Slashdot Mirror
Pop-Up Ads Lead to Consumer Revolt, Ad-Blocking
securitas writes "The New York Times' Saul Hansell reports on pop-up advertising and the consumer backlash against intrusive advertising. It's worth noting that pop-ups and pop-unders are the most effective, lucrative and annoying online advertising form. The article discusses the boom in ad-blocker software, with AOL, Yahoo and Google getting into the game. Microsoft says that it will include pop-up blocking in IE when it releases WinXP SP2. According to one pop-under ad agency, 20%-25% percent of Web users have pop-up blocking enabled, double the rate of a year ago - Earthlink's numbers bear that out, with 1 million of its 5 million customers using its ad-blocking software 18 months after release. DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software.' Why isn't that surprising?"
Flashy, animated image ads on websites are just about as annoying about as much as pop-ups. Fortunately the Mozilla family of web browsers allows the user to block images from specific servers, which seems to work well in targeting ad-serving servers (doubleclick.com being one of the worst) yet leaving the ornamental graphics intact.
Thanks to this, I've pretty much squashed the "Get 1,000 Smileys Free" advertisements.
Now if there were only a way to block certain Flash advertisements and still be able to watch Strong Bad answering his e-mail.
I find it strange that companies like DoubleClick and X10 believe that advertising is most effective when maximally annoying. Google's advertising is a perfect example of how targeted advertising -- matching keywords to ads, tracking the effectiveness of ads, and showing ads where they are most effective -- can be quite profitable. And they're doing it with text-only ads, no flash, graphics taking over your entire screen, or pop ups.
At best, popup ads and other annoyances seems penny-wise and pound-foolish, sacrificing long-term customer satisfaction of the many who are subject to these ads and overall brand reputation for a potential short-term boost in sales from the few customers that do click through on annoying ads. For example, because I hate their ads so much, I would never buy any product from X10.
But I actually find Google's ads useful and click on them frequently because they're so well targeted to whatever I happen to be looking for. Targeted ads work. They show information or a product that's actually useful to me without getting in my way. Why do other advertisers continue to annoy customers with useless and irrelevant popup ads?
Is it not illegal to do circumventing of technology. So would this not be a violation of the DMCA. Ok sorry bad joke, but in reality, this would really hurt double click, think about it, there are people that said "we hate pop ups so much we will disable them" and double click is saying not to us, would that not create bad PR for them, if I was looking to do ads I don't think I would use double click because it would just anger people against my product, I don't see web ads as bad, but if some one disables pop-ups, I don't think I would want to have my ad come up as a pop-up that would just put me on their "do not buy from" list. just my 2c.
Isn't it nice that they have to wait for a whole XP service pack to be qualified and released before they can get an update to IE so they can block pop-ups, something that most other current browsers provide and some of those for a while.
;-)
That is innovation for ya
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
Bye bye Doubleclick ads...
You realize that if you block pop-ups, that you're stealing Internet service. In fact, this is even worse than what TIVO users are doing by stealing television. At least in TIVO's case, it can't skip over "live" broadcasting.
You are all just a bunch of sick criminals.
--
Jamie Kellner
Chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting
Why not try and advertise something that someone *WANTS* to purchase-- Maybe *THEN* you won't have to evade a protection I put on my computer because I don't want to deal with your crap.
/Ex
Why is this so hard? Google's apparently doing a pretty good job of it-- Sure you need a lot more customers, but for the love of frank, I don't need any goddamned spy cameras, I don't have a babysitter or a cheating spouse, or for that matter a misbehaving dog.
Why don't companies just sell stuff that people really want. A good product or service should be enough in itself to get consumer interest without resorting to nasty tricksy little pop-ups. There are many other forms of advertising are more effective and less annoying.
It's worth noting that pop-ups and pop-unders are the most effective, lucrative and annoying online advertising form.
Incorrect. Search advertising such those offered by Google (AdWords), Overture and numerous other players are better in terms of click-throughs, conversion rates, or any other relevant measure of advertising effectiveness. The same goes for online yellow pages advertising.
