Slashdot Mirror
Unicast Claims Success With Internet Commercials
LightForce3 writes "Remember that trial run of full-motion commercials on sites like ESPN.com and MSN? The BBC reports that Unicast, whose caching technology makes these ads work, is claiming a strong favorable response from Internet users who viewed the advertisements. It looks like they could now be making long-term deals with clients (the article mentions Forbes.com and weather.com). As a dialup user, I am less than thrilled about the idea of an extra 2 MB download each time I visit one of these sites."
As a dialup user, I am less than thrilled about the idea of an extra 2 MB download each time I visit one of these sites."
Then don't go to their websites.
Boycotting is still an effective tool, unless of course you are in the minority, which you may be, since I'm sure there are a couple million sports freaks who won't mind the commercials.
Y'think?
Never ask the sales person how good their product is, all you'll get is whatever they can spout off the top of their head as the newest sales line.
"Our stuff is great, people love it and can't seem tio live without it" - Every sales person that ever lived
Heck, why bother asking the originating company when you already kn ow what the answer is going to be. 1. The company will say the customers love it, 2. The customers will be pissed off at yet another intrusion and time wasting tactic when all tey want to do is see the content they came to see. This isn't TV ya bastards.
Whee signature.
Not everyone in the world has the option or money to have anything other than Dialup.
It is a WORLD wide web, not a north american wide web.
Don't use Microsoft software. Really. It claims to use Windows Media 9 and some "proprietary" background downloading crap, so Mozilla with no Windows Media plugin should be a good start, along with Mozilla's AdBlock plugin just to make sure.
The mplayer mozilla-plugin works just fint with windows media. Mozilla is in no way a "less-capable" browser.
These sites do have the right to show commercials just as much as we have the right to avoid them.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
Yes, that's why I wrote "with no Window Media plugin". It's easier to disable a plugin under Mozilla than it is under Internet Explorer, IMO.
If they want to waste 2MB of bandwidth for every vistor who's placated enough to sit through it that's up to them, but I know which sites I'll be either ad-blocking or not visiting...
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
I am in no way willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money to WATCH advertisements. Don't get me wrong. I am totally pro-advertising, I do understand that advertising is a way for content providers to make some money, but I prefer textual targetted advertising.
So what would I do? Firstly, I will try to find a way to block these ads. If this fails, I will just boycott these sites and find alternate sites. And I figure a lot of people will do the same.
So these people will lose the audience to gain revenue. Doesn't sound logical now, does it?
Indefinitely Detained US Citizen
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
-- Scotty.
I dont mind the ads so much, as long as audio does not come on right away in them.
Also, these people need to understand a lot of people are going mobile now, and with b/w usage fees, people are going to be getting hefty bills from their mobile providers. Also, people with internet with very low caps pay over for usage, and probably arent expecting that the news sites they read are feeding them 2mb ads.
1xRTT, 1xEvDO, 3G GSM, 4G, you name it. It's because of things like this that most users won't be able to afford wide-area broadband connections. Why do content providers never consider the sensitivity of the connection the user is on?
Will I only be able to access new and exciting services wirelessly with a PDA or cellphone, but not with my laptop? A simple weather check for an unknowing user might suck away 10% of their bandwidth allotment. I mean, forcing dialup and ISDN users to endure this is bad enough, but what about poor Joe Schmoe with his laptop on the road hooked into his cellphone with packet data service? These are oft-visited websites! Either:
I'm not saying that the sites are wrong for doing this, but I am suggesting that some attention should be given to actual connection speeds and types. With laptops outpacing sales of almost everything else, a browser cookie is most certainly no longer good enough.
--Jasin NataelTrue science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
"unless there's something truly compelling about them."
And that is why they do it. No one (except for microsoft) honestly assumes that every one will want their products. But they to this broad form of advertisement to catch the person who is interested in that product.
So you can deal with these broad adds or have companies install spyware on your computer to learn you interests and give you more compelling adds that fit what you want. I myself much rather have a bunch of uninteresting adds then spyware.
If you were to truly boycott these adds you will need to stop clicking on the adds that you like as well. That is the point of a boycott.
But expect to have these adds of some form or another until there is a way to operate a website at a profit or for free. Some sites sell website related products online like homestarrunner.com and others are just online store. But most of the informational sites that want to offer there service for free will need to give adds to help support there work.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I've been using PopUp Cop for some time now when I have to use IE and the first time this story was unleashed claiming then to be unblockable I dropped a line to my friends at PopUp Cop.
The fine folks at PopUp Cop assured me that UniCast was NOT using any new and they would definitely be able to block any ads, especially those requiring a download. So there!
Besides their is always Mozilla, Opera and Netscape. Besides if this "new" advertising method requires a client-side download how are they going to force users to download it if they don't want it? And it better not have any SpyWare included.
Boy, these sites... ahh large greeding corps, have a lot of nerve trying to claim they are "losing" money of their websites?
But these internet commercials would have to follow some rules:
... what were they advertising? Ah yeah, SmartBeep. But back to rule #1, it should be voluntary.
