Slashdot Mirror
Floaters are the New Pop-Ups
windowpain writes "A prior Slashdot article discussed the ever-increasing ability of pop-up ads to break through adblocking software. Now the New York Times (registration required) is reporting that pop-ups are pooped out, replaced by those annoying "floaters" that are even more resistant to conventional pop-up blocking software. From the article: 'Not to be confused with pop-up ads, which open new windows and clutter virtual desktops, these floaters, or overlays, or popovers (no one can agree on a name), can evade the pop-up blockers that many Web browsers have incorporated. In the last year, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, which collects and analyzes data on Web advertising, the frequency of these ads has risen markedly, by almost 32 percent from December 2003 to December 2004, while pop-ups in that period declined by 41 percent.'"
I wish that the pop-over ads would only pop-over when I hovered over them... a bunch of ads from Dell I've seen seem to do that... and I appreciate that... it sits there like a banner, and when I hover over it, it expands and does it's nice flash ad... but the ones that do it 5 seconds after the sight loads (car adverts on CNN anyone?) I really hate... it's annoying and ensures that I will never consider watching it...
A bit of courtesy from the advertisers and I am willing to watch it if it catches my fancy, but if they throw it in my face, they ain't getting anything but rage from me.
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Don't these people look at any research, or are these just web developers with no actual marketing skills? Simple text based ads have been proven to be more effective than any form of internet advertisement, why do you think Google uses them?
I'm not saying that these ads are evil, but I question the wisdom of forcing ads on people who have taken steps to block them. What does the advertiser expect to accomplish? If their site is struggling so much that the only way they can keep it online is by forcing obnoxious ads on people, the internet would be a better place without them. Make your ads relevant and not super annoying, and maybe people will actually be interested in them.
"I believe it would be in your companies best interest to institute a policy that your banner advertisments cannot make sounds unless a user is interacting with them.
You are currently running a banner add on your web site that is extremely anoying. It says "Swat the fly and get a free $250 gift certificate," and has a fly flying around and your mouse turns into a fly swatter when you mouse over it. The anoying thing is that it makes a buzzing sound even if you do not do anything.
Your web site auto refreshes at regular intervals. I usually leave my browser open on your site durig the day while I work and periodically check the headlines and read the articles. Imagine my surprise when, while I am working with my browser minimized, my computer suddenly begins to buzz. I use firefox for a browser, and usually have at least seven news sites open in tabs at once. It took me quite some time to find which site had an add that was playing the anoying buzzing sound.
Since I cannot prevent your site from auto refreshing, eventually that banner add will come back up. As a result, I am not going to be able to leave your site open today. That is a real shame because I relly enjoy your web site and read it daily. Unfortunately that annoying sound will drive me nuts and prevent me from getting my work accomplished.
Thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice and change your advertising policy."
This was their response:
"Thanks for writing. We've been deluged with complaints about this ad. It was served by a third party advertiser, and we're working to track it down and remove it. If it does crop up again in the future, please don't hesitate to email us right away."
I was really surprised at the response. I guess since they are a legitimate news site (gonna get flamed for that), they cannot afford to have their advertisers driving their readers away from the site. Still I sent a similar email to abcnews.com for a similar ad a couple of months ago and the response was the exact oposite. I did not save the email but they basically told me to screw myself.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
Not all adverts do have div ID's though, but thankfully we're still well within the realm of being able to use Adblock to nuke them.
The adverts are usually served up by third party advert servers and thus looking at the adblock list of blockable elements... just block all items that are not on the domain for the site you're looking at.
That takes care of 99% of floaters, popups, etc.
The real problem is the next stage of advert evolution, which will be when content providers still use third parties to sell and supply adverts, but start to act as proxies for the adverts.
When content providers are acting as proxies and adverts appear to come from the same domain and content management system as the content... then adverts will be VERY hard to block.
The prevalence of adblock is going to increasingly push companies towards such solutions.
They'll still need to monetise their sites, and whilst it used to be that they didn't care for a minority of people blocking adverts, when that is a fast growing minority and it's affecting their revenues... they will find ways around it.
Just as the DRM rules state that if you can see and hear it you can bypass DRM and copy it... maybe a rule should be created for adverts: If you can see or hear the content, then advertisers CAN find a way to make you see or hear advertisements.
I wonder what it would be like if we worked on stories instead of flashy graphics in games. Would it be better to have a text based game where all the characters had personalities and could hold a conversation? Or is it better having lots of dumb things that don't talk to shoot at?
I believe it would be a natural extension of today's marketting techniques to use forms of pain and torture as a means of convincing people to buy your products and services. Clearly, being nice and friendly doesn't work any longer.