The point of these "directional" forms of advertising is that the consumer identifies a need or an area of interest before the ad is displayed. The very reason why this advertising is less annoying - its relevance - is why it is effective.
...but firewalls and AV software as well.
My hard drive blew up last week, and when rebuilding my system, I skipped ZoneAlarm and installed Kerio Personal Firewall instead... an incredible piece of software if I do say so myself, but it also has built in ad blocking (and configurable to add more blocking).
Not that that matters too much since I am using FireBird, but a two pronged approach is better than one.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
People seem to be unquestioningly talking about 'blocking' pop-ups as though your computer had to actively take measures to avoid these intrusions. But all it means is using a web browser that does not execute the Javascript code. There are plenty of browsers with no Javascript at all, and it is not part of any HTML standard.
Similarly, using lynx is not 'image blocking'.
There is a grey area when you try to have Javascript support enabled but limit the things a script is allowed to do. But really this is just closing security holes in the original Javascript specs (popups are a form of DoS attack).
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Golly, I'm glad Microsoft is all over this one, because God knows nobody else would ever have thought to do it.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
Doubleclick is attempting to evade the pop-up blockers? See, this is something that's always boggled my mind. People are using popup blockers because they don't want to receive popups. As such, they respond in a hostile manner to popup ads, and may more than likely be dissuaded from using any product advertised in such a fashion. The consumer, by using a blocker, is making a statement that they do not want to be advertised to in this way, that they find it intrusive, and that they will not respond to this form of advertising positively.
What makes these companies think that finding means to actively go against consumers' wishes will be an effective way to earn their business? It's like the do-not-call registry. If I opt to be put on the do-not-call list, that means I have no intention of buying anything from a telemarketer. As such, the companies are not losing any of my business because I was never going to give them my business in the first place. If anything, they're saving money by not having to waste the 15 seconds it takes to call me and find out I'm not interested.
Common sense, people...
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of"-TMBG
In my opinion the strength of the computer industry lies in it's ability to solve a given problem with many different tools. There are different programming languages, different architectures... etc etc.
That's fine and dandy but it obviously works against us in cases like these where pop-up ad's are able to circumvent and/or bypass our attempts to stop them.
Imagine for a moment that there was only ONE browser to use, one language to program in, one way to view the web (excluding the fights that ensue over who currently controls those types of things). If there were only one way to do things, we'd be able to block these pop-up/under dicks without a problem. Unfortunately with an over abundance of tools available it becomes a (and forgive the analogy) game of push-down/pop-up. We stop them in one area or with one tool and they find a way around it.
Granted we do the same thing in other industries and sectors but I wonder sometimes if maybe the technology world has gone overboard with it's developing of choices.
I think choice is fundamentally a good thing, it's necessary and has it's function in the grand scheme of things... but I think it's high-time people organized and started trimming down some of those extranneous choices, not that there has to be *one* way of always doing thing or even *two* or *three*... but for christ's sake, when is it all enough?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/19/technology/19eco m.html?ex=1389934800&en=5b1cf221151d8850&ei=5007&p artner=GOOGLE">its gonna get much worse
Beginning tomorrow, more than a dozen Web sites, including MSN, ESPN, Lycos and iVillage, will run full-motion video commercials from Pepsi, AT&T, Honda, Vonage and Warner Brothers, in a six-week test that some analysts and online executives say could herald the start of a new era of Internet advertising.
The new ad technology, from Unicast, an advertising company based in New York, invisibly loads the commercial while unwitting users read a Web page, then displays the ad across the entire browser area when users click to a new page. The resulting ad is identical to TV, whether the user has a high- or low-speed connection. The company says the technology evades pop-up blockers, but the person can skip the ad by clicking a box.
thanks, no need to remind me to add your servers to the Hostfile Project
Most people don't understand what their computers can do, right now. I regularly amaze the users I support by helping them back up data and so forth, sometimes transferring data - like magic - over the network. People are amazed when they see they can send a document to their friend ... without using e-mail! It's all relatively mundane stuff, but it's beyond the comprehension of people who use computers ... drumroll please ... EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES. Think about that. Is there any other industry where regular, daily users of a technology are nevertheless bumbling novices at it?
