Slashdot Mirror


The Successor To Popunder Ads?

Croaker writes: "So, apparently, boston.com is trying out these new ads called "Shoshkeles" (the marketeer who came up with that name was on crack, no doubt). The result is an incredibly annoying experience of having crap run around the page you are reading, along with sound. And you thought banner ads sucked. The company responsible for the technology, United Virtualities says these are 'browser driven, platform agnostic, sound enabled, free moving forms that marry total creative license to a whole new level of effectiveness.' Effective in annoying, I guess." The site says "the ads only appear when using an Internet Explorer browser," though. Darn.

8 of 510 comments (clear)

  1. Amazing by squaretorus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It really is amazing the length some sites will go to to get you to stop using them. If you visit Lycos or Yahoo with IE you get Pizza Hut pizzas flying around the screen more often than not.

    At work I don't notice them, but at home on my cruddy 56kbps they cause a significant slow down - the result? Google gets even MORE of my traffic.

  2. IE's Flash player by breon.halling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason these "Shoshkeles" don't work with Navigator is poor feature support in Navigator's Flash player. Alas, it does not support transparent Flash movies.

    While this "new" form of advertising (I put "new" in quotations, as this kind of thing has been around for almost a year -- though now it's got some ridiculous name) may seem very annoying, the ability to create transparent SWFs in both major browsers is something I have always wanted. Oh well, I doubt that'll ever happen.

    So, to be safe, just stick with good ol' Navigator!

    --
    "Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
  3. Re:Not clickable by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    CLickthroughs are a perverse form of measuring an adds effecity, and adopting this is why Internet advertising revenues have dropped so sharply. Ads are about increasing mindshare, getting word of your product out, and convincing people to try it. They're not suppose dto be "Hey look! Ford sells cars! I'm going to go buy one right NOW!". When was the last time you saw an ad on TV, to immediatly hop in your car and drive to the mall to purshase the item? CHances are, next to never. But maybe later, when you want something in that area, you will remember the ad. This is how advertising is supposed to work. All this clickthrough nonsense as a measure of how effective an ad is is retarded.

  4. No, it's "Shoshkele ™" by Kozz · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Well, it appears that United Virtualities has trademarked the name "Shoshkele". Maybe if we're lucky, that means they've attempted to patent the advertisement method and will hence enforce it, resulting in fewer companies overall that would use this type of obtrusive advertising? Ha - we could only wish. From their webpage,
    "Please note that the demos showcased on this page are Flash 4 based. This is done for confidentiality reasons. If you need to test the functionality of final release Shoshkeles (TM) please contact us."
    So they're showing us demos in Flash 4 so that people can't "view source" to rip off the code? Meaning that the ads are actually NOT Flash 4 but something else, perhaps, as they say that the ads don't actually require any plugin.

    I'm thinking that sooner or later, people will start ripping off this ad style, and they're not going to call it a "Shoshkele". Unless UV patents this ad method, (and IANAL) I don't see how they can keep others from ripping them off. Besides, I've already seen annoying ads like these on weather.com.

    Now all we need is a filter for this sort of crap in Mozilla and I'll go back to using it.

    --
    I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
  5. Actually, I like them by david_g · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, they're really annoying, but at least they're creatively made. And let's face it. Ads are the main driving force of all the media. Why should the net be any different? There is no such thing as a 'free lunch' as everyone knows...


    Not that I like ads, but I understand sites need to have a way to survive. What I would like to see, though is:



    1. An alternative to seeing those ads: some kind of subscription method for people who are regulars to a site and don't mind contributing. In exchange, they get to turn the ads off, and maybe some other goodies.
    2. For people who don't want to subscribe, and since they'll be seeing the ads anyway, at least give them a way to choose what kind of ads they want to see.
    3. For everybody else, tough. The world doesn't revolve around you and people have to eat. If you don't like it, go find other sites to see.


    People really should stop being so selfish. I'm starting to believe that the 'geek' title so many people here are proud to use is nothing more than a certificate of insensitiveness, egocentrism and selfishness...


    How about... growing up?

  6. Re:marketeers.... by Speare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "platform agnostic" and runs on IE only... those marketeers never fail to amuse me.

    Well, the literal meaning of "agnostic" is "in a manner without knowledge." A- gnostic. The dictionary lists "professing ignorance."

    Perhaps running on IE only really is being agnostic. :)

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  7. BIG QUESTION by FFFish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Big Question: Do advertisements work, or are companies being duped?

    Do advertisements work? Is there really an increase in sales after a product is advertised? Does everyone run out and buy Vidal Sassoon when the salon advertisement plays? Does GM really sell more "like a rocks" because of their ads?

    I understand that at one level, advertisements must work: people won't buy a product if they aren't aware of it.

    But beyond making people aware (ie. stating "Hey, this product exists, here's what it can do for you" in the simplest possible form), does advertising work?

    Do flashy annoying ads work better than static ads?

    Or are businesses being suckered by the world's best conmen?

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  8. Re:IE won't die, but sites will by jonbrewer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These ads are not targeted at you, nor at consumers who fit your profile. The tech-saavy user who is bothered by intrusive ads does not register on the radar screen of the advertisers and ad firms buying these ads on sites such as boston.com and weather.com.

    I like to think these ads are targeted at my parents. Mom is not going to stop visiting weather.com because an ad for allergy medicine dumped a bunch of colored leaves on her web page for a few seconds. In fact, she likes the ad. (If you haven't seen this ad, get on an XP system with IE 6 and watch. It's actually pretty cool.)

    While it probably annoys dad, he's not going to go back to watching the weather channel on TV, because the web site gets him the weather instantly compared to waiting for the local forecast on TV. And it would take quite an interruption for him to make him seek out another website for his weather.

    Bottom line is that "joe-average users" don't give a shit about ads, and aren't going to alter their media consumption patterns to keep them away from what you may consider "lousy ads." The advertisers know this, and so are keeping up with technology in the name of competition.

    JB

    (IANAA, but I do have a degree in Advertising.)