Slashdot Mirror
Advertisers Escalate Banner Ad War
AnonymousComrade writes: "In today's Newsbytes, there is an article about MediaBEAM GmbH, a German company that say they have developed Web server software that can detect whether a home browser is blocking banner ads or pop-ups. If the Web server detects blocking software, a message appears on the screen advising the 'free-loading' surfer that he has two choices if he wants access to the Web site's content: pay for it or be exposed to the ads. This sounds strange to me. Can they really include something in the download (Java or JS, I assume) that detects whether an ad picture has been downloaded or not? What if you have blocking S/W that not just blocks the download of the ad picture, but also modifies the HTML on-the-fly (a la the Proxomitron). Can they really distinguish this from a remote ad server that just isn't responding? And how long will it take before ad blocking S/W is updated to block this blocking-detection mechanism?"
one way they could do it is with a client-side script/applet that runs at the very tail-end of a loaded document. the client side stuff could profile the document object exactly as it is loaded and displayed on the browser, instructing the browser to describe the various properties of the document's objects (visible=false, unavailable=true, whatever)... that would reveal a blocked ad. then the script phones home with the results, detailed, or with a simple pass/ fail.
another way they could do it is by sensing whether or not the client sends out a request for the ad from the ad server at all.
if either is the case, so what? the next move in the arms race is for the blocking software companies to request the image anyways... just not display it, or spoof the document properties that indicate a properly displayed and enabled ad.
the german company mediabeam is ratcheting up the arms race, that is all.
i think the web ad ecosystem is in for an overhaul anyways... pop-under ads, etc., just seem like a desparate last-ditch attempt at old-school ideas of ad prominence... the web is not tv, it is not radio... they will get it someday.
why not go for subtlety instead? win users over to your site with gentle persuasion, not howling insistence.
what the heck am i talking about? try google's understated and creative approach (zdnet article from june). wired also raved about google's novel ad approaches, all of which have a simple theme: potential customers want to be gently persuaded, not knocked over the head with a salami and dragged to your storefront. (the wired article is in the current october issue- "Google's Secret Formula: How a no-nonsense search engine built a stealth advertising machine." only on newstands... not available on line until october 16)
you don't need fancy graphics... a few bytes of ascii with an href in the right spot and you probably have a better time at snagging a customer than any strongarm tactics anyways...
did you like my post? have me write one for you and boost your karma with just a small one-time donation of $5.95. but act now! i'm slowly losing my faculties so karma supplies are limited.
;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
However I don't know whether this is such a good idea, because there's no way for the server to find out whether the client acceses the banners over his isp's proxy that could cache the banners. This way innocent users would be locked out.
There are a lot of different reasons why such a software that forces you to look on banners is a very bad idea (for example what about people who are blind and use text-browsers like lynx?), and we can just hope that the folks who run interesting servers will recognize that.
What do you do when you see an endangered animal eating an endangered plant?
First thing: the server does not know if the client downloaded the add, since the adds are usually served from a third party server.
/etc/hosts long ago, so I do not have to download 'material' from them that I am not interested in anyway.
And who is "double-click"? I am sure you don't mean doubleclick.net, which I mapped to a non-existant IP address in my
I just don't see why I should have to download stuff I don't want.
For instance lets say that instead of having the ads seperate from the article the thing is one whole gif jpg png whatever. What is to stop the web browser from chopping the image up anyway so the ad disappears.
For popup ads the server may send a Java (scriplet security?) piece that contains the ad if the Java program stops running then the web server detects this and no content is displayed. But a browser can redirect output to anywhere including hiding popup windows and have the Java program still running. Since they have no control over the client they can do nothing.
Trust me, I am not a MSCE
-- RTFM:Slackware::Beer:Saturday
All the Javascript would have to do is make sure the url property of the image element, or embed element, or object element is correct, and that the isLoaded property is set.
Although this would force people to surf with Javascript enabled - something thats proving more dangerous every day on a Windows based platform.
Or they could be complete muppets and force surfers to accept ActiveX objects - which would probably sideline most of the X community.
On the other hand, this company has decided adverts and banners is more important that the content - so be it. I prefer sites with content, and having a "This site is full of banners" type message in the form of "Remove proxy or else" is an excellent way of avoiding these sites, it happens to match with my surfing preferences.
These marketing companies should take a lesson out of Google's book. Their advert placement is unobtrusive and normally relevant to the search topic on hand - without the intrusive methods marketing types have forced on its visitors.
The evil marketing guy forces the webdesigner to put a banner on the top of the page. The contents of the page is in a IFRAME tag.
If a browser requests the IFRAME src but not the banner, the server can send a page that says that you have to view the banner or pay.
This is only one way of doing it.
Java script and VB script can do even more marketing things.
And the marketing guy's don't care about lynx (and not even mozilla) beacuse none of their target audience uses lynx anyway.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Yep, I can confirm this, running Norton Internet Security 2002.
Here's the Babelfished text they serve up if you are blocking ads:
The page requested by you cannot be represented unfortunately. This problem can have the following causes: An advertising filter (e.g. Web which ago, AdBlocker) prevents the announcement of banners. DirectBOX finances itself by advertisement. Please you deactivate the advertising filter.
