How Text Ads Tamed Ads on the Wild, Wild Web

securitas writes "In Sunday's New York Times, Randall Stross writes about How Google Tamed Ads on the Wild, Wild Web and how it is largely responsible for the demise of the odious pop-under ad. From the article: "Without intending to do so, the company set in motion multilateral disarmament by telling its first advertisers in 2000: text only, please. No banner ads, no images, no animation.... Google introduced these ads at the very moment when X10 ads were strewn like chewed gum on every square of sidewalk. X10's pop-unders were accepted at mainstream sites run by companies including Microsoft, Yahoo and The New York Times." Remember that "in mid-2001, X10's company Web site was the fourth-most visited" on the Web. Thank you, Google." I'd actually argue that while the text ads had something to do with it, the massive growth in pop-up/under blockers made as much of a difference, if not even more.

Comments

The Google-fication of the facts

[Billosaur]

I see... so Google saved us all from ourselves did they? I seem to remember that even though Google was much talked about in 2000, it had yet to become the preminent search engine it is today.

Perhaps this has more to do with it: Results 1 - 10 of about 7,590,000 for Pop-up blocker software. (0.20 seconds). Taken from Google itself. Pop-ups weren't simply replaced, they were stamped out. They still exist, but not at the staggering, nauseating level they were once.

Does anyone know anyone who ever bought one of those X10 cameras?

Re:The Google-fication of the facts

[dslauson]

"Pop-ups weren't simply replaced, they were stamped out.

Very true, but Google had a hand in that, as well. The Google toolbar, with popup blocking, was popular before browsers like Firefox that have integrated popup blocking were part of the mainstream. It's definitely what I used in IE before I made the switch.

Re:The Google-fication of the facts

[rolfwind]

I think that the premise of Google killing these ads are false as well.

Without ad-blocker turned off. (though Firefox is set to block ads), I still get 2-4 pop-unders per session. I wonder how many Firefox itself is blocking.

In any case, I'm not focused on the ad but the little 'X' button to shut them off. I wonder how often it simply became uneconomical to advertise this way and how often would someone would return to an insignificant website that throws pop-ups or pop-unders around like that? It's a quick way to drive away your audience.

Re:The Google-fication of the facts

[trezor]

I really hope that you are not actually surfing with Javascipt enabled.

<sarcasm>Because as we all know, javascript can't be used to improve site functionality or reduce BW overhead in page updates.</sarcasm>

I take it you've never ordered a plane-ticket online or used any site that actually uses javascript for good. For all you people saying javascript is all bad, I urge you to look at Gmail. That's a web-app at it's finest if you ask me.

For the record: I have javascript enabled, and I almost never get popups. The annoyance of a popup every now and then hardly constitutes going back to the pre-javascript web.

I like google as much as the next guy...

[grasshoppa]

...but what a stretch. Even Hemos notes it:

I'd actually that while the text ads had something to do with it, the massive growth in pop-up/under blockers made a large difference as well.

( ignoring missing words and all. I have no room to talk in that dept )

Can we please attribute things to where they belong? google may be the second coming of Christ, who knows, but let's try to keep their achievements realistic.

Capitalism at work?

[altoz]

Let's not forget why text ads and pop-up blockers became popular in the first place... People demanded it! I don't know a single person that likes intrusive advertising like the pop-unders and the flash animations that come on top of everything else. What the google ads show is what everyone should have known before... The internet is a place where people come looking for you, and when that's the case, you don't need loud, fancy graphics, you only need enough information for them to identify your product (text).

Not just Google

[lheal]

Maybe Google had some effect, but I think they were just part of the more general backlash against such ads.

Nobody but the parasuits liked them. Everyone savvy enough to know how to turn them off did so. I'd wager some people even quit web browsing over them.

Google didn't want them because 1) they slurp bandwidth and B) they can't be tracked for content and $) because they don't fit the Google "no evil" culture.

Those reasons pretty much coincide with how the rest of us saw them, too. Except for the pervs, that is. (Camera to spy on wife in shower? Ooh, baby!)

Tamed?

[DigitalWar]

I wouldn't say internet ads have been tamed. Sure there are less popups and popunders. But whatabout all the new ones which cover the page (Fox is a major offender here), or noisy ads (I don't know if America got subjected to the jamster ads much).

Adblock

[DrJAKing]

Are there adverts on the internet then? WTF...

True enough though, for a while I couldn't be bothered to filter Google's ads. Nowadays I find RIP and CustomizeGoogle keep the interface nice and clean.

Useful links for those that like to make their own mind up:

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
http://www.customizegoogle.com/
http://rip.mozdev.org/index.html
http://adblock.mozdev.org/
http://www.pierceive.com/

And for those that might bleat "without advertising, many sites would fail" I say Good. Let those sites fail. Give me micropayments and an honest relationship.

Re:Adblock

[damiam]

If you shoplift, and everyone else shoplifts, you get free stuff, but the store soon fails. Bad.
If you don't shoplift, and everyone else shoplift, you spend a lot of money, and the store STILL fails. Awful.
If you don't shoplift, and nobody else shoplift, you spend money, and the store survives. Good.
If you shoplift, and nobody else shoplifts, you get free stuff, and the store survives. Great!

Before anyone gets all pissy, I'm not trying to equate adblocking with theft, morally speaking. But the cause/effect situation is similar. One person shoplifting is not going to significantly affect the bottom line of a business, and will probably not cause prices to go up. But that doesn't mean shoplifting is OK. This is where the tragedy of the commons comes in - if we all block ads/shoplift/let our cattle graze on the commons, then there will be nothing left for anyone and we all lose. That's the flaw in your argument - just because you have a small impact doesn't mean you have no impact.

Pop-up blockers boosted Firefox more, Google also

[CodeShark]

My experience might be a bit different, but it was Firefox's unobtrusive addition of a Pop Up Blocker that was the single most important change between the bad old days and now.

Why? the Netscape browser was dying, IE Version whatever was the buggy, proprietary, virus-target of the day only other thing out there, and because MS is also in the advertising game via MSN, etc., they weren't about to give users the ability to turn off a specific class of advertisements without making it odious.

Then Firefox declares war via pop-up blocker, and within a short time the early adopters (who are really the most important predictor of future technological trends, methinks) were moving in droves away from IE, and I don't think I was more than a few days behind them.

Same time, Google's model saves me bandwidth and eye strain, and --ka- boom!!-- between the two the 'Net returned to being a useful tool with one tenth the amount of pain.