Slashdot Mirror
Are Plain-Text Ads Doomed?
friedegg writes "Usability expert Jakob Nielsen's latest alertbox examines the future of text advertising on the web. Text based advertising has become increasingly popular recently partly because of Google's success with it. Nielsen notes that advertising works well on search engines because users visit them with the specific intent of going elsewhere. He also thinks it's only a matter of time before the novelty of text advertising wears off, and users develop "box blindness" in addition to their current "banner blindness." It isn't totally negative, though, as he thinks the low-end media format forces advertises to express a focused and succinct message that users may take more seriously."
Many times with newer rich media ads people are trying to close them when in reality they click through. This upsets the user who would probably close the site right away. Using such distracting ads such as rich media that goes over the whole site (think Yahoo and Weather.com) and pop-ups alienate your website visitors.
As for targeting, search engines are not the only application for targeting. All websites can implement targeting. If I have a site that's geared for collage students then the best ad would be for somebody targeting that demographic, it doesn't matter what form of advertising it is. This statement is very much like comparing apples and oranges.
Go calculate something
It's way better to have afs plaintext. Personally, I never click on huge flickering banners. First of all because they are *so* annoying, and second because 9 out of 10 times; if you click 1, you'll get a thousand popups after that trying to have you visit Bukakke-specials or Preteen teens or whatever 31337 pr0n those stupid websites have.
:-)
Can't we just ban them?
A.
http://www.spareprojects.nl
Ads have their place. When I'm looking for a commercial alternative to something, the google list on the right is very useful.
Plain text advertising works in print media so why shouldn't it work online too?
I don't need to see a picture of a memory module to be interested in an add offering to sell me 512MB RAM at a good price.
Remember, content is king.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I think "the next big thing" in advertising could be plain old hypertext links within writings. If an online magazine has an article about C++, wherever it says "C++ compiler" in the article it could be a link to a compiler vendor. Newsfactor does this to some extent in their articles, plus with descriptive icons so you know you're going to an ad. It would seem much more successful and useful to the user to go this route.
Developers: We can use your help.
Just like software "bloats" as CPU speeds increase, I think ads will "bloat" as users connection speeds increase. I think Mr Nielson is right - text ads are doomed.
had a pretty innovative ad for a week there. It showed something to the extent of :"No Ad here for a week, brought to you from MSN of Os X" and then dissapeared after 3-4 seconds, leaving you without flashing lights or anyway, which made the surfing quite enjoyable.
If you missed what the ad said you could hover on it and it gave you a hands-on on what MSN is and blah blah... I have to admit that was a slick ad!
In Canada, we don't fancy things like socks
As fonts get smaller, ASCII art in the adverts will pick up and pretty soon - we'll be back where we started.
Just a matter of time.
Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
On one of my websites, we switched to book-your-own text ads a few months ago. For the first month, the clickthru rates were astounding -- 5%-15% on some of them. Now, we're lucky to break 1%. The reason, of course, is obvious: they were new and interesting, and people noticed them because of that. Now, they are neither new nor interesting. They remain an amusing thing on the site, but they're not paying the bills, I'm afraid. All that we can do from here is continue to switch it up: move them around on the site, offer formats with bigger text, more words, etc. But that's not a solution, just a stall tactic.
-Waldo Jaquith
The next generation ads will be much more intrusive, but much less annoying. A good example is going to McDonald's in the game "The Sims".
Ads will start getting integrated right into what you are doing (especially games). This isn't, necessarily, a bad thing. It'll help keep the consumer costs down for the product, and aren't as annoying and attention-stealing as popups or banners.
Would this be considered a text ad? I'd say so, unless you want to classify it into a new class, like 'integrated ad.'
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I'd say that text *articles* are doomed as well. How many people actually click the link and read everything?
With all due respect to his message of "Simplify, simplify", Nielsen is too passionate about his mission to be practical in applying it.
Just look at his site -- hasn't enjoyed any kind of redesign since he created it, or indeed any kind of design at all. There's nothing interesting on it, nothing inviting, nothing to indicate to someone that one thing is more important than another. In his vigor to keep his site accessible to text-only browsers he's completely ignored the visually unimpaired.
If his message today is that text-only ads will be ignored just as colorful graphical ones already are, then he himself should take this message to heart -- because text-only web sites are even easier to ignore.
This article might be on to something...
With that element an accepted fact of advertising (people block out billboards, use TV commercials to grab something from the other room, flip channels on the radio when the 9 minutes of ads come on, and flip the ad pages in magazines to get to the content) advertisers still continue. Why? For that one or two people out of a thousand who respond to the ad.
