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?
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?
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.
It's worth it, gets you access to additional features, and you aren't annoyed by ads. As a side benefit, you support one of the best sources of online journalism.
If you only read the occasional article, then don't bother, but don't complain about the ads. If you read all the time, then why haven't you signed up yet?
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
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?(Copied shamelessly from here in the hopes that some of you might read it before forming an opinion. Emphasis, where used, is mine.)
About our new ads
A note to readers
Sept. 24, 2001 | Today Salon introduces a new kind of advertisement -- a full-screen message that will show up in your browser when you click on a link, and will play briefly before moving you on to the page you requested. (The ad should only show up once per day per user, unless you have turned "cookies" off in your browser.)
As most of you know, this has been a difficult year for advertising-supported publications, online and off. Like many other companies we've responded by trying to innovate for our advertisers -- so we can remain financially healthy and continue to serve you. As with any innovation, we expect to learn from our experience over time, to keep what works and drop what doesn't.
We know that some Web users find this sort of ad intrusive. But before you send in that irate e-mail, we ask you to consider that the content you come to Salon for -- independent-minded, thought-provoking, unavailable elsewhere -- does not come free.
Today we have two ways to support our writers, editors and the rest of the staff that keeps Salon coming to you every day -- through advertising and through subscriptions. If sitting through one five-second ad before you can read an article is simply too much of a delay for you, we offer a Salon Premium subscription as a different way to support Salon -- you get access to exclusive content and the option to turn off most ads on the site. (For more information, click here.)
Our intention, as always, is to bring you the most intelligent, provocative, fearless coverage of news and culture available anywhere.
Scott Rosenberg
Managing editor
No, that's the thing. The portion of Salon's readership that gets these ads is not made up of "customers," those being the people that actually subscribe to the premium service. What they are are people who load up on free news and commentary on Salon and never pay a dime. (I'm not bashing these people, I'm one of them.) The two seconds that it takes to click "Continue to story" is a small price to pay for all the stuff Salon provides.
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.
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.
You can always pay up, mooch. Or you can just read the 95% drivel other places in the hopes that you will find the gem amongst the gravel.
I don't know about you, but I value my time enough to see that it is worth paying for some things.
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)