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?"
Always there is a third option.
In this case, it is to ignore the offensive website. When a company starts to insult the decisions of potential customers, they lose more customers than they gain.
But what if you need something that the website provides? Look elsewhere. When there are enough people requiring the services of one company, but who do not want to go to that company, another can come in. By being freindlier to their customers, all else being equal, they can gobble up market share.
But it's your choice whether the companies force-advertising you will succeed or not, because they depend on you, and not the other way around.
...that they're fighting this battle on technical grounds. I hope we see a good clean fight, technology vs. technology, with no lawyers.
May the best code win.
--G
Yep, or more likely, by the use of a web server module that does the sme thing without having to actually parse the logs. But that's not what they're claiming. In the article, they say that they "make contact" with the user's browser to determine if the ad has actually been displayed. The only way I can think of doing this is by embedding some JavaScript that checks to see if the page has been rewritten en route, and if so, posts something back to the web server, which can then modify its content accordingly. But even that won't be particularly effective, and your favourite blocking proxy should just be able to filter out the offending javascript anyway. And even if it didn't, it still wouldn't catch proxies that just serve a blank image instead of the requested ad. As far as the browser is concerned, it's been given the image it requested. I'm sceptical, but then all of my assumptions are based on having a sane browser. Who knows what MS have put in IE to give content providers control over the browser?
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
In addition, in today's age of worms upon virus upon other nasty things, there is a sufficiently significant (probably around 10%) of users that have turned off Active Scripting in IE or the equivalent in NS to avoid such problems. I very much believe that these users have more of a right to keep this off than an advertizer has to force you to look at an ad.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
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
I'm not sure if removing adds from a page is legal, even without the DCMA.
The author wrote a page with an add, and a filter app modifies the page and removes the add picture, without a permission from the author.
Most browsers allow you to override fonts and colors, toggle image downloading, disable scripting, and so on; blocking ads is only one more tiny modification to the page. Modifying the page is something that is commonly accepted for other purposes (accessibility, user preference, etc), so I don't think that argument will go far.
But modification is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.
I'm not sure if this applies. You certainly can't modify a copyrighted work and distribute it, but if you purchase a book, you're free to scribble notes on the pages. If you listen to a CD, you can EQ it to taste. Thus, if you download a web page, you should be able to modify it as you wish for your own viewing.
Selling an app that's only purpose is to remove adverts from web pages could infringe the authors rights.
That's what some say about Tivo and Replay TV... and so far, I don't think a real big fuss has been raised. The difference of course is that commercial-skipping isn't the only use for the Tivo (nor is it an advertised feature), so ad-blocking software might have a more difficult time... but a general proxy with ad-blocking as an extra feature might be fine.
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
A charitable view of this product, but a seriously naive view of what caused the dot-com crash. First, not every dot-com had its business model predicated on ad revenue. But the real reason that the dot-coms crashed is a simple one. They weren't creating any value. In an economy that rewards profits, very few of the dot-coms' business plans actually recognized this simple fact. Many were predicated on some Ponzi-like exit strategy (if they had one at all), be it an IPO, acquisition, or the holy grail, viral adoption.
The reality is that there was simply too much venture capital and too few experienced investors. In '98, you could write a business plan on a piece of toilet paper and get it funded by someone. Now, if you don't have a clear path to profitability with 24 months, a shipping product, near break-even revenues, and a seasoned management team, don't even bother wasting the trees to print your plan. The VCs don't want to see it. They're still trying to dig their way out of billions in failed companies and trying to save the companies they still have.
These guys would probably have ruled the dot-com world, if they'd gotten their act together and released this when it might have been useful.
Probably not. Most likely, they'd have gone the same way as all of the other companies who were part of the failed VC food chain. Once the capital dried up, it would have only been a matter of time before companies stopped buying their software. This is the secondary fall-out that killed all the companies with products and sales that were geared towards dot-com infrastructure. These guys would have been no different. As it stands now, this one shouldn't even be let out of the gate.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
So, now, according to YOU, the peer-to-peer free flow of information THAT IS THE INTERNET (and had been for 20+ years) is suddenly "leeching" because some loser dot-bomb can't think of a real way to make money? Give me a break.
I don't recall Sunsite or Tsx-11 forcing ascii-ads down our throats in the FTP banner back in '93. I don't recall Tim Berners-Lee pining for an internet full of banner ads and griping about "leeches". I don't recall seeing the official DOD document subsection about preventing "leechers".
