Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Users Bad For Advertisers
rocketjam writes "According to CNET, German advertising technology company Adtech reports that during the months of October and November, Internet Explorer users were more than four times as likely to click on ads than Firefox users were. During the period 0.5 percent of IE users clicked on ads compared to 0.11 percent of Firefox users. Speculation on reasons for the difference in click rates range from Firefox's integrated pop-up blocking to seeing the average Firefox user as more tech-savvy the average Internet Explorer user."
Having something like AdBlock probably doesn't help their click % for Firefox either.
Hooray for extensions!
OMG - hello. I expect everyone in /. agree when I say:
One of the reasons we use Firefox is because it blocks pop-up ADDS. So why would a firefox user go and proactively click on adds after going to all that troubl???
Sheesh, go figure...
... isn't it rather that the people who use Firefox generally are more 'technical' than the people who use IE, spend more time online, etc, and therefor simply are less likely to click on the advertisements, rather than it being due to Firefox' ad-blocking technology ?
- Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com
For example my mom, the noob IE user, clicks on those "Warning: Your computer is broadcasting an IP adddress" banners. People using Firefox are more likely not to be duped by scams, that should account for most of the discrepancy.
Benz drivers are less likely to crash because they tend to be more car-savvy?
Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
It seems to me that the reason is fairly obvious. Many users have switched away from IE because of ads/spyware/etc. It would seem to make sense that they would be more aware of how ads function - and not click on them.
The fact that the users use ad-blocking tools and that the users are tech-savvy are really the same issue, not different ones.
(And, aside from that, they can stop most all of the ad-blocking problems by just having the website proxy all advertisement images on it, so they really shouldn't bitch about something with a fairly simple technological solution.)
When most users that seek out an other internet browser can identify what the internet is, and most IE users call the internet, "That's the little blue thing, right?"
They just might be a bit more tech saavy.
What ads? Where?
Aside from the obvious Adblock extension, there are also extensions available to spoof one's browser id. I usually set my ID to IE in order to avoid a lot of pages' JavaScript popups telling me that I need to use IE to view their page (which is no longer true).
I'd be curious to see the figures on that.
You may treat all information submitted above as wild speculation.
Maybe it is just that most FireFox users don't like ads and all the crap they represent, so they don't bother with clicking on them. I do not think that is a brower dependant factor at all. And if it were, the advertising companies should make BANNER ads that are browser-independant [aka: gifs, not .swf or Java Applets]
_
Free 27" Sony WEGA TV
woah! shh!
This is one of those things where things have got confused. These 2 facts coinside:
- If you've used your computer for longer then you are likely to have discovered a new browser.
- If you've used your computer for only a short time you are experiencing run away popups and all that you get when you click an AD.
^ combine these 2 and remove how you made the connection and you can make it seem like firefox users are just tight.
Don't descriminate against firefox users! I expect the same could be said to any non-windows browser, and any browser that isn't installed already with PCs you buy at Walmart and PC world.
A blog I run for the wealth
I would think that Firefox users are probably the type of people who wouldn't have clicked on the advertisements anyway. So what's the fuss?
Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
The article says that over 4 time more people have EVER clicked on an ad. Because FireFox is reletively new, this is far from an apples-to-apples comparison.
I work for an internet advertising company.
Many adverts aren't rendering correctly on firefox, including some flash/dhtml combos and some dhtml ads.
I don't expect this is the main reason, but it doesn't help.
Also, click through rates and conversion rates are different issues. Probably many more IE users accidentily click on ads or click on them and lose interest than firefox users who are much more likely to only click through on an advert if they are interested in buying. (this is a guess we don't breakdown by browser type at the moment)
I block google ads.
if someone goes to the effort of ignoring ads, working around their measures is more likely to piss them off than get their business.
I think it's important to consider which pages are most popular for IE and Firefox users; it's not a matter of browser but more a matter of the interests of the user. This click-ratio metric would only be relevant if we compared visitors to the same website, and know that the users have the same interests and are just as likely to click. This would be more accurately done in a controlled environment than using pagelogs.
