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.
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.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
I read the ESPN website pretty regularly, and have never seen one of these. What am I doing right^H^H^H^H^Hwrong?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
get the dns name of the advertiser (may have to view page source) and add a line to your hosts file in linux/windows such as: 127.0.0.1 advertiser.dns.address.
... The format is based on Microsoft's Windows Media 9 Series and uses Unicast proprietary pre-cached technology.
:-)
What a shame. I use Linux!
Can anybody tell me how this "caching technology" works? It looks like they cache video while a user visits several pages on a given site, and when everything is loaded, the video is played back. How do they make sure the caching operation keeps storing stuff while a user jumps from page to page? As far I know, when you switch to a new page, any javascript/java/activeX code on the old page is stopped and its data is deleted.
:-)
Frames could be an option (have a invisible subframe keeping on storing stuff), but this would mess with the URLs, which I think is not the case here.
Any insights? Thanks!
Keep this person away from me. Thanks.
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.
I've tried to look at the demo on their website many times, however it never works because of the requirements:
...but you can't get the MS JVM any more :-( And I don't use IE (although I appreciate most of the world does).
Windows
Internet Explorer
Windows Media Player
Microsoft (not Sun) JVM
You can try it yourself here. If you do, be sure to comment what it's like, because I've never seen it!
http://adblock.mozdev.org/ there you go
IAAL
You mean pop-up's and spam aren't enough.......now I have to dodge full-length commericals on the web too? Anyone remember when it was the information highway and not the advertising highway?
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
Will Adblock be able to block these ads. It would be usefull if it did.
As annoying as ads may be, I'd rather have a site with heavy full motion ads and quality content than no ads and poor content.
After all, content producers need to get paid, and ads are among the few ways to achieve that without subscription services. As long as there are no feasible ways to internationally pay for content safely I'll put up with ads rather than loose the information I can get completely.
.: Max Romantschuk
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."
Maybe you could set your Internet Options to restrict the space for temporary files to be less than 2 MB?
An online survey of more than 3,500 users who saw the ads found that just 28% said they were annoying
Ok, first of all, I'm pretty sure that number is way too low. But even if it's correct, would you place a technology on your website that's proven to annoy at least 1/3 of your potential customers?
Underholdning.info
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.
No one tell them about Mozilla on Linux...
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
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
If you use Mozilla/Firefox you can install Flash Click to View fromh p/flas hclick
http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info.p
(Remove the space inserted into the link by Slashdot)
With the plugin, the browser loads the Flash content but displays a blank button with the text "click to view" instead of the animation. So now you can go to the site that require flash, but won't be bothered unless you want to.
With regards to the full motion video - where do they find the drooling idiots in the test group who want the net to resemble TV more? Do you believe the "only 28% of users found it annoying", or are the advertisers lying? (And why not, it's basically their job anyway)
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Yup, I'm sure this "technology" is as much as "success" as SiteFinder.
"We removed all negative feedback and all we were left with were three glowingly positive emails! They were from upper management, but who's keeping score anyway..."
If you can't believe the people who are implementing an idea in order to make money to be honest about their success, then who can you trust? yeesh.
- c -
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.
An online survey of more than 3,500 users who saw the ads found that just 28% said they were annoying.
That's almost a third of those surveyed found the advertisments annoying. Who would want to piss off a third of thier users?
And how do they count the number of users so annoyed that they go off the site and don't bother filling in the survey?
Tk
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
"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.
The company behind the trials said that people found the commercials much less irritating than other ads on the web.
So it's less annoying than DHTML animated adverts that move around getting in the way of what you're trying to read or those red/yellow flashing "You've won" banners in the middle of an article. What an achievement.
You have to wonder at the mind set of advertising executives. "People aren't taking notice of our adverts. What can we do?" "I know, lets make them even bigger,more intrusive and waste megabytes of our potential customers bandwidth as well". A serious case of needing to stop bailing and plug the leak.
since I use the Adblock extension for Mozilla and Firefox, the net has become practically adfree for me. I remember a time when ads didn't disturb the reading pleasure of a website with all sorts of motion and sounds. I even clicked on banners sometimes back then. But since all those flashbanners and whatnot appeared, I rather block them
An AC mentioned this above, but it's worth noting:
Opera will disable/enable plug-ins with one click, and yes, that includes windows media and flash. i have mine set up this way, as well as animated gifs turned off and javascript disabled unless i request it.
I know everyone is in love with Mozilla, but honestly, what's not to love about Opera? i'm HOOKED on the mouse gestures and the ability to emulate a text-browser if i feel nostalgic.
also, it's available for linux (though i haven't tested it on a linux box).
hope you'll give it a shot.
** Chigusaaa!!! You're the coolest girl in the WORLD!!! **
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?
With the proliferation of adverts on every spot you can imagine (I can't even enjoy the view on a public bus ride no more with the massive eye-searing ads bombed across the windows), there has to be a point at which the average consumer no longer conciously registers an ad. So then what's the point of advertising?
