2005 The Turning Point For Online Ads

An anonymous reader writes "Google's advertising sales vice president, Tim Armstrong, said this week in an interview that 2005 was the turning point for online ads. Older businesses went from trying out the internet as an advertising venue to investing full-on." From the article: "'The experimenting and testing phase begun in the 1990s has ended. Corporate ad buyers are investing now,' he said. Jupiter Research estimates the U.S. online advertising market will grow 28 percent over last year, to $11.9 billion in 2005, moving to $13.6 billion in 2006 and $15.1 billion in 2007."

Comments

Non sequitor

[voice_of_all_reason]

They always go to great lengths to point out that ad spending is increasing, yet never make any statements about how effective all this money being spent is. They're throwing cash into this black pit because everyone says to, but how many companies are actually experiences increased sales from onling ads?

Turning point indeed. In financial terms, this is called an "imminent crash."

Re:Non sequitor

[moro_666]

this kind of hype reminds of the dotcom bubble that exploded some years ago :p

i think thinkgeek.com does experience increased sales from online ads, however regular industries that dont push their online services, hardly gain anything, most of what's seen on the screen is forgotten when you turn it off. if you think it's some other way around, tell me what was the 5th banner back that you saw on slashdot.

currently the webservices have increased into a more mature stage, but i still think it will just explode like the previous bubble, only this time it will take longer (and since big time investments are in here, it will hurt more).

ps. the money is being spent into google (this is the latest trend you know ...)

Re:Non sequitor

[Shard013]

I work for a domain name company and my boss throws huge amounts of money at google. He seems pretty happy with the results too.

Re:Non sequitor

[voice_of_all_reason]

There have been studies done on this. Scientists in white coats and everything
99% of people that click on ads either did it by accident (it popped up over the link they were aiming for) or were tricked into it by a fake close button or something.

Though, the ad companies use the "throw a bucket of paint on a wall" analogy, arguing that 1% of the internet population is still an amazingly large number. Still, it's only clickthroughs. Can they not tie these to actual purchases, or do they simply not want to reveal how low the actual percentage is?

Re:Non sequitor

[Descalzo]

Think of it this way:
Internet ads are cheaper than TV ads, and the quality doesn't have to be as high.

Think of it this way: If I see a TV commercial, it had better be good, because no matter how excited about it I am, it's going to be a while before I have a chance to spend money on the product. If an Internet ad sparks my interest, I can be spending money on their website in a matter of seconds.

Re:Non sequitor

[networkBoy]

All I know is that there are enough ads already.
Thank $diety for adblock.
If it hinders page loading and is a remote ad server: adblock
If it blinks: adblock
If it blinks with high eye bleeding contrast: adblock and an oath to kill the designer in the afterlife
If it moves more than a simple rolling static images at a "nice" pace: adblock
If it's text only, not clashing contrast with the article, or otherwise noticable but unobtrusive: no problem.

If ad spending is increasing that is a GoodThing, because presumably it implies more free content. I just hope that ads evolve into the less painful types.
-nB

Re:Non sequitor

[SlashSquatch]

To a crash witness, all of the sudden, everything becomes a crash in the making.

Oh yeah, click on my google ads por favor.

Re:Non sequitor

[Anonymous Coward]

I especially like those numbers: $13.6 billion!

Now, does that mean that -online- sales are -way- bigger than this to justify that much money spent on ads? (ignore online places that -sell- ads; those don't count---those are already part of that $13.6 billion).

Also, how much of the stuff being sold isn't advertised? (except on the site it's being sold?, ie: doesn't fall into the $13.6 billion)

Re:Non sequitor

[dslauson]

This really is the cool thing about Google's model. They deliver targeted adds catered to the individual. If a person clicks on the link, you can't necessarily assume that they are going to open their wallet, but it is a reasonably safe assumption that your message was recieved. In order for it to be as successful as it has been historically, since it is pay-per-click, they must be delivering a pretty decent volume of messages, right?

Re:Non sequitor

[bluk]

Yes you can. Setup a special 1-800 number and put that number in the ad if they want to know more about the product. Or setup a special website address. It's the same more or less as a clickthrough, and these customers may be more valuable since they actually have to do "more" to get the information (compared to just clicking on a link). Therefore, they aren't just clicking on a whim, and the likelihood of them buying your product is increased. There may be tons of people that see the ad and don't follow up on it, but that's just like the tons of people on the Internet that avoid clicking on ads too.

Re:Non sequitor

[D-Cypell]

if you think it's some other way around, tell me what was the 5th banner back that you saw on slashdot.

I am not sure what you point is. What is the 5th advertisement back you saw on television? Which of your relatives was the 7th birthday back? What was the 12th meal back you ate? (Yes, all of these questions sound grammatically wrong to me too, I cant quite put my finger on the correct format).

All you have done is prove that people have a poor memory for detailed facts, but if I asked you what dabs.com sell or which industry you associate nestle with, I am sure you could give me an answer. It is this kind of 'vague association' that advertising folks want to build, so that next time you need a new PC or you need to search the web you know where to go intuitively.

I happen to believe that online adverts DO serve this purpose, but I would also say that there are companies that I associate negative feelings with because their advert popped onto my screen while I was reading something important (or amusing).

If I click on an ad, order a product, get a great service, need the same kind of product again, I will probably return to that same site. Advertising may only be the first step, but it is probably the most important as without that ad I would have never have made the order or even found the site.

So details like "What was the 5th banner you saw" are completely irrlevant if the 5th banner you saw now means you associate a specific product or service with a specific company. Who cares how many adverts back it was???

Re:Non sequitor

[sandman935]

TV commercials are intensely exciting. I used to drink Coke, but after seeing a Pepsi commercial, I switched to Pepsi, but then I saw this really cool 7up commercial so now I drink that... no wait... it's Mountain Dew yeah that's it.

Re:Non sequitor

[Wellspring]

They're throwing cash into this black pit because everyone says to, but how many companies are actually experiences increased sales from onling ads?

Honestly, I have no idea.

Advertising does have strategic benefits. When I was working at a mobile software platform company, we skipped ads altogether. Result: companies thought that we were either not viable or not a major player. When we started running ads, the concerns evaporated. So people weren't exactly persuaded to buy by the ads, but they did help give us some credibility. Having a winning image helps differentiate you from your competitors in established markets. In new markets, it helps educate your consumer-- so prospects that your salesmen pick up can be more quickly qualified (ie you don't have to do 4 flights worth of meetings to discover that your prospect has no need for your product, and to help customers realize opportunities to use your product that a cold-calling salesman might not realize).