That said, I do accept that Firefox and IE users have different attitudes towards internet use, but the point in TFA about IE users thinking the banner is a system notification made me laugh :)
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
I know there's got to be a better term for them than "inline popups", but I'm not sure what else to call them. I'm talking about pop-up ads that appear *in* the page, on a layer above the page itself, thanks to the wonders of DHTML/CSS/what-have-you.
.js includes from other domains, if that's not something that's already being blocked. If not, they could be really insidious and hard to get rid of.
I've seen a few of these in Firefox. They were actually advertisements for big-name movie releases. They were pretty intrustive and were usually animated, sailing across the page I was trying to view. They were relatively well-behaved, at least, offering a tiny "Close [x]" button in some corner of the ad. Of course there's no guarantee that future ads will be so generous.
Since they don't launch in separate windows, obviously current popup-blocking technology can't touch them. I wonder if this will be the next "big thing" since users and browsers are becoming more successful at blocking popups or tuning them out.
I also wonder how easy they'll be to block. Sadly, I didn't bother to look at the source, but I have a hunch they're served up via a Javascript include file that's hosted on the ad company's servers. If that's how they were done, I guess they would be easy to block... just filter out
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
As a sidenote, I use Firefox, and have all the ad blocking stuff set up. But I still can't help but think that it is very unethical to do so. Websites cost money. The site owner may need advertising money for revenue; there is nothing wrong with this. If a browser actively encourages people to never click on adverts, and therefore never help out the sites they frequent, it is bound to have a negative effect on the internet. I just feel that, although annoying, adverts do serve a purpose.
Try this one:
http://gauret.free.fr/adshare/adshare.php
Begining IE: Ooooo! A button! Why yes, my computer does run slowly!
During IE: Grr...you wouln't lie to me again, would you? *click!*
Experienced with IE: Liars! Every last one of you!
Begining Firefox: I can block those liars? Wo-ho!
(Yep, I know that you can block adds in IE...it's just not integrated or as well done.)
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
By constantly harassing unexpecting visitors with numerous popups per page, fake OS interfaces, epilepticly blinking discobanners and after clicking treating them with even more annoyances, no wonder people are trying to avoid them.
That, and the fact that still a lot of ads badly placed (for example, selling morgages on a britney spears fanpage) no wonder no one clicks on them.
I do think ads can work in benefit of advertiser and visitor, but now most web users have grown such an aversion to them making ads more and more ineffective.
Actually, my blocking all addverts is of benefit to the advertisers.
When something is advertised by banner/popup/flash monstrosity/whatever is shoved in my face, at best its a waste of the advertisers paid for bandwidth. At worst, if its a product I'm interested in and they manage to get a brand name over to me then I'll check out their competitors first.
Essentially banner adverts & popups tell me "Low grade company, low grade product, probably a scam", and I'll no more consider following such adverts than I'd consider clicking "unsubscribe" in a spam mail (even if I did allow my mail client render HTML).
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
I'd like to know how many of the IE click were Popups with that Fake "X" or "Close"....
That most Firefox users know are fake and will not click....
I've found that alot crap adware/spyware is install by users clicking the fake "X" or "Close" to get rid of the ad.
And teaching no-tech savy users to click the Real X, is harder then you would think....,
---- There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't
---- "NIPPLES!! I HAVE NO NIPPLES!!!" -- Happy Noodle Boy
Anyone up for quick round of the blame game?
I blame the advertisers themselves. Ads kept getting more and more intrusive, abusing pretty much everything they could. In response, users started blocking pop-ups, keeping an anti-ad hosts file and generally ignore advertisements altogether. Firefox is merely another thing that makes it easier to get rid of ads. If they'd remained the nice, standard non-moving/flashing/whatever banners, users might not hate them this much.
I realize that Ads are important revenue stream for sites that I visit. So I "generally" don't block ads. I occasionally see something legit I am interested in.