The usual mantra that originates from the dot-bombers, which you so aptly seem to parrot here, is that if you somehow block ads you are then "stealing" from the web site.
Excuse me? I pay for MY end of the pipe. I pay for the packets going in and out of MY end of the internet...are the dot-bombers going to pay ME for their use of my bandwidth to broadcast crap? Oh, didn't think so...the shoe is on the other foot now. Most spammers scuttle away like roaches when you say this to them, too.
Here's a newsflash: despite the best and worst efforts of dot-bombers, the Internet IS NOT LIKE TELEVISION. This is a peer-to-peer network we all share in. DON'T LIKE IT? THEN CLOSE UP SHOP AND SET UP ON AOL INSTEAD OF GRIPING ABOUT INTERNET "LEECHERS". If you want to force ads down the throats of the clueless in a server-based environment, AOL and MSN are designed for you...but not the Internet.
(We put up with 4 years of dot-bomb hyperbole and BS, and now we have to put up with another 4 of the former dot-bombers griping about how it was everyone else's fault they didn't make any money.)
> But modification is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.
NO. NO. NO. NO.
Modification, followed by subsequent redistribution is restricted by copyright law.
The mainstream media giants have managed to socially engineer this knowledge out of the vast majoirty of the sheep^H^H^H^H^Hpeople.
If I, upon legitimately obtaining copyrighted material, screw around with it, I'm not breaking the law unless I give a copy of it or the modified version to someone else.
Think about it - if I buy a painting from you, I'm free to draw a silly moustache and glasses on it, but, according to societal conventions currently enshrined in our legal system, I can't (a) sell copies of the painting without your permission or (b) sell copies of the modified painting without permsission. (I'm also usually allowed sell the original painting to someone else (this area is much murkier, and the reason behind the legal blurb at the start of european books about "may not be sold on without imposing similar conditions on the buyer" stuff)- that's the freedom that UCITA and software EULAs try to fight)
That's all pretty much a mixture of common sense and courstesy - but what the lawyers and media giants have done, is, via tricky wording and paying for new laws, is destroy all that.
Via assinine laws like the DMCA, and WIPO treaty provisions, our feudal overlords / corporate masters have managed to erode such "fair use" rights of the average person.
Choice of masters is not freedom.
The difference is that online advertising is no longer something you can skim past while reading the story. Online advertising is now a very annoying, can't-be-ignored, get-in-your-face irritation. On top of that, much of the onlie advertising also tracks you to see where you saw the ad, how often you saw the ad, who you are, what other sites/ads you may be seeing, etc.
Back when online advertising was just a simple banner ad, I never even thought about trying to block it. When online advertising starting tracking where you went and what you did, I started looking at blocking options and started a half-assed attempt at blocking. When online advertising started getting really annoying and very difficult to just ignore, I got serious about blocking the ads.
The advertisers did it to themselves. They tried to force more upon us than they did with newspapers. They tried to gather much more information about us than they could with newspapers. (They probably are also paying less for the ads than they did with newspapers.) If they had left well enough alone and not gotten greedy, most people probably would never even have thought about blocking their ads.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
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.
You can do this purely on the server side. No cookies. No by IP address. No javascript. No Java. Possibly without even using frames.
First, with frames. Send them a tiny page with frames. A frame for the ad(s) and a frame for the content. The tiny frame containing html contains custom url's for both the content and the ads. That is, the "session id" is embedded in the url's, without using cookies.
When the browser requests the url for content, the content stream is stalled until the ads are downloaded, or at least started. Since ads and content are tied to the same "session", you can tell which content goes with which ads. But you don't penalize others behind a NAT. The server can still be load balanced because a database keeps track of the sessions -- which can be very short lived. So even multiple servers can be used, as long as they share a common database -- or some rpc mechanism to ensure evil ads have been served before "unstalling" the stream for the content.
I said do it without frames. Simply send the html stream of the main page. Ads appear in the stream before content, which almost means necessarily "above" the content. When the stream gets right up to the point where it is to start delivering content, you stall the stream until the ad image(s) are at least requested.
Possible problem: are there any browsers that cannot request the ad image while the main content page is stalled? i.e. non multi-threaded?