What I like about Google's model is that they're gradually working towards a model where you pay not for views (like most ads) or for clicks (as things w/ google work today) but eventually for sales. Every step is getting us from the current "black hole money pit" model where marketing is overhead, to marketing as a cost of sale. In accounting terms it's great, but also it helps you finally get a sense of what really works out there.

For all the statistics and numbers, marketing is still pretty much voodoo. I'm just happy that we're finally getting closer to a point where you can really start seeing what works and what doesn't.

Re:Non sequitor

[Reziac]

True, but you also have to distinguish between the people who clicked the ad due to genunie interest, and those who were chasing an ill-mannered ad around the screen whilst trying to kill it.

It's only reasonable to assume that advertisers (whose market is retailers, NOT consumers) will inflate the "positive click" numbers as much as they can get away with, to enhance their product's attraction for retailers.

Re:Non sequitor

[pla]

tell me what was the 5th banner back that you saw on slashdot.

Slashdot has banner ads?


I leave unobtrusive text sidebar ads alone. For everything else, a combination of AdBlock and FlashBlock make the web FAR more tolerable.


People wonder why Google has done so well, despite having the potential to turn into the next Microsoft-like Evil Empire? Simple - They "get" it. Provide me with something useful (a great search engine), and don't deliberately piss me off to get my attention.


If EVERY single online advertiser used a small text sidebar to advertise, I wouldn't bother blocking any of them. But when some marketing "genius" decides that garish colors, loud sounds, and insanely distracting motion will make me more likely to buy their product - Welcome to AdBlock.


Of course, "unobtrusive" also includes only taking up one fairly modest sidebar with text. If I start seeing two-deep sidebars on both the left and right, along with top and bottom "side" bars, I suppose I'd have to start blocking those as well. But as long as they stay reasonable, I'll stay reasonable.

Re:Non sequitor

[jmc]

Any online business that knows what they're doing can easily track their ROI on online ads. The company I work for does, and yet they still keep throwing more money at Google.

Hence, I can only assume that the ads ARE in fact working.

Re:Non sequitor

[jackbird]

I think less, not more, caffeine is the answer...

Re:Non sequitor

[DarkClown]

how can 'they' have the data on conversion to comment on this? i kind of think that may be one of the reasons that google released the analytics deal - to get a bit more of a window on how advertisers goals and conversions are coming along versus ad spend.
at a small software company i worked at previously the online ad spend was in the 10k-ish a month range, and using referrer info and urls specific to the online campaign they were able to see that the return on investment on that was great, justified every cent. the person in charge of that spent time on that every day, though, so it's not like you just throw some ads out there and expect it to just work.

Re:Non sequitor

[voice_of_all_reason]

how can 'they' have the data on conversion to comment on this?

Why not simply line up the IPs of those who came to the site from one of your advertisements (you can get the last URL of a visitor, right?) Match the IPS up against whover brought from your store that day, and see the correlation.

Not perfect, i admit. It won't see people who browse one day, then purchase the next.

Re:Non sequitor

[aztracker1]

I'd like to see online Coupon ads.. generic product ads, saying "Click here for $1 off Charmin Ultra" or some such... basically some 468x60 ads that follow the tv ad model, for pretty generic, loosely targetted ads... wonder what it would take to work with google on creating such a thing...

My bbs site, for example, winds up with ads for Telnet/SSH servers, etc, and honestly, those do almost squat for me, because the people that visit my site, aren't really interested in similar technologies.

Re:Non sequitor

[Trinn]

I think the truth is that, in a very "real" way, ads really are "magic". More specifically, advertising is all about image and concept, there is nothing at all "concrete" about it. Yeah you can track what ads seem to "work" but that still doesn't explain why they work or maybe more importantly how they work.

Re:Non sequitor

[Marc2k]

Advertising does have strategic benefits. ... companies thought that we were either not viable or not a major player.

Uh, no. You haven't actually described any strategic benefits whatsoever, just illustrated the pass-the-buck structure of marketing; it's all about image. Did your company know what the actual strategic benefit of advertising was? No, but you knew you had to have them. Did the "companies" know what the strategic benefit of advertising was? No, but they knew they had to have them. The onus of proving why ads (or rather, why the amount of money thrown at advertising budgets) are necessary is continually passed on from one entity to another, without any real accountability as to why we just blew a large portion of our budget on monogrammed beer cozies and a 20-second ad with a horse in it on NBC.

Re:Non sequitor

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea what dabs.com is, and I don't care. Nestle makes food products; I've purchased some of them. I have no idea the full extent of the products that Nestle sells. I'm not sure what that brand recognition means though, since the products I can identify as Nestle products are shitty, and I wouldn't buy them again. They probably sell lots of things with different branding that I might. Who knows?

Any purchase that isn't an impulse-buy requires considerable investigation. That is active product searching, which will entail quite a bit of research. That basically means anything that costs more than $20. I seriously didn't even notice Google's ads for two years, while people were talking about how great Google's text ads were I was looking right past them completely and didn't even realize that they were there. I can't even remember the last time that I read a single Google ad. I've gotten so that I don't even see banner ads, and with Flash Block a large number of annoying webcontent simply disappears.

I think people overvalue advertising. I think review-oriented outlets for presenting information and word-of-mouth advertising probably help more than any number of web ads, spam, or billboards. Television had a lot of advantages because it was a captive audience subject to multimedia, but thanks to TiVo I don't have to watch any of those obnoxious things anymore, either. Now there are lots of product placements in shows, and when I see them (they're pretty obvious, since they make unnatural pauses to display some product label to the camera) I remember what company made the television show I watch less entertaining and more obnoxious and don't buy their products, if I ever did in the first place.

Re:Non sequitor

[ross.w]

If it's an ad, adblock.

Re:Non sequitor

[networkBoy]

I used to do that, but I realized that there are two paths:
1) Adblock everything -> Content providers make no money -> content goes away or costs money
2) Adblock selectively -> Content providers make more money from "nice ads" -> content providers replace "bad ads" with profitable ads -> content stays free with a cleaner and less annoying ad format.

Both paths are basically an example of natural selection at work. The first selects for extinction, the second for evolution.
-nB

Re:Non sequitor

[Wellspring]

Uh, no. You haven't actually described any strategic benefits whatsoever, just illustrated the pass-the-buck structure of marketing; it's all about image. Did your company know what the actual strategic benefit of advertising was?

Actually, I thought I explained rather well what the advantages proved to be for us. You dismiss "image" but the fact is that prior to our ad campaign customers expressed skepticism about our position in the market and financial viability. After the ads, we were recognized and it wasn't an issue anymore. The ads gave people a sense that we were more than an office, a demo, and some guys in suits. In other products' cases (not this particular one though) it had the other effect I described-- shortening the sales cycle and faster qualification (and self-qualification) of sales leads. That reduces cost of sale, which is a budget line item.