But I do have pop-ups blocked and I have installed flashblock(great plugin), which stops all annoying flash from playing, and I have shut down animated gifs. So my screen doesn't look like the all singing all dancing crap of the universe.
After the above settings I do use adblock plugin, to block something crappy that does sneak through. I have about 3 lines in my adblock file. One of them is *newegg* after some hideous unkillable flash they had annoyed me. Newegg doesn't sell to Canada anyway.
Lately I see more Ads flowed in the middle of text I am trying to read. These I generally just use nuke anything to get out of my way. Bother me enough and I will adblock the server.
Simple Rule guys: keep your ads from ruining my experience or I will. If you want me to even see your adverts, you better play nice.
However...
Nearly all of my pay comes from clicks on my article about legal music downloading. The ads are almost always for p2p apps, and I'm dismayed they often claim what they do is legal. But there is a clickthrough rate of over 20%, which is quite unheard of in web advertising.
Most of the site has more technical articles. My article on C++ style is my second most popular (after the music downloading article), and gets ads for obviously useful and legitimate things like software development tools and training courses, but it has a clickthrough rate of just 0.1%. Rates for other technical articles are similar. In the three months I've published adsense ads, I've made only $10 from the ads in the C++ style article.
My experience running ads on other sites is that a typical response rate is 0.5% - 1%, so it seems technically-inclined readers click ads far below the average.
In between are some articles on marketing, web design and such, that get about a 1% response rate.
Although the ads on my music article pay well, I don't like what they're advertising, and feel they call my credibility into question. I've started approaching the manufacturers of mp3 players directly, to offer them ad space on the page, but have had no takers yet.
I don't think I could come up with another high-response article very easily, so my plan is actually to write more technical articles, with the hope that by posting new content regularly, I can encourage repeat visitors. It is very hard to get someone totally new to visit a website, but I don't think it's so hard to get a visitor to come back for a second time.
Also I'm going to completely change the page design to use a very nice CSS/XHTML design my wife Bonita made for me. Right now my pages look very homemade, and I expect some visitors hit the back button because my pages look so poor. Here's a peek at the new design, I think once I have it up all over my site I will get more repeat visitors.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
I also don't go ballistic in turning off ads. Annoying flash ads are gone. I will not swat the fly and I will not try to shoot the duck and if it has any annoying epileptic inducing strobe it's gone. Click on the 'adblock' tab. Quiet static ads don't bother me so that little 'adblock' tab doesn't get pressed. Any popup that dares to find it's way on my screen get anything from that ad site banned from my computer. I mean you tribalfusion. Thank you Firefox.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
The attitude of big business today seems to be that every human must be forced to stare at billboards, glossy pages in magazines, TV ads and Internet banners displaying product after product after product - even to the point where the 3" diameter circle on the top of a petrol pump at a petrol station has to display an ad for a bar of chocolate...
So, just as much as big business seems to be given the right to try to force-feed me endless advertising, I reserve the right to read a book on a tube train so I never have to stare up at the ads over the windows, the right to use my remote control to switch to another channel during the ad breaks and the right to use any goddamn browser and asblock program I want to keep this constant assault of visual garbage away from my eyes.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20041206.html
And I quote:
"Summary:
Studies of how people react to online advertisements have identified several design techniques that impact the user experience very negatively.
Advertising is an integral part of the Web user experience: people repeatedly encounter ads as they surf the Web, whether they're visiting the biggest portals, established newspapers, or tiny personal sites. Most online advertising studies have focused on how successful ads are at driving traffic to the advertiser, using simple metrics such as clickthrough rates.
Unfortunately, most studies sorely neglect the user experience of online ads. As a result, sites that accept ads know little about how the ads affect their users and the degree to which problematic advertising tricks can undermine a site's credibility. Likewise, advertisers don't know if their reputations are degraded among the vast majority of users who don't click their ads, but might well be annoyed by them.