I've done it. I see an interesting ad and I actually watch it. Or I see a banner ad for something unique and I click on it. Text ads are the same way, except I am more likley to read them (usually contain more information) and less likely to be annoyed by them (rarely flash, "vibrate", or make noise.)
Are they dying? No, they are settling.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Advertising as it is praticed today is doomed.
It used to be that advertising was about making people aware of your product/service. Ideally, you did so the the most focused manner possible - if you were a lawn care service you went to people with lawns, etc.
You also did things like list yourself in the telephone book.
That form of advertising is useful to both the advertiser and the viewer, and so will persist. That is what getting your web site listed in Google under the appropriate indexes does.
However, now-a-days advertising is about "RAM THIS DOWN HIS THROAT AND MAKE HIM WANT IT NO MATTER WHAT!" I've heard it said that, to a marketer, it is a failure if you go into a store and buy only what you went in to buy.
That sort of advertising is doomed, because it a) does not generate good, high quality leads, and b) it pisses people off. That which pisses people off gets ignored.
www.eFax.com are spammers
When it comes to selling the latest top 10 hit to a 15 year old however, that's a different story. A noisy flash ad may be just what's being called for.
Context is very important though. I don't want to be fed noisy, flashy ads when I'm reading technical articles... Actually I don't want to be fed noisy flashy ads at all, but I'm probably just an exception if the number of flash ads is anything to go by :)
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Text Ads have one other advantage over banners: You can't filter them out with software. (At least not now, or rather, not that I've seen.)
Blocking banners and pop-ups is pretty trivial, but blocking text ads? That seems to be a more difficult problem to solve.
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
I think Nielsen's wrong here. I find that, for certain types of searches, I want to look at the ads. No, really! Here's an example. My wife and I have one of those WhirleyPop stovetop popcorn popping gizmos. It works reasonably well with regular popcorn and oil, but it's really, really spectacular if you get the pre-measured packets of popcorn, oil, and seasonings.
Right before last Thanksgiving, I went to Amazon.com and searched for WhirleyPop. I could buy more poppers, but not more supplies. So I went to Google. Google's search results (for "popcorn & WhirleyPop") were OK, but the ads were exactly what I was looking for -- vendors who could sell me something, fairly specialized, that's never available in any store I visit.
In this case, it was the ads, not the search results, that were interesting. All of those people were ready to sell me exactly what I wanted. Sometimes, ads are not ads, they are the results themselves.
Plain text banner-style ads might not do as well, especially long ones... but truly I appreciate them more than the annoying flash-type versions. Also, they show up much better than GIF's on links/lynx
An, as mentioned, effective short ads are very effective. For instance, when you're searching for "Digital Camera", and you get an immediate link on google to thinks like "prices on digital cameras on ebay/amazon" are still good forms of advertising. Not only are these ads short and sweet, but they're often actually relevant to what you're looking for, which flashy annoying banner-ads often are not.
I think it's not really a matter of getting ads that are flashy graphics or plain text-based, but more a matter of getting ads that are relevent (for graphic based, thinkgeek.com ads and many others on slashdot would be nicely targetted), In fact, when you think about it, there is a lot of advertising on slashdot, but most is relevant or from interested parties.
You mean students formed as a composition of various materials? ;)
'Banner Blindeness' is there because banners are not part of the content of the site. They are additions, and obtrusive additions at that. Adds like the ones on Google don't have that problem: they are relevent to the content on the site and they don't try to make you ignore the rest of the site. Therefore you don't have to ignore them to see the rest of the site, and they will get used.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
He's wrong, and it's obvious why. "Box blindness" would be like "text blindness". It's too basic to easily tell it's an ad. Further inspection is required. Too many sites use shaded or bordered boxes as design elements for users to learn to ignore all of them.
Neilson should know this. For a user to learn to ignore something the majority of times they come across similar items they must be something that the user wants to ignore. With really wide animated graphics at the top of the page this is the case: most of them are something the user would prefer to ignore.
But there are too many "good" boxes on the internet for the user to learn this. Look at slashdot: there are boxes down each side. If one happened to be an ad that otherwise looked the same as the others users would have very little chance of ignoring it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Slashdot's been running text-based ads in the banner space above, and I can honestly say I've actually read those. Click-through is another story all together, but the message got through. The graphic banners are usually lost on me, mainly because they don't actually provide information.
It's kind of like the difference between reading Nickel Ads (or the want-ads in a newspaper) and reading a billboard. Me personally, I like having all the info up-front before I click. I'm sorry they can't track that, but banners have suckered me too many times. Just yesterday I clicked on a banner that said "Revolution OS" with a picture of a CD on it. When I got there, it turned out to be a documentary about this OS. I was expecting a distro I could install. Grr.