Let's just glance at the trends to see where they are going. With TV, they started with commercial spots which were actually convenient because if gave you the opportunity to get up and get a drink, make a sandwich or go use the bathroom. But lately, with the excessive amounts of commercials you have time to do all three of those things. Now they are corrupting our entertainment with product placement within the entertainment itself. Annoying...but livable since they have only the ability to make sounds and video so it kind of limits what they can do. (Though I make predictions that they will begin adding ear-drum-peircing tones to the beginning and end of each commercial to take advantage of the new pain marketting techniques.)
The same generally applies to radio where the commercial air time obviously swarfs the amount of entertainment air time. But again, ear-drum shattering tones, not unlike the Emergency Broacast System tests, will mark the beginnings and ends of advertisments on the radio.
With computers and internet, we have suffered greatly from the creative genius of marketters who clearly illustrate they have no moral boundaries. They spam us, we block them, they find ways around the blocks and keep spamming. Now what marketting genius thinks it is a good idea to skirt what amounts to security measures in order to get your advertisment through? In some places it's a criminal offense to ignore a "No Soliciting" sign. How about climing over a security fence in order to place a handbill on your door? Is it okay? Or what about picking the lock of your back door (a clear invitation since you have a back door, it must mean you want someone to come in through it right?) in order to stick something on your refridgerator (and then count all the items in your food storage to see what you've been eating and buying)? Would this be acceptable? No, guess not. Marketters would think it's equally ridiculous...or would they..? (Do you think I just gave them a bad idea? D'oh!)
I have proposed this idea in the past and I believe I got some support for the idea at the time but now I'm almost ready to start the push myself. Let's make a "mark" in the minds of the consumers out there.
I think we should hire some people to go around and beat up random strangers on the street. The advertising comes in when you script the ass-kickin' with commercial messages. Timing is crucial. For example, if I were advertising Viagra, a kick in the crotch should happen at exactly the moment the product name is mentioned. This works directly as the word "Viagra" will be stuck in the mind of the recipient for a LONG LONG time. And indirectly, as you see people holding their damaged "goods" and you ask them what happened, they can simply answer "Viagra" and the message will be clear.
I have considered many ways in which pain would be an effective marketting tool and the scenario above is just one example.
Popups are for wimps.
Enough people don't want to turn off ads, or don't know how, to make this profitable. I've noticed that many ads on TV seem deliberately designed to irritate through stupidity and repetition. Obviously irritation as an advertising strategy actually works with enough people to make it profitable. Consider that many of the people who read slashdot are (or like to think they are) more intelligent than the average person. I don't think the attitude expressed here is indicative of the attitude of the average web-surfer. A poster further down says his users would happily double click on a land-mine just to see what happens. I think that is more indicative of the general attitude of the average web-surfer. As long as there are stupid people, advertisers will cater to them.
Obviously, what we need to do is get rid of all the stupid people. I suggest telling them there is a giant space goat coming to eat the planet and putting them all on some kind of space ark.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I spent years looking for a way to turn off flash. Macromedia doesn't allow you to do it. If you don't install it, you get bugged constantly to install it. Then came Homestar Runner, so I need flash. Recently someone on Slashdot pointed out a Firefox extension called Flashblock. It's perfect. Replaces all flash with a clickable icon and you can easily whitelist a site from a right-click menu.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Perhaps you are right about that. One thing I've noticed though: creative, amusing or artful ads don't work on me. Oh, I admire the ad agency who made the ad, but it still won't make me buy the product or like the company placing the ad.
I like to think I'm a lot like many other people here. When making purchasing decisions, I decide what I want based on rational criteria such as price, features, customer service and so forth. I tell myself that none of the millions of ads I've seen in my life are shaping my decisions.
I remember reading a short SF story about consumerisation in the future. People are working ten hour days, six and seven days a week to buy all this useless crap that is specifically designed to break down in three months. Car tires, for instance, must match groove patterns in the roads (which are changed every few months) or the vibrations will destroy the tire and car. People spend all their free time figuring out deals in buying clubs. Finally, ad companies come up with these subliminal mind control antennas. The main character ends up stopping at the store for a carton of cigarettes (which he doesn't smoke) and putting them absentmindedly in the glove compartment with all the other unsmoked cartons of cigarettes.
Honestly, how do we know we aren't being influenced?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
One thing I've noticed though: creative, amusing or artful ads don't work on me.
... don't we?
That's what you think.
Honestly, how do we know we aren't being influenced?
Now you are on the right track. However, there is no spooky, subliminal hypnosis involved. It's just that we are far more susceptible to advertising than we think. Companies advertise for only one reason: it works. New products have uncertain demand, but in established industries it is fairly easy to predict how sales will respond to advertising. Yet nobody thinks they are influenced by ads. Likewise, it is easy to prove that physically attractive political candidates have a material advantage over uglier ones, but while we may be willing to to believe that other voters could be so superficial, we all know that we ourselves are wiser
"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."