YMMV, of course, and I specifically did say that the benefit is fuzzy, difficult to measure and not applicable in all cases. But what I'm getting at is that it had a measureable effect in our case, so you can't simply dismiss it just because it's hard to measure.

Excellent (as opposed to adequate) customer service is also expensive, and its effects are also hard to measure. Going from 99% to 99.9% customer satisfaction usually costs more than the profit you would have gotten from that .9% you would have disappointed. But your reputation (intangible image) for quality wins more sales than that. Yes, it's hard to measure, yes it's hard to monetize, but there's a reason so many companies strive to have it.

Re:Non sequitor

[sapgau]

Image
Brand recognition
Reputation

They are all intangible but somehow people can associate a premium to them (i.e. Lexus, Cadillac, Rolex, Luis Vouton(sp?) ).

But to accountants that all means overhead in trying to achieve it, I don't think that would ever change.

0.02

Re:Non sequitor

[Reziac]

Yeah, but now that you know what an X10 is, and have been chased all over the net by their popups... do you want to buy one, or do you want to see them in hell? :)

Good point tho, that advertisers clients (that is, the retailers) need to distinguish how people respond to a given ad in a particular location, and not just assume that because one ad worked well, 50 ads would work better, and turning the entire net into a billboard would be perfect!

Re:Non sequitor

[hobbit]

Both paths are basically an example of natural selection at work

No, both are an example of artificial selection!

Re:Non sequitor

[adamgolding]

5th most recent.

Re:Non sequitor

[Reziac]

LOL! Yep, that's karma for ya :)

BTW I've been told that ancient CGA monitors work real nice with cheap surveillance equipment. No idea what X10 hooks to or uses, but could be time for a quick run to the junkyard :)

Re:Non sequitor

[Anonymous Coward]

What I like about Google's model is that they're gradually working towards a model where you pay not for views (like most ads) or for clicks (as things w/ google work today) but eventually for sales.

Actually, this has been around for years. It's called CPA (Cost per aquisition) as opposed to CPC (Cost per click) and CPM (Cost per 1000 views). Many online advertising companies have very sophisticated ways of delievering actual value to an advertiser.

Re:Non sequitor

[dscruggs]

They're throwing cash into this black pit because everyone says to, but how many companies are actually experiences increased sales from onling ads?

A friend of mine makes lots - and I mean LOTS - of money advertising on Google and redirecting the traffic to affiliate programs. It's just him and two partners, yet they do enough business that Google brought them to Google Zeitgeist all-expenses-paid.

His biggest problem is definitely NOT increasing sales from ads. Rather, it's keeping enough credit cards with big enough lines of credit so that Google doesn't turn off the ads in the middle of the night when he hits his credit ceiling. I kid you not, he regularly pre-pays as much as $100,000 on his cards so he'll have $200,000 of running room.

3.5 years ago he was broke and looking for a job, so he tried this as a desperation move. Within a month he was paying his mortgage with it. Google is a godsend to him and to the companies he's an affiliate for.

Re:Non sequitor

[networkBoy]

how so?

Since the whole web construct is artifical in nature, I suppose that you could use that argument.
My reasoning is that our interaction with the web is its natural state, our changes to our interaction is changing that nature, thus changing our browser behaivour to not download ads is a selection for ad free or reduced annoyance ads. This selects for sites that carry ads which are not overly imposing, thus those sites will prosper while sites that rely on annoying ads will flounder. This is the same premis of natural selection (competition for a limited resource, the better prepared site/creature gets it).
-nB

Re:Non sequitor

[hobbit]

If you deliberately leave some ads unblocked because you don't want all ads to disappear, you can't really make the analogy to environment any more -- that would be like God making Mauritius inaccessible to humans because he didn't want dodos to become extinct, or like a zookeeper keeping lions out of the panda cage. But yes, shortly after I posted that comment I realised that your path 1 is indeed natural selection.

online vs offline advertising

[rd4tech]

Can anyone give any real-life examples of offline vs online advertising profits? What costs more? What pay's off more? Which one is better targeted?

Re:online vs offline advertising

[xoip]

Print/display ads are sold on a cost per thousand basis. Trouble is...how do you verify the ad has indeed been viewed by a subscriber, visitor? Online ads where things are pay per click ensure that the viewer has engaged with you on atleast some level, as opposed to flipping by a page. Try it out at RambleWeb. You have the option of browsing past or engaging in depth with the gift idea presented. Choice is yours...In a magazine, there are ads in there you'll never see yet someone paid for them.

Re:online vs offline advertising

[beacher]

No mention about returns but this statement alone ..
"By contrast, Google, which dominates the fast-growing market for keyword-search advertising, has been growing at three times the industry rate, or around 100 percent a year"

Google has some very key data centers... give them some an entry into the cable market, set top boxes with targeted ads, disable TiVo ad skipping, and I'll probably have to quit watching TV entirely. It easy to firewall off my wife's shopping habits, but this would be the turning point for DVD only. Interesting article here

Re:online vs offline advertising

[XMilkProject]

In my experience we have been more successful with Online advertising opposed to print (magazine) advertising. This is for a software company though, who's users are more likely to be online.

Also, perhaps you can get alot more advertising for the same money, when doing it online.

Re:online vs offline advertising

[jank1887]

Now, no one argues that offline advertising is effective. It's been around long enough to take care of that. Why is it, when we know so much about how offline advertising works, that we put blinders on when it comes to online advertising? I.e., the value of an online ad is measured only by it's click-thru's, or purchases off click-thru's. So, say I saw some ad somewhere, and two days later I need a WidgetX, and I remember the particular ad, or maybe just the name of the website, or even the brick'n'mortar store, and I go spend my cash on said WidgetX. I did that because of the ad, but it will never be reflected in a click-thru.

Online advertising is the first format with a method for direct and immediate measurement, thus it has (to its detriment) become the only measurement of effectiveness. Accordingly, online ads are designed with the single purpose of getting you to immediately click-thru to the website. Usually minimal (if any) information is conveyed in the ad, and the ad is essentially worthless if it doesn't generate a click-thru. Self-fulfilling prophesy.

At least with Google Ads being more contextually relevant than some, and displaying the url, it has a chance of serving a legitimate marketing function similar to its offline cousins. But it seems like most people out there just don't get it.

Re:online vs offline advertising

[Drakonian]

I read a stat in Harper's that the estimated combined ad revenue of Google and Yahoo in 2005 matches that of the big three TV networks - ABC, NBC, CBS, in prime time ad slots. And I'll give you one guess as to which one is growing faster.