Here's what I think makes the text-ads work on Slashdot:
1.) They share the same font style/size as Slashdot.
2.) All the info's there. For example, I ran across the ad for adding barcode support to apps, with free demos available. I didn't click it (I have no use for barcodes) but if I did, I'd feel comfortable knowing where I'm going.
3.) They don't annoy me. They don't try to grab my attention. They don't pop up new windows. They don't interrupt my reading. Etc.
4.) They're relatively on-topic. Though I have no use for barcodes, it is of a subject matter that would be discussed here.
I just hope that the good stuff here isn't borrowed and 'improved' until they have to find some other way to sneak ads into content.
"Derp de derp."
I really find text ads (such as those found on Google) to be nonintrusive and even useful at times. The big difference I have found between text and graphical banner advertisements is that the text ads tend to relay actual information to the end user, rather than try to impress the end user with brilliant but often completely uninformative graphics. I am only inclined to click on an advertisement when it actually tells me things about what that company offers. This is why I don't think that text ads will fall under (at least my) oblivion.
Neilson makes the point that text ads in search engines are not doomed. He notes:
Text-only ads on search engines have become particularly successful in recent years, and non-search sites are now experimenting with this format in hope of replicating that success. However, it's doubtful that their efforts will work because non-search sites lack the equation's crucial element: users' single-minded goal to leave the site as quickly as possible.
He also points out that the ads resemble content to an extent when they are related to a search. It is text ads on any random homepage that are doomed according to Neilson because those ads are not targeted.
This seems awfully sensible - I'm sure most people have used Google's text ads at one point or another because they offered a solution to a particular search. My guess is that most people make a point of avoiding ads on non-search websites, whether text or flashy. I certainly do.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I've noticed even more invasive ads, more so than pop-unders or pop-ups (see this google article for their take on it). Coming to the mainstream it seems that flash ads that popup over the page itself and make some noise are becoming quite popular, and I've decided to completely stop visiting these sites, weather.com being one of them. (I think they're running an ad right now where a rhino busts through your page...wahoo.) Thankfully, the National Weather Service is ad-free! These ads are not only annoying, but make it difficult to close and take too much time when all you want is real content.
This article on Low-End Media for User Empowerment explains why simple adverstising works, and why complex doesn't.
Text based ads as they are presented on Google will not go away. There are major differences between the way Google uses text based ads and the banners found on most other web sites:
- The ads on Google are almost always related to the search that the user is performing. The ads almost augment the search results with semi-relevant information.
- Banner ads on most other websites (cough.. slashdot!.. cough) are unrelated to the topic of the web page, and sometimes to the subject matter of the website itself.
- As the article stated, the user is already expecting to be moving onward to another web page, so feels free to click on an ad.
These are major differences that have nothing to do with the fact that one is text and another is a banner. If google wanted to display banner or graphical ads instead of text boxes in the same way, the clickthrough rate would probably be similar or better.
I dont care about an "Anime Unleashed" advertisement when I am posting a message about banner ads. If Slashdot tied the topics of the articles to the banners that they present, they might bet better clickthrough rates...
So anyhow, I remembered a text ad from Kuro5hin, from half a year ago. So I went over *to* kuro5hin, found the ad, clicked through, got an email address, and sent a specific question.
I don't know whether I'll buy from them: I give about a 5-10% chance of buying at all, even if the price is right. However, I can definitely say that text ads do work. Yeah, I'm blind to them, when I need to get stuff done. But for that same reason, I appreciate the consideration that is involved in a text ad, so when I have free time, I really do read them and remember them.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
It's the usual pendulum, just like it is with womens skirts, sometimes they go up, sometimes down, but every year there's something "new". Same with ads. First ads were "average", then they got more and more instrusive. Then came the rebound and there were friendly, non-obtrusive ads. When that fad is over, there'll be something new.
But if you want me to read ads, stick with text-based. Privoxy/Opera seems to stop the rest. And if you complain about me not giving enough ad revenue, some beats nothing. And no, I will never ever allow sites to pop up windows and run annoying blinking banners again, if I can help it. I'm just waiting for the first blink tag text ad to show up....
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If they have a consistent placement/formatting on the page, they're easy to filter out with a regexp based filter.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Doomsayers are rarely correct in predicting doom. My God, how often have we seen doom forcast for almost any product, company, etc.?
Text ads have been show to work and continue to work (although, possibly to a lesser degree after the "novelty" wears off). It's a matter of finding the niche WHERE they work effectively.
Text ads on Google? Love 'em!