Now, however, we have data to start addressing these questions. At my recent User Experience 2004 conference, John Boyd from Yahoo! and Christian Rohrer from eBay presented a large body of research on how users perceive online advertising. Here, I offer a few highlights from their presentation (my comments on their findings are solely my responsibility)."
Change the way you advertise (I prefer text ads myself, I'm 100% more likely to click on one of them then any sort of graphical ad) and you'll see more people clicking on ads.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
It is simple CSS. Create a layer, give it a position:absolute, z-level higher than any other (ie. on top), and have a javascript link to hide it. The actual page would just have a
<div class=ad>
<img src=".../banner.jpg">
</div>
Even if you disable JS, the only thing you disable is the close button. I've seen pages with this, but not the ads. The ads are still caught by the image filter, but I have to close the empty css layer.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
As much as the end users like it, isn't this sorta like a TV that blocks advertising and blurs out product placement intelligently? Seems like if such a TV existed, content producers who earn their revenue from advertising would try to find ways to break such a device, or at the very least make their content incompatible enough so that end users would be forced to use a device that could receive the adverts in order to receive the other content. I know as end-users we don't like it, but this is an equation of economics. If Firefix can block all advertising as we wish, and our usage of the sites that generate revenue off of said advertsing continues, what incentives to content producers on the web have to make sure that their sites remain Firefox compatible?
If the sites hosting them use iFrames you can block the iFrames with Adblock.
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
Something changed with the coming of the internet age, but not JUST involving the internet. Advertisers got a big head and started believing that they have some God-given right to force you to see their ads. The mindset that you are stealing something if you don't look at the ads has even crept into their evil little heads.
Advertising always was, and should go back to being a gamble on the advertisers part. When an advertiser buys an ad in the local newspaper, there is no guarantee that you will see it or if you do, pay it any attention.
I wouldn't mind seeing an ad or two myself, but they are ALL currently disabled because of this mindset that they have. They don't need to know if I looked at an ad. They don't need to know where I came from when I get to their site. My browser is set to not give any referrer information also.
Marketing people are pure unadulterated evil. If marketers were all banished to Canada, software would get better. Let us geeks decide about features. Don't artificially limit anything.
Oh well.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
seriously. I don't 'subscribe' to slashdot. and to be homnest the ads here aren't too bad. but the main reason I don't is the cost. i don't even KNOW the cost, but im guessing its at least $10 a year?
To be honest if I could pay $1 a year to make slashdot ad free I'd do it, but we still don't have micropayment services that are ubiquitous. And it would also have to be a roaming service so it block s at home and work.
Im not sure what the eocnomics of this all are, but if the subscription cost is VERY low, there are maybe 3 or 4 sites I'd happily pay to be ad free (bluesnews is another).
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Interesting. People thoughtful enough to select a browser rather than having a browser chosen for them also seem disinclined to click on anything that blinks.
The solution is obvious. Ban thinking now. Our economy depends on it.
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
than worrying about IE vs Firefox users. Have you noticed that while they say 4x as many IE users are clicking ads than Firefox users, they're still only talking about 0.5 PERCENT?!?! If they really means that 99.89% of all Firefox users are not clicking, vs 99.5% of IE users, then their problems are much bigger than who is using what browser. The bust showed that internet ads were not a viable revenue stream, but this crazy.
