for free, copy it for free, and distribute it to anyone and everyone we want for free." Call it a generalization, a first order approximation, a rebuttable presumption -- hell, call it a "profile" -- about the average user of, and consensus on, Slashdot.
And if you ask us to read an advertisement, any advertisement, in any form, to help pay for the content, we will of course bitch, whine, moan, and use our considerable expertise to disable, block and/or render useless you advertisement. Disable pop-ups, block banner ads, and then gloat about it.
The New York Times puts its content up on the web. It asks, if you are a not one of their business partners, only that you register, for free, to read their content. Heaven forbid. What a travesty. That would interfere with your natural law, "Constitutional" (snort) right to access all digital content for free. So somebody, in order to GAIN karma, inevitably posts the "partner" or "archive" link to access the newspaper without registration. What a hero for free speech.
If you ask us to pay for digital content, we will bitch, whine, moan, and explain to each clueless retard content provider that, besides wanting to be anthropomorphized, "information wants to be free." That we can easily and economically copy and distribute digital information, that you can't stop us, so fsck you. Then gloat about it.
And when content providers come up with technology, legislation, and/or a combination thereof to try to protect and/or receive compensation for their digital content we... you guessed it... bitch, whine and moan. We also despair over the fact that perhaps we will no longer be able to gloat, that we will no longer be able to be the bullies we claimed to despise (but instead envied and dreamed to digitally emulate) in high school.
In other words, we efficiently demonstrate via the web for all to see, world-wide, that we are selfish, juvenile, immature, pigs.
The loathsome, immature, disgusting selfishness, is demonstrated not only by our desire, and indeed feeling of entitlement, to all digital content for free, but also by many of our responses to the crises of 911. Yesterday, there was a story about a call for hackers to come to the aid of their country, and to help fight terrorism. The majority, and perhaps consensus response? Again, you guessed it, to bitch, whine and moan. "Oh, they demonize us." "They call us names." As others bury their dead (or wish there was enough left of their loved ones that they could be buried), Slashdot users engage in paranoid libertarian fantasies about a "trap." (Just a hint, we aren't worth the effort.) They bitch about the fact that maybe, just maybe, they cannot break into other people's systems with impunity. That maybe, if they do, others will think less of them or, heaven forbid, actually put them in jail for breaking the law. Pathetic.
Are all Slashdot readers like this? Of course not. Some willingly pay for content, register, or put up with ads. Some, in other words, accept the content pursuant to the terms under which it was offered. Other go farther, and actually give and contribute to society. Many, many helped during the crises, and continue to help.
Are the content providers saints who never overreach, never attempt, and indeed succeed, in limiting the right to fair use? Again, of course not. They, too, can be loathsome.
But to bitch about advertisements on Salon which provides good, quality content for free is simply pathetic.
And, on the broader issue, to think you are able to protect yourself and your family from a terror attack on the scale of 911 because you are a libertarian Ayn Rand worshiping owner of a nine millimeter is not only morally pathetic, but also pathetically stupid.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Hey, if people bitch there is a reason.
....
:( It used to be a click on every Nth and now it's 0.00032123 percent of that". Well because there's nothing to click on!
.... well... anywhere on that lady with 38D that works for X10 (XXXXXXXXXX ? ) on "politics" section of newspapers. Loose 10 pounds ads everywhere. Psychic readings. Find your pals. Over and over and over again.
:)
I don't mind ads in what I read. In fact, sometimes I see nice ads that actually interest me. That look nice, not boring, not being over 200Kb (just because someone at sales dept wanted a flashy thingy to flash on their product). Fine. I like those. But where are they?
Why every freaking time I see SPRINT PCS? Once -- ok. Twice -- hm.... Three times -- do you really thing I will click/buy? Four, five, six
They do not care if reader is really interested.
The attitude is "hm... he didn't click on flashy banner, let's put three more on the side and one full page".
After that industry starts to cry "they don't click any more
And the amount of irrelevant ads increases rapidly. Little cameras that you can stick up
Until they stop showing me this crap I ignored about 1384 times I will be bitching about how stupid, ignorant, irrelevant, annoying, NOT WORKING online ads (and online ad industry) are.
I bet banners on Tomshardware.com have double (if not triple) click-through average to the rest of the web. Because they're relevant.
*Author is not affiliated with any of listed resources, all opinions are personal
Hyperom.com