My 1000th comment! And oddly relevant.

the big difference

[kevin.fowler]

I think the big difference by now is that Joe Regular finally sees an ad on the internet as a legitimate ad, as if he's looking at the New York Times, or Swank magazine.

Re:the big difference

[Quiet_Desperation]

New York Times, or Swank magazine.

There's a difference?

No Better Place for Advertising Dollars

[xoip]

Targeting of customers by major brands is obvious. The main challenge is accessing the local market. Finding a central portal/site where consumers from a certain neighbourhood visit is the main challenge for the local business who lives off walkin traffic.

Google talking to ZDNet?

[jacoplane]

I thought Google had a policy of no longer talking to CNet/ZDNet reporters. Did they change this?

Inside "Older Business" corporate meetings....

[ajdowntown]

What is this "internet" thing you speak of?

You say, billions of people will use it?

That sounds good. Let's wait 15 years, and see if it will take off, then we'll see if we can make some money off of it.

Brilliant!

Re:Inside "Older Business" corporate meetings....

[xoip]

In one meeting @1998 I heard an Old Guy say that the Internet is Just a Fad

Re:Inside "Older Business" corporate meetings....

[timeOday]

In one meeting @1998 I heard an Old Guy say that the Internet is Just a Fad

I wonder if he followed up on that prediction by selling his tech stocks. Wish I had.

Re:Inside "Older Business" corporate meetings....

[bcattwoo]

I hear they have the internet on computers now.

Re:Inside "Older Business" corporate meetings....

[TheRaven64]

Well, from the perspective of a sufficiently old guy it is. After all, someone in 50BC could have said horseback riding is just a fad - he'd have been right, it would be on the way out a mere 2000 years later. Someone in the early 1900s could have said that automobiles were just a fad - and he'd probably have been right in the long term.

I doubt the Internet will be around forever - it will almost certainly be replaced at some point, hopefully by something better (but possibly be a more corporate version).

How much of it is adsense?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be interesting to know how well google has cornered the ad-serving market. And is anyone except google making real money with adsense ads?

Investing Full On

[faqmaster]

"Investing full-on" == the return of pop ups. I've noticed more and more pop ups, not in independet windows, but as CSS overlays. Annoying as hell. Plus, it seems every page now has full-motion 30 fps quarter-page Flash movies. The return of the bad-old-days.

Re:Investing Full On

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also the trick of trapping your first click on the page with javascript and make it trigger a pop-up window at that moment (works with Firefox's default settings).

I don't really see how those pop-up equivalents can be eliminated short of eliminating the new window javascript function and CSS overlays completely.

Re:Investing Full On

[gad_zuki!]

I've noticed the same thing on my machine at work. Just terrible pop-ups, even with firefox, some of which mimick MS's security center or are just more 'punch the monkey' ads. I've seen flash embedded spam with voice-overs, which are unintentionaly hilarious with this dead-pan 1950's voice.

Screw the return of the bad old days, I block using a host file so no matter what browser, mailer, etc I'm using, a lot of this stuff doesn't get through. Funny, I still spend an incredible amount of money on purchases and actaully might do some research before buying a large ticket item. I dont feel a flashy ad or an expensive TV campaign has anything to say other than "Look at how we're pissing away our money!"

Re:Investing Full On

[rjstanford]

If you're on a Windows machine (as a lot of people are), I recommend AdMuncher. I'm a paying customer, and its worth every dime. It serves as a kind of dynamic web proxy and rewrites using the best set of rules I've yet found. Ads are effectively eliminated with very few other issues, all rectifiable with a quick right-click. I used to use a hosts file, and deal with some annoying issues because of it - this works an order of magnitude better. And it comes with (IIRC) a 30-day free trial.

I wonder if they advertise?

Too bad for the Ad agencies,

[BattleRat]

that a good bit of the Firefox users (about 10% of the online browsing community, if I remember correctly) use the Adblock, Flashblock and NoScript extentions. We were largely ignoring them before, now we are even seeing them. I wonder if investors are taking this into consideration or are they fishing for the IE masses? It's only a matter of time before non-tech savvy grandmas and the like are going to start using Firefox in order to cut through the craptastic ad-laden world that is viewed through IE. (Not to mention the IE vulnerabilities)...ugh.

Re:Too bad for the Ad agencies,

[supra]

> It's only a matter of time before non-tech savvy grandmas and the like are going to start
> using Firefox in order to cut through the craptastic ad-laden world that is viewed through IE.
Hopefully this will yield 'better' advertising.
That is, targetted, on-topic, acceptable, and possibly even helpful (ie. Google style); as opposed to bigger and more obnoxious graphics desparately trying to grab your attention.

Re:Too bad for the Ad agencies,

[radja]

hopefully it will lead to less advertising, so money put into marketing can be put to actual productive use.

Re:Too bad for the Ad agencies,

[griffindj]

I'm an avid firefox supporter but as the firefox user base grows so will the "AIM, eBay, and Amazon toolbar for firefox" and such. Adblock is a great extension, but at least for me , it doesn't work completely as advertised(some flash ads are unblockable ). And to think that Adblock or other such extensions will cure the pop-up/ad bug is being very optomistic. Web Ads change with the software running them. Example is when IE came out with pop up blocker, now a lot of websites I visit are using CSS overlays as an alternative.

As long as there are companies willing to pay top dollar to have their ads shown, guess what? Your gonna see them. This is afterall how a lot of websites make their money. Would slashdot continue to serve us if their weren't getting paid for it? You'd like to think so, but that answer is no. As long as you can stay in that tiny ~3% of the population with ad removal software that works and is free then you've got nothing to worry about... Until the web sites find a new way to exploit it.

Re:Too bad for the Ad agencies,

[supra]

> hopefully it will lead to less advertising, so money put into marketing can be put to actual productive use.
I'd prefer it lead to more effective advertising which in turn leads to less (wasted) advertising.
Reducing advertising as a whole may have other ill effects.

For instance, many content-providing web sites gain most if not all revenue from advertising. A reduction in advertising may affect such sites.

and I still don't pay a lick of attention

[Anonymous Coward]

I fast forward as fast as I can thru my DVR'd shows and I prohibit popups. and I summarily dismiss in-stream ads by only loading graphics coming from the site I'm visiting. Does advertising actually even work?

What about the "Click Fraud"?

[putko]

So-called "click fraud" seems to be the weak link here.

Microsoft should fund a click-fraud network, to undermine the whole PPC/advertising-based model. Microsoft can't expect to play that game like Google, so if they destroy that business model, Google will be worse off.

And then we can all go back to Desktop applications - and Bill will become all the money.

Re:What about the "Click Fraud"?

[timeOday]

So-called "click fraud" seems to be the weak link here.

Not compared to most other forms of advertising. Companies buy ads everywhere from magazines to billboards to skywriting, none of which give direct feedback.