Possible countermeasure: when your junkbusting proxy detects ads, it must deliver fake ads to the browser (or better, rewrite the content stream so that there aren't even ad spaces in the content), and it must make a pretense of requesting ads from the server. The proxy would continue to suck down the ad images until the content is delivered -- then abruptly close the ad stream connections. This way, if the server isn't willing to unstall the content until the ads are fully delivered, all you wasted is the bandwitdh to get the ads, but you don't see them. If the server is willing to unstall the content as soon as ads are requested, then you drop the connection on the ads asap. Using such a proxy, the server is unable to detect that you didn't actually see the ads. You at least went through the pretense of downloading the ads.
I don't see any counter-counter-measure that the evil advertisers could employ. From their point of view, you are a normal browser, downloaded both the ads and content. How can they further tell that you can't see the ads without going to more invasive techniques like Javascript?
I've often wondered about using javascript to deliver the content. You send down a javascript program that writes new content into an <ilayer>. But the javascript can be obfuscated. Even the "content" can be compressed with the javascript effectively unzipping it as it writes content into the layer. This almost certianly requires real javascript running in the browser to render the content part. The javascript could attempt to detect that the ads have been rendered first.
Now the counter-counter-counter-measure. Let the javascript and rendering happen in the ad busting proxy. The proxy is designed so that its rendering engine renders a data structure in memory. You then run filters on this data structure. Pattern matching. (Lisp anyone?) It's like a regular expression, but without the same kind of syntax. You do the recognition on the final page, which is expected to be structured a certian way. The ad, which falls in a familiar place is removed, and then new html is written from the in-memory data structure rendering of the original html. The new html is sent from the proxy to the end user.
Then what about a counter-counter-counter-counter-measure? Well, the evil advertisers could start sending you the content as a java applet. The applet contacts the server via. a non http stream and gets the content through a secret non-standard means. But only if the ads were delivered.
But then the counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-measure is to run the applet in a faked environment that fools it into connecting to the server and think that the ads were deliverd on the local page.
But then the counter counter counter counter counter counter measure is to serve both the ads and content together in a single big applet which uses a proprietary non-standard means obtain both the ads and content over a special stream from the server. Any attempts to circumvent this is a violation of the DMCA. They automatically record your IP address, look up your location, and to an XMLRPC call to the local FBI office's server to send goons to your door.
Then the counter counter counter counter counter counter counter measure is to stop visiting such sites. (And to bitch and complain on slashdot.)
Then the counter*8 measure is to lobby for custom legislation that requires you to browse to their web site if you were a regular visitor before, and to watch their ads. Alternately they can send party comrads to your home to force feed you the ads.
Finally, you must download and install their TeleScreen(tm) applet which uses your computer's usb camera and microphone to give them two-way telescreen access to your home to ensure that you are watching your dialy minimum recommended allowance of ads, as determined by federal standards.
What is the counter*9 measure?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
That's bad advertising, plain and simple. It's been _proven_ through marketing research that if you get too annoying you unsell your product, most notably that's been proven through market research of particular sorts of TV advertising.
We're not talking about 'just let these poor people make money, will you?', we're talking about enabling them to hose themselves through severely stupid and bad advertising. The people using ad blockers are doing advertisers a FAVOR- that is valuable data, that information. They often accompany this with other valuable data- announcements that "if it was all quiet well-behaved banner ads that didn't blink or flash or move a lot, we wouldn't feel compelled to be doing this". That's valuable information. Since when is a random consumer's browsing history more valuable than an outright, impassioned statement of that consumer's preferences on how they want to be courted, advertising-wise?
Intrusive web advertising can be compared to billboards: the people attempting to use it can make a big fuss about how it's a moral imperative that they should be allowed to do this, but it's not only a lie, it's not even a healthy or useful thing to be doing. They are wrong in wishing to do it. If they are allowed to do it they will actually harm advertising in general- though this does create a window of opportunity for well-behaved advertisers, as well as substantially driving down the costs for well-behaved advertisers. Still... if you don't actively hate the entire field of advertising, it's hard to justify these abusive, useless practices, which harm advertising in general.
David Ogilvy considered advertising the art of 'speaking well about' things. Abusing people to the point that they are blindly, acutely hostile to anything resembling advertising makes it that much harder to do it properly and sensibly.
Just as restrictions are placed on the use of roadside billboards, I would like to see this abusive web advertising restricted by regulation and government oversight. It's plain that these people cannot and will not behave or police themselves.