Often I use Google to conduct searches for products and services I want to buy. They key word there is WANT. Often, the text ads are more useful to me than the Google search results because (surprise, surprise) they are from companies that WANT to sell that product. What a perfect match! I just go down the list (of ads, not search results) and choose a vendor that has what I want and offers terms I find acceptable.
I give further props to those guys that are clever enough to put an ad in front of me, at the time I want to buy, about a product I want to buy and do it in THE LEAST ANNOYING MANNER POSSIBLE.
I figure they deserve my business for the fact that they are not advertsing in an annoying manner. I will gladly support a smart and non-annoying advertisier with my hard-earned money!
I started blocking ads with a web-proxy when they started opening up windows and strobing/flashing and blocking where I wanted to read or click. I do not mind text ads.
It is the lack of individualization that seems to come with the more annoying ads that I dislike the most. I do not need another web-cam, no matter how many times they pop up that ad, but I am interested in the ad for a company that sells micro-ITX motherboards.
So I only get the text ads.
Open source development is my way of competing with the low-cost programmers in India...
I remember reading one of the Dilbert books, Is your computer safe from hackers? where it said that marketing will continue to become more and more manipulative Make money with your website! as it builds upon the shoulders of already tried marketing schemes.
I just wonder how long before Specials on Ink Jet refill kits! they start putting ads Long Distance for just 1c per minute! in the middle Spy on your neighbors! of all web content?
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
All the time. Everywhere.
There are no exceptions.
I will never reward someone for annoying me.
If all web pages were like usit.com the internet would definately a better place. It is mostly text which is big pro (no annoying flash pictures, imagedriven menu's, or buggy javascripts). Also you can easily find the search button and you can easily distinguish were you are. (tree in the top).
Because of the simple layout, using your own stylesheet (and thus your own favorite colors) works rather good.
However I see, some problems also, there are better websites, yes, but not the majority. This funny link gives useit.com a C score (75%) on its own criteria! (Nielsen said about this, that he found that rather good, compared to the budget).
Usabilty analysis of useit.com.
And his un-researched bullshit caused me tons of pain during my modem days. He said that people should 'split up' long stories on the web because people were to stupid to scroll. But that meant a 5-10 second pause in reading for me, on my modem. And it also made it impossible for me to download a whole story before getting offline. My online experience was severely degraded because of his advice. In fact, people still do this despite the fact that he renounced the practice. (people have learned how to scroll, apparently)
I mean, for gods sakes this is was the 'usability expert' behind CDE! the ugliest, impossibleist to use window manager ever!
I guess anyone can make themselves an expert putting out some press releases and sounding condescending.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I figure advertisers will try to embed thier messages in any way they can without causing enough of a backlash, legal or social, to still make a good profit.
We may very well see increased efforts at "target marketing, or profiling
We may also see attempts to incorporate subliminal messaging in the product placement, or product intrusion in our online experiences. Such messages could be placed to prove difficult to directly link to the advertising.
Since, as far as I can tell, subliminal messages are not in themselves illegal, this can be used in advertising. They were banned by the American networks and by the National Association of Broadcasters in June of 1958.
Finally, whether or not submlibinal messages work is still in controversy
SCO to Hell
There, thats the secret,
If I go to a search engine, and theres a relevant ad I will welcome it...
If they are trying to sell me a (insert useless item) or credit card... I DO NOT..
Its a simple concept, why can advertisers not grasp it??
I've been using the 'net since ~'94/'95. I've seen banners come, and go, and I don't see them anymore.
/. has a banner ad at the top.(When did they start this?)
I just now noticed that
But, when I go to google looking for something, I pay just as much attention to the "ads" as I do the "results".
Since ads are targeted by keywords, there's a good chance that the ads have exactly what I'm looking for.
These ads have relevance.
Ads will be effective when the customer is ready to accept them. Ads will universally be ignored when they are just irrelevant noise.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
It's that they're often just not very informative. Too many banner ads seem to have been designed by marketers under the premise that if they get a mysterious hook set up, people will follow their ad to learn more. But that's not the way people work, either on-line or off.
Consider a TV commercial that showed, say, a cannon firing hamsters at the letters "outpost.com", with no explanation of who or what outpost.com actually was. The thing would fail, and fail miserably (and, in fact, has). But advertisers seem fixated that the same setup will work on the web, for some reason. At least 90% of the banner ads I see are setup like a hook (such as, "Looking for a new job?") rather than giving info (such as "Monster.com: Over three bazillion ad postings")
If more banner ads were informative -- giving me info on who the ad was for, where it would take me, and why I should be interested -- I bet they'd have a higher clickthrough rate. That's what Google's ads do. It's got nothing to do with whether the ad is graphical or not...until the ads start getting intrusive, at which point people are actively suppressing them.