IE is a good stabiliser if nothing else, because they (or at least they used to) have a pretty much total share of the browser market, they controlled the basic default browser configuration. They kept the entire net advertising industry stable for years because most people are too lazy to install ad-blockers or change their settings. But a mass migration to firefox will change all that, Mozilla will then control the default configuration and pretty much have the power to shut down the entire net advertising industry overnight. Of course an industry like that wont go down easily: they will adapt and find new ways to push adverts, you would probably have to answer a specific question about an advert to get into a site or maybe something even more obtrusive than even the worst pop ups. Which is why we should probably bite the bullet and keep the market stable - obviously we don't have to look at adverts, but for the sake of making some advertisers happy, we might have to make sure everyone else does?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The relationship between the advertiser, the producer and the consumer has become so hopelessly damaged and the internet is only making it worse. as soon as some tool that enables a consumer to control the flow of advertising, someone else freaks out about how this is bad for business. We have the asshats in the television industry bemoaning TiVO and other devices that allow you to skip commercials. They even go so far as to claim that you agreed to a contract when you bought your TV that you WILL watch commercials. Then of course at the very extreme end of the asshat spectrum, you have spammers. Anything that is anti-spam is unfairly killing their "business model". Here's a clue, GET ANOTHER FUCKING BUSINESS MODEL. And soon we are sure to have some people who want to break or weaken any software that allows a user to control online ads. I really wish I had access to that gaint /etc/hosts file in the sky so I could redirect ALL ad hosts to 127.0.0.1 permanently.
Getting back on track here... it's simple Mr. Advertiser. If I want to buy a product, I will. You don't need to MAKE me buy it with your ad, you just need to get it into my head that it might do what I want. If I don't choose to buy it, TOO BAD!! Stop trying to justify your existence by pouring money into advertising and marketing and put that money into research and development to make a better product. Remember, the real hierarchy of the consumer/advertiser/producer relationship is this:
1. The producer only exists to serve the consumer
2. The advertiser is simply a notification agent (hmmm... could be replaced with a small shell script)
3. The consumer is the monarch in this relationship and should have little to do other than make a decision about where to spend their money.
4. The stockholders are the least important as they should be happy to even get a cent from this deal.
But it's all screwed up today and people are slowly being zombified by the current corrupted version of capitalism. Resist folks. Resist. You'll be better off for it.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
The big question is how many click throughs turn into sales. More than once I clicked on an advert by mistake and ended up just closing the ad. I did not buy anything. What we will need is more directed ads for stuff we want.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You can add the relevant ad servers to your hosts file:
127.0.0.1 adservices.google.com
127.0.0.1 googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 pagead.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 pagead1.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 pagead3.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 www.googleadservices.com
Advertisers should concentrate on what they are doing that only gets 0.5% of the most used broswer out there to click on their ads. Make the ads better (from the point of view of the *consumer*) and more people will click, regardless of the browser.
Do not touch -Willie
There was a /. story on this recently http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/03/145 0243&tid=217&tid=98&tid=218
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
Is it possible that more IE users click on ads because they A) still pop up, and B) Look like actual Windows messages to the [ahem] average user? Just a thought...
Someday a real rain is gonna come...
I also refuse to install Flash, it is a tool that has been abused by marketers. Transparent animation over page text was the last straw, that went WAY over the line for intrusion. Whenever I visit a Flash-only website, I complain to the webmaster for a non-Flash page. It usually gets results.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
You're assuming the point of advertising is to make you click. Strangely, many "new economy" ad execs sold their wares the same way. "Yeah, the users will CLICK and GO to your WEBSITE and BUY THINGS!!!11 ON THE SPOT!!!!111"
Bzzzt! Wrong, Slick.
The point of advertising is (say it with me) brand recognition. You aren't going to buy a Coke* on line when you get thirsty, but if all the sites you visit regularly have a Coke banner, the next time you're in the MiniMart, you might just say, "Hmmm, if I get a Coke then some hottie will hang off me, and there will be dancing and music and lots of sweat!" Then you fork over your dollars for one.
Why do you think there are billboards, and they are successful (in terms of getting companies to pay Viacomm and ClearChannel)? Because they build that brand recognition, not because you are going to run out that minute and buy a Hummer. Why are there ads in magazines? You gonna "click" on one of those, hah? Why does your 1 hour TeeVee show have 40 minutes of "content" (to be very generous) and 20 minutes of ads? You can't buy anything on the spot, so why are they trying to hawk "Hot Pockets"?