Read Carefully

[everphilski]

If you read the article carefully you'll notice that Google talked to Reuters, not ZDnet...

-everphilski-

Old problem in advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know that 50% of my advertising is wasted. I just don't know which half" - John Wanamaker 1886

Re:Old problem in advertising

[084883447]

That's the point: specific advertising can not be tracked directly to sales. Online ads are probably just as effective as tv ads, billboards, radio... It just has to do with the number of impressions each ad gets, not the number of people who see the ads buy the product.

Filters

[marol]

Thankfully, Adblock works rather well, filtering out visually disturbing ads from actually useful and/or entertaining information on the web.

Re:Filters

[houghi]

Adblock, Privoxy and a hostfile that I update each month from http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt

Still I get some advertising that is embedded into the site. :-(

Data anyone?

[Chayak]

I'd like to see the numbers for online advertising. I personally never find much interest in ads other than an irritation that gets blocked. Then of course there is the bane of pop ups and pop under ads that drive you nuts at times.

Re:Data anyone?

[furnk]

For newspapers, at least, online ad revenue is growing quicker than print ads, but still makes up only a fraction of sales. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/art icle_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001570425

Text-based, targeted ads seem to be the rage because of affordability and ease (you don't have to hire someone to create the ad), but you have to keep in mind the masses and masses of people who still muddle through the pop-ups. Sure, it's easy to look through slashdot and hear about people who are quick to turn pop-ups, but don't discount the millions of people who don't understand how to turn them off. (Generally, these are the same people who still have their homepages set to msn or apple, and still have 12:00 blinking on their VCR -- yes, people still have VCRs.) I would guess that these people are likely the most susceptible to advertising messages, too.

I am surprised by the success of advergaming http://www.naa.org/artpage.cfm?AID=6563&SID=103, which is probably most often identified with Orbitz. So popular were the games that Orbitz unveiled orbitzgames.com earlier this year http://pressroom.orbitz.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?Rele aseID=174773, after it says its own study found 78 percent of those who played Orbitz online games would play again in the future. I don't take too much stock in companies' internal studies that are announced in press releases, but I think advergaming has popularity for business folks who might feel guilty (or afraid of getting caught) if they seek out online games. (But hey, if one just opens up while I'm on this site, why not play, right?)

Quick question: What are the feelings on pop-up vs. pop-under ads? I block both, but before I did I tended to dislike the insidiousness of pop-under ads more than the annoyance of pop-up ads.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Due to text ads?

[RobinH]

Does anyone else think that this is partly because of text based advertisements, and also because of the "adsense" idea? They've finally made advertising that is relevant to what you're looking for.

Re:Due to text ads?

[PlayfullyClever]

I for one welcome Google's approach to adverts - it's a hell of a lot better than the completely untargetted, very annoying Flash, animated GIFs and popups that other advertisers use. Whats more, Google's targetted text ads are sometimes actually useful.

Everyone complains about adverts but obviously don't think about the economics - web sites have to fund themselves somehow, so either you're going to have to pay directly or put up with the ads. IMHO ads designed to be annoying and untargetted can be blocked without any problem but Google style ads are reasonably non-intrusive and targetted so you should allow them - you want to push the advertisers in the direction of sensible unobtrusive ads rather than forcing the sites to close down.

Re:Due to text ads?

[MrNougat]

My personal procedure is to never buy anything from an online ad. I don't buy things from telemarketers or junk postal mail, either. Until it's quick and easy for the average person to confirm whether an online ad is spam/scam/junk/etc, I don't see how online advertising can really work.

The reason online advertising can't reach that goal, however, is because it's near impossible to determine who actually posted the ad and the link behind it. TV advertising is moving in that direction as well, so how can we expect the lawless frontier of the internet to straighten up on its own?

Fueled by small business

[gasmonso]

The online advertising is so successful because it allows any company big or small to get recognized for as little or as much money they want to spend. If you look at how adwords functions, it allows you to bid on keywords to get your ads placed on sites with Adsense. Sure, some keywords get very expensive, but in general the prices are reasonable. Now with other companies like Yahoo getting in on the action, this will drive prices down. What's key here is how effective these ads are or are not. Everywhere you go, my site included, has Adsense. I bet many people click on the ads not even realizing they were ads, thus diluting them a little. But the fact that they are content based, does make them effective. This is the future for now and the kinks will be worked out. Let's just hope tv shows start using adwords so we can get rid of commercials :)

gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/

and Popup blockers, banner blockers, etc

[Monoman]

2005 is also the year we saw popup blocking easily available to the masses. Firefox, Opera, IE, heck even AOL now blocks most popups.

I would guess that many /. readers block inline ads as well using tools like Adblock, Flashblock, Proxomitron, etc. I wonder how long it will take for the masses to easily experience the web annoyance free. hmmmmm....

Re:and Popup blockers, banner blockers, etc

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a flip side to this of course, doing an entire site in (eg:) flash removes your editorial control over the content. Ads generate revenue, I can live with that so long as they're not intrusive. Let's not give 'newmedia' morons the excuse to turn the web into TV.

Re:and Popup blockers, banner blockers, etc

[Anonymous Coward]

and is also the year where Firefox and mozilla pop up blocking doesn't always work for me anymore.

Advertising

[certel]

The way things are shaping up on the internet, it's no surprise that people are going to utilize the available traffic for benefit. Online advertising is and will become and even bigger industry.

.... and privoxy

[Anonymous Coward]

I use a combination of adblock and privoxy. Works like a charm. Haven't seen a non-text as for as long as I can remember now.

However, as usage of these technologies grows, I fear it is only a matter of time until they get serious about evading them.

Feh!

[Billosaur]

I don't personally let myself be swayed by advertising. It only exists because they want you to buy their stuff but in most cases they can't explain too well what their stuff is or why I should actually care. I have not run out and bought an iPod just because of their slick commercials, no popup ever convinced me to buy an X10 camera, and I don't even pay attention to ads on web pages because the ones I have seen are mostly for crap no one wants.

IMHO, all that advertising money should be put back into products to make them longer-lasting, more efficient, durable, and above all, cheaper. Build a product I want that does what I want and I'll go buy it. Other than that, leave me alone.

Re:Feh!

[smooth wombat]

Nice to see someone else who ignores ads. I've told various people during similar conversations that I'm an ad agencies worst nightmare. I don't watch commercials on tv (except the Captial One ads. I think they're funny and well put together) and fast forward through them when watching taped shows, don't look at the ad inserts in my sunday paper (grocery store excluded) and ignore ads on the web (don't have AdBlock installed but nor do I have Flash).