I think it will take Microsoft's inclusion of this in IE to really shift these numbers. Until technology is forced upon people, most won't even realize they have the option.
...is the public's misconception about pop-up ads. Due to the slick marketing of AOL and Earthlink et al, when their screen becomes full of ads, they call up their internet service provider and give them tons of grief. I see my (less than savvy) friends pay fees to companies like AdsGone (i think it's $50/year to use the software) to get rid of "popups" by automatically closing them when they open.
But the other issue, is that 99% of the time when someone is getting the shit hammered out of them by popup ads it is because they've got about 15 parasites embedded into IE that sits and serves them all day.
True "pop up ads" only occur when you enter a site, or leave a site, and shouldn't just pop up spontaneously whenever the computer is on, regardless of whether or not you are on the inet. I've seen computers so laden with these that they are completely useless- you start the machine up, and it serves so many ads in the first minute that it crashes. But once again, the customers do not understand this, they simply blame their ISP.
Finally, the latest thing that i'm seeing (i work in tech support if you haven't figured this out yet)....
people will call up yelling and screaming and bitching and moaning about all these pop up ads they're getting. So i look at their computer and i start pointing to such things as Precision Time, or WeatherBug, or all these other "adware" programs they've installed as the culprit. They understand it when i tell them, but then i get things like "but i LIKE my Desktop Calender, i don't want you to remove it." or "but i LIKE my Huntbar." or "but i LIKE the MYWAY software, i want to keep it." and stuff. They will bitch about the ads, i tell them why they are getting them, but they don't want to fix it. However, this still doesn't stop them from calling up and bitching about the ads every other week.
It's a no-win situation for all concerned. I hate blanket statements, but the fact is, most of the people on the internet don't deserve to be there and will always be miserable, no matter how much you try to help them.
do() || do_not();
Making software that evades my security measures is wrong.
If I purposely put in place software to protect me from viewing popup ads, and you circumvent it you may be guilty of a "hacking" crime.
I did not authorize you to pop up ads on my computer, I explicitly configured to prevent this.
By enabling your software to evade my blocking software you can't claim that you were authorized.
When I take steps to avoid something, you can't claim implied consent anymore.
"I don't want to see pop-ups blocked," said Matthew R. Coffin, the chief executive of LowerMyBills.com, a site that sells long distance and other services. Pop-up and pop-under ads, he said, attract more people than any other ad format. "People wouldn't click if they weren't interested."
The toolbar on each pop-up window is often disabled and the window itself just displays a large image which doesn't allow the average web surfer to easily close it. I think most people just click on it by accident or because they don't know what else to do. I am curious to know what the percentage is of people who click on the ads and actually purchase something. I suspect it is less than 1%.
This is bullshit.
http://tomgould.com/
1. I decide I don't like pop-ups.
2. I install a pop-up blocker.
3. You use pop-ups to advertise your product.
4. Your pop-up manages to avoid my blocker.
5. I see your ad and I think "Oh it's *that* product! Oh well that's okay then, I don't mind at all that *that* product is being pushed at me. I will buy that product immediately!"
Do you honestly think that's how it will happen?
If a company's first form of contact with me is showing me a form of intrusive, annoying advert that I have specifically decided to avoid then I will simply *not* buy that company's product! No ifs, no buts, no exceptions to the rule. Annoy me in such a selfish, arrogant way and you lose a potential customer.
But hey, I'm the only person who thinks that way, aren't I?