Now, it is possible for advertising to adapt to the web, but that won't happen until the ad execs actually figure out why and how the web works. I've sat in enough advert planning meetings (the "token" tech guy) to permanently lose all feeling below my neck due to lack of oxygen, and I can tell you that they don't get it yet. Maybe the current generation needs to die. I dunno.
*Yes, we're all aware that you can buy your dork-related goods on-line by clicking on the ads. We're talking about the average person here, who isn't interested in a new case, binary clock, or t-shirt that says, "Got Root? [please get me a girlfriend]".
Yeah, right.
Damn, google ads are usually the only advertising worth checking out, as they're usually targetted.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
e.g.: Take a page at url mysite.com/index.html . This page just consists of a bunch of iframes, which contain the page content, and the ads. The source of those iframes are from apparently random URLs that all look like mysite.com/?2pg904a82n84 . These content/ad URLs also change with each page reload. How do block the ads next time?
The only reason that a small 'elite' percentage of net users are able to surf Ad-free is that they're not yet a statistically significant group. Whey they become signficant, things will change. Enjoy the Ad-free content while you can!
Worst BBC News Stories
What you're describing is pretty much the difference between sales and marketing.
Sales is getting out (by whatever means) and getting people to open their wallet for you in response to your ads/pleas/whatever.
Marketing is creating an awareness, and hopefully "need" for whatever you're selling, but not trying to close the sale right there, or even in the near future. This is especially true for high dollar items like cars.
Tracking clicks is in a sense trying to track sales (usually the seller probably only gets some time from the clicker, not money, though) even though a lot of ads are clearly intended to create a marketing presence. You don't have to click on them for them to be effective-- you just have to see them (over and over) out of the corner of your eye while reading something else. Tracking views is what happens in the rest of advertising (how many people watch that show x how many times the ad appears). Eventually internet advertising will use a hybrid of clicks and views to track.
I'm guessing that 'ergonomic' is the correct term. I find most animation very distracting, to the point that I just can't read a site with multiple flash animations and animated gif's. It gives me a headache in no time. It was so bad that I used to have to un-install flash on some Linux distro's (before click-to-play). If I can't block the animation on a site, I usually just go somewhere else. I usually don't block any non-animated ads. Sometimes I'd move a window over a particularly annoying ad if I had to use the site. I used to use privoxy but with the combination of adblock and click to play, the Internet is ussable again for me.
I wish advertising people would realise that they are totally alienating some potential customers.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
That's indeed how adaware works. But there are other method (other programs) use. Such as the size of the image. Or you could use a white list, rather than a black list. Or look for those random characters strings. Or take all these factors together and automatically make an intelligent determination.
Yes, like you said in your title, it might because a "arm race", but it's a race there is no point for a website/advertiser to try to win. Because let's face it, if someone is determined to race you, they are annoyed enough about it that you're not going to profit (through a clickthrough) from you displaying that ad.
There was a recent AlertBox article in which Nielsen described the most hated forms of Web advertising and how much they hurt users and, in turn, the aggressive advertisers and the sites that use them. It's a small article and quite worth a read.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
I am Jack's disposable income.
I am what's left over after Jack spends money on things like food, shelter, taxes, and broadband.
You get to see me when you make Jack happy by giving him things like computer games, whisky, and lap dances.
When Jack gets pissed off, he hides me and you don't get to see me.
The (DHTML/CSS?) pops that flow over text perplex me. Do advertisers think that we're blocking popups accidentally?
As Tyler might say: "We've created generation of web users annoyed by popups. I'm wondering if another popup is the answer we really need."
Just because a "arms race" may be brewing, don't jump the gun and assume the content providers will win. Already there have been many skirmishes in the coming battle. As popup blockers have grown to become a significant threat, some sites starting putting anti-popup blocker software on their websites. In response, I modified my proxomitron filters to get around the anti-popup blocker. Now currently am I still part of the "elite minority", but I have no doubt similar skirmishes will happen as add blockers and ant-add blockers go mainstream.