If anyone from an agency or store would ever ask why I don't look at advertising:

I know what I want. If I want something, I'll come to you.

So yeah, I agree with your ending. Make good quality, inexpensive (not cheap) products which last a long time and I'll buy your product.

Re:Feh!

[coofercat]

I'm finding myself having to do some "marketing", which broadly consists of sending people something in the snailmail, and then phoning them to ask about it.

It's incredibly difficult to properly research all the companies I'm writing to, although of course some cursory filtering is quite possible (which I'm doing). As a result, I'm actually 'spamming' lots of people who aren't interested (although trying to do it as nicely and understandingly as I can).

If there's another way to get likely punters to know about my brilliant product (which incidentally is engineered to be useful, reliable, etc) then I'd love to know what it is. In my experience simply having a product (and even telling people about it) doesn't sell anything. You have to get 'in people's faces' a bit before they'll pay any attention.

I'm sort of agreeing and disagreeing with you here. Simply telling people achieves little, you have to make them think about it (ultimately by confronting them with a choice). Most advertising is a half-arsed attempt at doing this. By forcing you to close a popup, the advertiser "thinks" you're engaged and making a choice. Clearly this isn't true.

If this is the year of the internet-ad, then they need to grow up a bit. 'Tricking' your customer base into something isn't the best way to Make Friends and Influence People. Actually doing something they want might be a better approach (both exemplified by X10 cameras and Google, respectively).

Re:Feh!

[asdfrewq]

You personally might not be affected by advertising, be it web-based or traditional, but in one way or another the majority of consumers are. Be it due to hectic lifestyles, demand for the immediate satifaction of owning a product they just "KNOW" suits their every need, or sheer ignorance, people by the bucketload are more then willing to let their purchasing decisions be swayed by the advertisments they see everyday.

Even those who pay no attention to advertising themselves are at least indirectly affected. Word of mouth is a powerful influence in buying decisions, but without an initial userbase built upon at least some degree of advertising, this is not possible.

At the end of the day, advertising exists because it is effective. And we all know, in this capitalist society of ours, if something isn't effective it generally doesn't last long (not without a good advertising campaign anyway!)

Re:Feh!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you take out TV commercials from your exposure to ads, you still get them next to the score that's displayed during the game, along with the logos of the sponsors of the half-time show, You'll hear the commentatiors refer to the Visa half-time show, gillette player of the game, Pepsi's pre-game show, and Hall's weather report. And if it's golf, you'll see ads placed on clothing and gear as well.

If you're watching a movie on television, you'll see ads placed on the screen for the next show. You will also see ads placed within the movie. And if you're at the theatre 5 minutes early, well...don't get me started.

Morning shows...full of ads for new products, books and movies. Public TV shows, ads at the beginning and end. Local news...ads in the human interest and entertainment sections...nightly talk shows...ads for books and movies...

You may think you're ignoring the ads, but did you know that Chex Mix brand snack has 60% less fat than regular potato chips...

Online Ads still have to grow up..

[iceT]

Much like the 'blink' font tag in HTML, Internet Ads need to learn that it's important to be present, but not distracting. No self repecting web designer uses the blink tag any more. It's just too obnoxious, and actually puts people OFF of the website. Online Ad designers need to embrace this same philosophy. It is my opinion that the adblock extenion for Mozilla browsers was created because some ads are just too destracting, and make the content of the PAGE harder to read.

Rotating images/text is one thing, but blinking/flashing graphics will NEVER get me to click on the link..

Adsense Revolution

[Coltron]

I have to totally agree with previous comments. I think this is Completely caused by the revolution in more relevant marketing brought about by Adsense and apps like Chikita Web mall. They're only showing you the Ads that you might want to see based upon what you're reading. I wonder how long until the ads start talking to me and using my name al la Minority Report. http://www.thebrig.org.

Note to advertisers: Flash ads suck

[digitaldc]

Mod me as offtopic or whatever, but it must be said:
Flash advertising is annoying and very distracting!
It is harder to read text next to a flash ad....sometimes I will even zoom in to the point of obscurity to disable the flash ad. It doesn't make me want to buy the product/service any more if the ad is moving and flashing between white and red backgrounds.

Okay my rant is over.

Yeah right

[Ender Ryan]

I work for a company that has made money selling online ad space since 1995. We are indeed one of the first companies to actually make a profit at it, AFAIK. In 2001, after a brief period of net advertising being absolutely out of control, it all came crashing down, because there was just too goddamn many ads, and people tuned out. Just like what is happening with TV ad spots today, they become less effective when there's just too much of it.

So while ads are reasonably effective again right now, it'll crash again, because website owners are just cluttering their sites with too damn many of 'em.

The company I work for has learned, and is maintaining a reasonable number of ad spots on our site. Others would do well to do the same. But I guess that goes against the current trend of dangerously short sighted business practices.

Dupe?

[merky1]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/21/114325 7&tid=98&tid=217&tid=1

Temporary?

[hagrin]

I've started a tech site/blog just like a million other people around the world in the hopes that I too could cash in on the online advertising scheme.

However, running a tech blog, I have noticed one definite fact - that Ad Munching occurs on almost 70% of the users that visit my site. That means that my "revenue stream" (I've made less than it would take to fill up my car's gas tank) is one Greasemonkey script, one AdMuncher default installation, one MSFT OneCare configuration away from being completely obliterated.

Technical users are already speeding up their web browsing experience and once default OEM computer installations come with ad blocking (MSFT could potential block AdWords ads with Vista out of the box), you could see a filtering of advertisements off the web. Especially since Google is relying on contextual ads, their JavaScript code is one security setting away from never even reaching the user - no less having them click on the ad and then actually buying something.

Re:Temporary?

[blogeasy]

You could always try changing audiences. Apparently some blogs are making pretty good money with adsense.

Re:Temporary?

[Smack]

I put ads on my website, but I never see them since I block ads. I'm not going to get upset with someone for blocking. I'm just going to take advantage of those who don't.

It's not like the people who block ads would actually give you clicks anyway.

Re:Temporary?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've started a tech site/blog just like a million other people around the world in the hopes that I too could cash in on the online advertising scheme.

However, running a tech blog, I have noticed one definite fact - that Ad Munching occurs on almost 70% of the users that visit my site. That means that my "revenue stream" (I've made less than it would take to fill up my car's gas tank) is one Greasemonkey script, one AdMuncher default installation, one MSFT OneCare configuration away from being completely obliterated.

You could always, ya know, like, get a job.

*The Internet Means serious business*

[jigjigga]

I guess that cute animated kitty popup was right after all!

The Secret to Advertising is one word:

[dada21]

Don't. Not unless you can afford establishment advertising.

Honestly. Advertising can work for the very select top tier products that become the establishment product, but in the long haul, there is only one way to make a product successful and profitable: quality.