Note: They can deactivate the advertisement on directBOX by a monthly payment. Click here, in order to activate directBOX the advertising filter.
Their Browser does not support an announcement of pictures. DirectBOX uses pictures as navigation item. We recommend to use you a current Browser.
Stiff bikkies Lynx users.
Banner ads, in general don't bug me.
What made me reach for my revolver (err... ad blocking software) was that godamned "click the monkey" ad. (In case you've never seen it, it's some dumb ad with a monkey zipping around the background).
Usability tests of websites agree... movement kills the ability to read. Having something zipping around in your perefrial vision distracts your ability to read content. Content is what I came to the website for. If I can;t read the content, why should I go there?
So, since the advertising numbnuts that push animated banner ads poisoned the well, I've been using ad blocking software. Apparently, people still haven't learned, as I have seen godawful flash advertisements slip through my ad blockers, again making the page friggin' unreadable.
Most print ads do not disrupt. There are a few exceptions (I noticed once that a magazine started to place ads in a stripe across the middle of the page, and had each column of text jump over the ad, so in reading the story your eyes would be forced to jump over the ad space two or three times. They knocked that off after two isses). In general, print ads seem to have struck a balance between getting the reader's attention and disrupting the reader's ability to enjoy the content... which is their purpose in reading the book/magazine/newspaper in general. This has happened through evolution. Those that annoyed their readers with ads were less likely to survive.
Ads on the web right now are about the sophistication of those cheesy local cable ads. You know, the ones you can tell are stuck in by the local cable company, because the sound is suddenly too loud, there's usually bad audio, and the video is of poor quality. And like those cheesy cable ads, they tend to be inserted not by the producer of the content, but of third parties (such as doubleclick) who may or may not be concerned about how disruptive the ads are to the site within which they are viewed.
Things are just getting worse in this space. I've seen more Flash ads on the web, which makes me think I should uninstall that damned plugin.
When you push things too far, when you make things annoying enough, don't be surprised when your audience pushes back, and does things like install ad filtering software. It's corporate conceit and stupidity to fight back with things that are supposed to technologically allow you to annoy the hell out of your potential customers. Hey guys, how about maybe adopting guidelines so your ads don't disrupt your audience's ability to do what they really came to your site to do? Like, for example, no movement. Totally static images. I know, not as flashy, not as sexy, but also not as annoying. If, in the end, I cannot read and enjoy the content of the site, I'm simply not going to come back. Then the site dies, just as surely as if they had no revenue from ads in the first place.
Its been noticed that ads have gotten steadily more annoying. Consumers can't be stupid enough to think, "Oh wow, wander whats behind banner number two?" everytime they see something like "You've Won" or "Smack the monkey and win." Resentment to unfair tactics may be the issue. The average Joe consumer doesn't block ads, rather the aggressive degradation of adds could more realisticly be viewed as stemming from the competion by ad companies. They need results to get money for banner placements, in the search for results the ads have steadily gotten worse.
If ads were to go back to using no animation or pop-ups I think resistance to viewing would go down. Its hard to read an article when there's a blinking flashing ad on the page. If flash is in use, you can't hit stop and kill it like an animated gif. Also, the deceptive "You've won cr@p" has to go, their should be laws governing deceptive and misleading advertising if I'm not mistaken.
Just my thoughts, the issue has more than ethical questions of blocking to be considered. Advertising also requires ethics.
While it may well be the case in the US that they don't have to make their sites visible to people using different settings, it's starting to become a legal issue in the UK.
As disabled people do have every right to access content, things like making a site usable with alt tags is starting to become a genuine legal issue. Telling a visually impared person that they must turn on the features that make a site physically unusable to them would be breaching equal opportunity laws. Curiously, most of the UK laws wandered out of the EU and so I'd imagine that Germany, where this company is based, is much the same.
Of course there is one other option no one seems to be looking at: "Who cares whether it'll pan out? Creating this hype will generate a lot of interest in the company and maybe help raise enough money to see us through the current downturn." A lot of companies that planned to get to IPO this year seem to be doing this at the moment. Whether or not they have a tech and whether or not it's actually viable, if you create enough talk and hype, you might still be able to get a few investors that you wouldn't have got otherwise and just maybe you'll stay in business long enough to come up with a more viable product.
Not sure if anyone mentioned it already but Ad Muncher http://www.admuncher.com/ is the best (imo) ad blocking program out there, it doesn't hog processor(popupkiller), or crash(popupkiller), or have a terrible ui (Proxomitron), and it's not tied to any particular browser(popup-ad-filter).
The installer is 65k total, written in assembly, it uses very little memory and virtually no processor, and is extremely customizable. The "advanced filters" option lets you specify any text in the page source to be replaced on the fly and supports wildcards, it can block banner and popup servers directly and not even draw the ad or the space it would take up, and it has lots of useful options like the block images with "typical banner dimensions" option stops a lot of ads without you ever having to take the time to make a filter for a particular one.