#include <windows.h>
0 00}";
int APIENTRY WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance,
HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
LPSTR lpCmdLine,
int nCmdShow)
{
HKEY hKey = NULL;
char* szKey = "SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Internet Explorer\\ActiveX Compatibility\\{D27CDB6E-AE6D-11CF-96B8-444553540
char* szValueName = "Compatibility Flags";
const DWORD dwEnable = 0x0;
const DWORD dwDisable = 0x400;
LRESULT lresult = RegCreateKeyEx(HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, szKey, 0, NULL, REG_OPTION_NON_VOLATILE, KEY_ALL_ACCESS, NULL, &hKey, NULL);
if (ERROR_SUCCESS == lresult)
{
DWORD dwValue = 0;
DWORD dwType = REG_DWORD;
DWORD dwSize = sizeof(DWORD);
lresult = RegQueryValueEx(hKey, szValueName, NULL, &dwType, (LPBYTE)&dwValue, &dwSize);
if ((ERROR_SUCCESS == lresult) || (ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND == lresult))
{
if (dwValue == dwDisable)
dwValue = dwEnable;
else
dwValue = dwDisable;
RegSetValueEx(hKey, szValueName, 0, REG_DWORD, (LPBYTE)&dwValue, sizeof(DWORD));
}
RegCloseKey(hKey);
}
return 0;
}
Compile this as a standard Windows EXE. Use the group policy editor (gpedit.msc) to add this as a button to the IE toolbar. Click it once, Flash disabled. Click it again, Flash enabled.
You can probably take this and make it fancier (error reporting, toggle notification or whatever, right now it's silent), but that's basically how it works.
"Beginning tomorrow, more than a dozen Web sites [...] will run full-motion video commercials. [...] The new ad technology, from Unicast [...] invisibly loads the commercial while unwitting users read a Web page"
My chosen ISP implements a bandwidth quota and excess charges. Will these web site operators who incorporate full-motion in to their web pages pay for my bandwidth?
The point's rather moot in my case though. They can kiss my arse as I will continue to avoid IE, and any web site that requires it. I'd like to see them hijacking my web experience considering I use Mozilla and a customised hosts file.
You're exactly right about this. I've always thought there was a difference between "advertising" and "marketing". The purpose of advertisment is to let people know that you are selling something so they know where to get it. Informative without being pushy. The purpose of marketing is to convince you that you should buy what they are hawking whether you really need it or not.
The former can be inconvienent, but I think is really a necessary evil. The latter, epitomized by spam and pop-ups, is vile.
The line between the two can be fuzzy, but there is no doubt whatsoever about low lifes who feel they have the right to invade your privacy because "A guy has to make money." Bite me. Get a real job and work for a living.
For example, I recall once saying that I thought a feature of one of our ads was obnoxious and would certainly cost us sales. So, my boss said "let's test it", and we went over to the graphics department, I described the changes I wanted, an artist made them in a few minutes in Photoshop, and my boss purchased 25k impressions of the new banner. A couple hours later, we had complete stats on how this banner had done compared to other banners we'd run in the same time on the same sites, and knew by exacly how much my banner was worse than the others.
We constantly tweak our banners, measuring the results. It's very Darwinian.
What this means is that online advertising isn't like, say, TV ads, where if people skip the ads with Tivo, no one is really going to notice, because there is a lot of fuzziness between showing ads TV ads and getting more sales. If people use banner blockers, we'll notice right away, and be able to tell exactly how it is effecting our ads, and that will be reflected very quickly in what we are willing to pay to show banners, which will in turn very quickly be reflected in what the ad companies will pay websites for banner space.
There are a lot of useful sites that will simply go away if too many people start blocking ads.
So people want to block popups. That's fine. I block pop-ups. It just irks me that some of the blockers are not implemented properly. As a designer, I want to be able to detect that the popup has been block and and provide feedback to the user in the form of a message or an alternative. Popups are not appropriate in all cases and some folks don't like them at all. I'm willing to work with blockers. Some of the blockers just don't want to work with me.
Detecting blocked popups with Mozilla/Firebird this is very easy. It throws an exception that you have to catch. With the Google toolbar it isn't that bad, you get back a null pointer from your window.open call.
Hower, I can't for the life of me figure out how to deal with either Earthlink or AOL's popup blockers. When they block something you get a window handle back that looks very legit. It has all the field filled in (width, height, content, screen, etc) but the window just doesn't show up to the user.
Somebody needs to sit down and bitchslap the developers who did the AOL and the Earthlink blockers. They are making the web a mess. Tell them to look over the shoulders of the Google/Mozilla folks.