It doesn't have to be the best, it has to work in the customer's situation. If you sell service, do it happily and as close to perfection as possible.

In all my years of being in business, I have never seen a good return on advertising that turned into a long run of regular customers. Sure, I may have seen some profits, but I also so many losses. I will never advertise again, I can't compete with Target or the like. What brings customers to my various businesses? Word of mouth. It spreads like wildfire when you perform a really good service or sell a great product.

The web is in trouble as programs like AdBlock and the like gain use. I know many of you use AdBlock, but if you use it on a website you like, turn it off. Click the damn ads. How do you think that site is being provided for? I pay as a subscriber to slashdot, and this Christmas I'm planning on giving a dozen or so subscription gifts to people on here that I admire. Sure, Taco and the boys have some nice money now, but I love the site, and I will continue to support it.

Advertising online doesn't work as well as many think it does. I've been watching the companies that have started to use AdSense within their catalogs (offering paid links to their competition). Only the top companies are making it big. I've spoken to some large bloggers (off the record) and their numbers in advertising don't make their blogging a real income. Yeah, there are a few who are making it big.

Google is taking in the most, but they have to find ways to combat against AdBlock and other ways to avoid the advertising. I don't know how they'll do it, but as I find AdBlock being used on more and more systems, I know that Google won't remain the king.

I do believe that sponsorship advertising of the web might work. Basically a monthly payment in order to say "Slashdot, brought to you by Microsoft" or something of the sort. Some podcasts I've listened to are receiving sponsorships, and they are't tacky ads but well thought out slogans or quick product placements.

Re:The Secret to Advertising is one word:

[parodyca]

The web is in trouble as programs like AdBlock and the like gain use. I know many of you use AdBlock, but if you use it on a website you like, turn it off. Click the damn ads. How do you think that site is being provided for?

Rubbish. Block all the ads on all the sites. The site owners can put up text ad links which are not nearly as annoying, or they can put in a pay wall for some/all of their content. You have no obligation to view or click on their ads. The market will adapt!

Re:The Secret to Advertising is one word:

[dada21]

Rubbish. Block all the ads on all the sites. The site owners can put up text ad links which are not nearly as annoying, or they can put in a pay wall for some/all of their content. You have no obligation to view or click on their ads. The market will adapt!

That's fine, it is completely your right to do so. But with every action in life, you have to make a few considerations: How does it affect me right now? How does it affect me in the future?

Allowing advertisements on sites you use is GOOD for you -- it keeps them in business, so you profit from seeing the advertising. Blocking the ads will allow the market to adapt, and that adaptation may mean limited content for non-subscribers or even the loss of the site in the future.

No one forces you to look at advertising, yet if I go to a site I like and I see ads that have even a minor interest to me, I always click and spend a few minutes with the sponsor. I don't usually on /. because I am a subscriber, but I have clicked a few ads in the past few weeks that actually interested me.

On the rare occasion that I buy something online, I always try to buy through a click-through to a site. It isn't fraud, it is helping the site that I like by helping me make a purchase.

Re:The Secret to Advertising is one word:

[povvell]

Sorry, but that's not the case with every online advertiser. I think you're forgetting the huge population of small businesses who would never be able to afford large media advertising, but who are making an absolutely identifiable return on investment with things like Google Ads. I have a friend whose small furniture business has suddenly transformed itself because he started using Adwords. He's absolutely gobsmacked, but it's a fact.

Re:The Secret to Advertising is one word:

[centipetalforce]

Good thing I didn't take your advice two years ago or I'd still be in my parent's basement.

Google's ads are helpful

[jrmcferren]

While most ads are annoying, Google's ads are helpful. When I am looking for something online, usually just browsing though, I can click on a Google ad and off I go. What is wrong with the blink tag?

Re:Vote with your plugin choices

[decipher_saint]

I know not all overlays are Flash based but the pros of uninstalling certain browser plug-ins far outweigh the cons.

Jupiter?

[saskboy]

"Jupiter Research estimates"

That better not include the makers of Xupiter spyware... Otherwise this study is significatnly biased.

Re:Jupiter?

[JazzLad]

Man, I just hope this doesn't include the stupid planet Jupiter. I can't tell you how much I've wasted buying ads there - no one looks!

Re:Jupiter?

[Short Circuit]

I don't believe they're related, but ISTR cleaning Jupiter stuff off of several computers over the last month. (At a student-run mass computer-servicing event my club organized.)

This will spur innovation

[Bullfish]

This will spur innovation in ad blocking software for all common platforms. If you look at magazines now, more than 50 per cent of many are ads. I don't buy magazines anymore because of this. At least on the net you can kill them.

IOW

[w.p.richardson]

Online advertising - is it good or is it whack?

Google Adsense Javascript

[gavint]

Google Adsense may use JavaScript, but is it dependant on it? I don't think so. They can match ads to content from their crawling process, and the ads themselves contain JavaScript to mask the Google redirect URL that lets them bill their advertisers, but this isn't necessary for the functioning of the ad, just a bonus for the user experience.

I reckon Google could remove JavaScript from Adsense pretty easily.

Re:Google Adsense Javascript

[Anonymous Coward]

you can block google ads easy no matter with or without JS. AdBlock and GreaseMonkey extensions for Firefox and this website http://userscripts.com/tag/google solve the problem. I did not see a single Google ad for more than an year. the moment Google changes the system i will immediately write and post GreaseMonkey script removing the ads.

i do not understand why people think that Google ads are "relevant" and not dsturbing. when i look for "E1" it does not mean that i am looking for E1 based services. that box on the left does distract my attention from one and only one important thing - search results. my eyes jump there again and again. it takes space on the screen and costs me bandwidth, time for DNS resolution, etc.

people who is ready to view ads or lazy enough to block them pay for my personal absolutely free WEB. i like the situation. more ads mean more free content.

Re:Google Adsense Javascript

[mparaz]

Javascript is mandatory. Without it, there's no way G could put new content on your page - without requiring people to use PHP, etc. and let them stick G code inside their servers.

Re:Google Adsense Javascript

[gavint]

Not so, iframes work very effectively.

Thanks, Adblock

[Nice2Cats]

Actually, the system is pretty cool: They pay for websites that post ads that I don't see because of the Adblock plugin for Firefox. Everybody is happy: The companies get to pretend somebody is reading their ads, the websites get me as a visitor, and I get content.

Ah, capitalism and Open Source software. What a great combination.

Monkey punching

[Shad_the_protector]

More and more monkey to punch. Come here all of you monkey, I want to win that damn $ 10 000,00.

Oh! ninja throwing star. And a boxing mini game.