Rule #1: I can turn them off
There are some other rules, but they aren't as important as the first so I won't list'm.
Some TV spots are rather entertaining at times. I believe if internet spots were at least as entertaining, people would watch them. Now I understand that a lot of slashdotters here are generally against anything commercial and I respect that, but I also recognize that gobs of people respond to spam and other interent advertising that isn't half as nice as a voluntary commercial ad.
Some of these things, if done well, would be something worth sharing from time to time. One case in point is the famous farting woman from
A lot of great things can be done even on dialup using Flash or similar technologies by the way...
I really enjoy your comment - I find it very entertaining. However, I wish you would admit that you work for Unicast.
It wouldn't surprise me at all of ESPN and MSN site viewers liked the ads. First of all, most sports fans are droolers whose idea of quality TV and filmmaking isn't "Six Feet Under" but a beer ad where the women go topless and dogs fetch beer, plus, they're very "watch TV" oriented, not interactive oriented, so they're conditioned to a TV-like experience.
The MSN crowd is largely the same, except you can drop "sports fans" and replace it with "reality TV fans". Same neaderthal content, same neaderthal reaction. "MMMM..TV PICTURE WITH FUNNY COMMERCIAL...AND ME NOT EVEN WATCHING TV...MMMM...MIRACLE..."
I'm sure I'll get modded down as flamebait, but is ANYONE surprised that ESPN fans and MSN fans like commercials? Given the dreck they otherwise watch, it's hardly surprising.
I've installed the ESPN Motion and don't mind the ads at all. Based on the comments about having to wait for an extra 2mb download and the such, I'll assume very few people have actually seen this in action. What the thing does is sit in your "notification window" and download the video in the background. Then when you visit the ESPN.com site, the video has already downloaded and is ready to play. Kinda cool (of course if I was bandwidth limited I'd be pissed off about the thing downloading 6mb of golf highlights in the background).
But more importantly I think the article fails to mention why people are ok with the ads: Because they are the cream of the crop, best ads out there. You are talking about Gatoraid, Nike, SportsCenter and car commercials that have a better production value than 99% of anything on TV or the in theatres.
As soon as McDonald's starts running those terribly unhip, awkward and just plain dumb "I'm lovin' it" ads, I think they'll find people's opinions changing pretty quick about putting up with ads on those sites.
Because the internet is not a mature medium, until it is as braindead as TV and purely satisfies corporate interests.
A medium that gives the user control is clearly evil and most definetly encourages evil. That will have to be counter-eviled.
How is it that the people making decisions fail to realize that the internet (or web that is) isn't a push-medium, but pull-medium?
You'd think people get that by now? Or am I to optimistic?
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Here's an exercise:
Radio used to be usefull... Then it went commerical. Then all the stations tried to reach the same (most profitable) audience and turned very much alike. Then they turned even more alike as they embraced formating the broadcasts. Then big "evil" business bought all the radiostations and they all uses the same formating. And now they are ad-ridden with intrusive ad's at double the volume (fuck sake) of the ordinary broadcast.
Radio is now useless and braindead.
TV used to be usefull/entertaining. TV went commercial... And blahblahblah..... Now? Useless, braindead shit. And I can't even stand TV any more. Fuck it.
Internet used to be free for everyone and usefull. And it wen't commercial as well... Guess what?
See a pattern forming, anyone?
We'll have to invent a medium commercialism can't ruin. And patent it. And copyprotect it. It's the only way to be sure!
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
REPEAT: THE WEB IS NOT TV
. html
It's almost too obvious a point, but apparently it bears repeating: The more the Web is like TV, the less we need it. TV already does a pretty effective job of delivering what Net content people call "broadband multimedia information and entertainment" to the home, and most consumers already own the hardware. What sells the Internet to newbies is its promise of things TV can't deliver: "many-to-many" communication via bulletin boards and e-mail; interactive services that go beyond catalog shopping; quirky content unavailable on TV's limited number of channels; specific, accurate information that's there when you need it, whether it's sports stats, stock quotes or plane-ticket availability.
from: http://archive.salon.com/march97/21st/webtv970327
Seven years later, and it still counts. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. People will either block those ads, or go to other sites. Just like TCP, they will learn to route around the problem.
The web is not TV, it is not a one way communication channel where you can shove as much commercial bullshit to the other side as your CFO requires you to do. You don't have regulations on the number of channels, you have an unlimited number of them, and they get popular or less populer in a matter of days/weeks/months.
What Unicast doesn't seem to realize is that the internet is really not, in any way, a comparable medium to television. Today's newspapers and periodical magazines have proven that effective, well-placed static advertisements still work even in today's multimedia-crazy world. Even though the news channels offer live, full-color, slow-motion replays of the latest news events, many of us still turn to the old-fashioned, ad-supported newspapers as a reliable source of information. Similarly, we go to web sites like ESPN, MSN and the Weather Channel to *read* information. Full-motion video ads only distract from that purpose.