Junkbuster
works for most modern Operating systems and Windows based operating systems.
we added it at work and it made a 20% reduction in bandwidth use on it's own.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Where? I haven't seen ONE of them... But then I use FireFox with Adblock and Flash Click to view plugins ;)
Corporatism != Free Market
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 notice that you are not a subscriber, so does that mean that you enjoy posting and taking part in this site without paying for it by allowing items to be advertised to you? For many sites the only way that they can make money from their content is to have people pay for it either directly or in advertising potential, but many of the people currently on the internet, and it seems to be mostly made up of longer term users, feel that they have a right to view a website without paying for it.
On the same note, something someone said to me a few days back struck a cord. The vast majority of the moaning on here about NYtimes articles requiring you to register to view them comes from people who have registered on slashdot. Repeat after me, you do not have a right to circumvent the cost factor of these websites, if the NYtimes says it has to sell your personal information on, then you still have the choice of wether or not to sign up and give them that info. Its not as if they are doing it behind your back, its one of the terms of the signup.
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.
In addition to AdBlock (and Flash click-to-view, which someone mentioned further down the page), take a look at the adblocking CSS on texturizer.net. It really does an amazing job of killing just ads (including all the ads on Slashdot-- I'm not going to click them anyway, so I don't want to see them.)
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.
Mt firewall software doesn't allow Media Player to connect to the network. If I actually see soemthing I want to view I disable the firewall for a few minutes. I hate commercials and I hate streamign video, so combining the two isn't likely to win me over.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
Focus groups will say anything for sweet, sweet candy.
And finding one kind of intrusive web add less annoying than another is like finding Gallagher less annoying than Pauly Shore.
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
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.
What, exactly, is a "favourable" response to advetising? Not going postal? Not stabbing yourself in the eyes? Not smashing your monitor?
Seriously, am I expected to believe that anyone likes Internet advertising?
I tried to read an article on GameSpot yesterday (yeah, first mistake there...) and they had some sort of streaming video ads embedded in the pages. But, of course, the streaming video ads had to play a streaming video ad indicating that the streaming video ad would start soon. I wasn't that interested in the information so I closed the tab.
- chrish
Privoxy is the newer version of Junkbuster. And for all that ad-free goodness, I chain Privoxy to Proxomitron (in Windows XP).
Prixovy - http://www.privoxy.org
Proxomitron - http://www.proxomitron.info/files/index.shtml
Also, get a patched hosts file from here,
http://remember.mine.nu
And run Edexter to fill in the banners.
http://www.pyrenean.com/edexter.php
Ad-free pop-up free content. On dial-up, it's like sweet freedom.
Remove the spamfreak to speak.
Don't their current EULA's essentially force you to authorize them to download and install system "upgrades" at their will?
In Windows 2000, it was added to the SP3 EULA. It was removed from the SP4 EULA.
I don't know about any other version.
(from the unicast website)
Unicast is committed to ensuring that all ads either play perfectly or not at all.
At times, we make temporary decisions to exclude certain browser and/or configurations that contain known bugs or perform inconsistently in our testing and quality assurance environments.
Unicast has temporarily blocked the Sun JVM as a result of some modifications made with the most recent Sun releases. Unicast has seen consistent instability with this configuration and will continue to evaluate updates and new releases as they become available.
Should you have additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact us.
My other UID is 1337
As an option to "get around" the advertising issue, my boss informed me sometime ago of Mozilla. Since then I have been a loyal user. When Firebird was released I thought there was no use for me to use it, as I was running the latest build of Moz. He otld me that Firebird was the same browser just a lighter version, and tha there were a few things it did that its larger companion didn't. What impressed me was FIrebirds ability to surpress banner ads. Turns out it filters out more than 90% of them. Now I am not sure in the authors case whether or not it would work, but were I he I would give it a shot.
Life without banner ads, No longer do I need to read "Meet HOT singles in your area today".
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Just use Firefox/Mozilla and download the adblock plugin. Then you can block any content you want. If these ads are coming from http://ads.foo.com, you can block it with *ads.foo.com* or *.foo.com*, etc. If for some strange reason you want to use IE, you can still stop this junk. Under your internet options, go to the security tab and click Custom Level and select prompt for all the Active X options. Then when this thing tries to run just deny it. There are other ways as well. For example, you can put dummy entries in your hosts file for the servers that these ads are coming from, block it with a firewall, etc.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
I'm not going to click them anyway, so I don't want to see them
/. ads are somewhat well targeted, and they are the only ads I've EVER clicked.
Actually,
I hate grammar Nazi's.
Preferences/Advanced/Style Sheet. Works like a charm!
This is not based on ESPN Motion (which is also evil, evil, evil, btw). I don't have ESPN motion and yet I see the ads. You just need to be on the site long enough for the entire ad to download. I see the ads most often when I'm trying to follow the scores of a basketball game that's not on TV.
CBS.Sportsline.com is much better anyway with extensive personalization. Unfortunately for me, some games are only on ESPN.
Mmmm.. Donuts