And now here is a fly I must Zap with a lazer gun.... Cooooooool.

Oh! and lately I learned on Hotmail, that mortage are low. Damn must run to buy a house......

Internet ads are patetics......

What about these?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about these online ads? http://www.tyigo.com/viewallimages.php?eid=1111

depends on content and site

[zogger]

Some examples would be eBay and Amazon, Basically one big ad, very successful. Online hardware vendors do some good business, and those not even related to computing in any way, an example, I have to maintain a large variety of equipment, small engine machines, larger tractors, etc. Frequently none of my local dealers carry a part, or it's a long estimated wait, etc or I can tell it's just too expensive. I can run a search and see any number of online vendors then and find some deals. Sometimes even researching a problem, going to forums, etc, you can see ads that might help you out. I'd call it overall useful to have ads on the net, I just don't like flash animation or animated gif ads. Static images or text based are fine though.

How?

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

First, I have grown accustomed to ignoring online ads. I have NEVER clicked on an ad, and by extension bought something from a web site in that manner.

I have also dabbled with creating a website using ads and can safely say I am not making any of that $12 billion. Again, few people click thru an ad and buy a product. In fact, browsers like Firefox ship with the default setting for cookies to delete them after exit from the app, or at least this option is available. This means that many websites using cookies to track performance of ad clicking won't work for a lot of users.

Also, their is more public outrage about online advertising and many products are being offered to combat this pervasive nuisance. Pop-up and ad blockers are being integrated into even Internet Explorer and those savvy enough are using Firefox which handle them better. I use Norton Internet Security with the ad blocking enabled. Anyone with Linux skills can setup a proxy server that will only serve context stripped of advertising. Obviously, there is a big market for people wanting to avoid online advertising.

Who is saying online advertising is working, Google that gets paid to put ads up regardless of whether they actually generate sales, or the people advertising reporting that ads are actually drawing people to their websites (directly) and making purchases (directly).

In my opinion, online ads are becoming ineffective as people strive to ignore or block them.

Online advertisement have suffered badly

[GauteL]

.. due to an extreme focus on clicks.

Regular magazine advertisements have no direct link between the advertisement and the shops selling the products, while online advertisement do.

The problem is that for a long while, web adverts were considered useful only if they gave DIRECT hits to the target website. That is highly unfair imo. Having people SEE the banner is useful enough on it's own. It helps generate brand recognition.

I think the web sites oversold the idea of clicks so much it made companies undervalue viewings of the ads. In my opinion web ads should be more expensive per square cm per viewing than regular ads, because of the added statistical information the client gets. In addition, clicks should be rewarded.

Re:Online advertisement have suffered badly

[centipetalforce]

That's an understandable opinion but you're incorrect and the numbers in the article and summary kind of prove it. When you have smaller websites like mine having real visitors really do matter much more than being a brand which people recognize, because what's the point if no one visits? You may not appreciate the value of a visitor but trust me, if you were a website owner I think you would agree that targeted visitors (the ones Adwords can bring) are the lifeblood of your business, just like any merchant will tell you.

ARG Marketing

[zaknafein3745]

I thought that the most interesting thing that happened to the online publicity world in 2005 was the Alternative Reality Gaming-oriented ads. I'm thinking of the Halo 2 marketing campaign labeled as "I Love Bees"... it was (to me) a whole new approach to publicity that was actually interesting in itself; you started to play the game not knowing what it was about, then you slowly discover the links with Halo and you don't care anymore, it's just fun! And of course you get to know about the product in the meantime, but it's subtle enough.
I think there are other IT products or movies that used this method before (A.I. by Steven Speilberg) but not in such a huge scale... Hell, even public phones all across the USA were ringing!

I do like Google, but this article...

[HerculesMO]

Is stupid.

You can mod me troll if you wish, but I find it entertaining that a person that's the advertising vice president for Google is saying that more businesses are going to go to online advertising because the returns are better.

Vested interest in the statement, much?

Its like the lottery. When you DON'T have a ticket

[crovira]

you can be assured of NOT winning.

When you DO have a ticket, you have a chance.

With Google trying to organize everything, it should be unnecessary to run an ad, adding your voice to the babble out there, but an ad or a review moves you to the front of the consciousness, and its the only way to get something really new/novel/innovative out there.

Nobody's going to come looking for something they don't know about or at least aren't curious about.

For example: I heard about a new product that I was tangentially interested in from/on the New York Times web site, I went to the company's web site, was intrigued about the price/performance ratio of the particular configuration, read the specs, like what I read, found a online retailer and ordered the thing.

The 'net makes all kinds of synergies possible and can stimulate 'the prepared mind' to take the chance.

your order

[Bombula]

"And in other news, the burn-in period of testing and tentative speculation over the value and impact of internet based advertising has ended, as both corporate marketing departments and advertising agencies are set to commit billions into promoting products and services online. This message brought to you by our sponsor, 3NL4RgE y0R P3N1S 2Day, ++ 3 1nchES MINimum GUARANTYD111!!!!1"

I hate adds

[sinij]

I don't watch TV, adds waste too much of my time while doing it. Instead I purchase and/or download good shows and movies. I also go to movie theatres a lot (and make point of being late to avoid adds). I heavily rely on alternative entertainment - local theatre, jazz and alternative music bars, message boards, and computer games. I'm zealous about my host file, browser and security permissions choices - blocking most advertisers. I don't have flash installed on my home machine to avoid annoying flash adds. I go out of my way to boycott companies with intrusive advertisements that I do get to see (billboards, movie product placement, newspapers).

As I said I hate adds with passion and see them as stealing my money by wasting my time. I don't understand why society as a whole tolerates them and even pays for them. Costs of wasted time due to adds is huge yet everyone doesn't seem to mind.

I have seen increased interest

[dbmasters]

While I can't comment much on how EFFECTIVE advertising online is, I have noticed in my home audio recording based community that there has been a significant increase by the industry in advertising on my site, and I presume others in my space. 2005 was pretty interesting, I was contacted by many manufacturers over the year, and now that it's toward the end of the year, many of the manufacturers I did enter into agreements with have now started talking to me about re-upping for next year, so really, I can only assume that the advertising has been effective for them.

But then, there are some companies that throw money at things without watching exactly where it goes...so it's anybodies guess...but since it's my site, I would like to think it's cuz my site sells stuff for them :-)

Bottom line: What I do know is 2005 interest picked up a lot, and they want to reup for 2006, with more companies wanting in...so, well, I see validity in the article.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

wow, i can't wait

[android32]

I can't wait until the entire internet becomes flooded with ads and companies controlling it. I mean, that must be true freedom right there, letting companies control the internet. Granted that sites will have to be sponsored or buy domain names out of a corporate contract, and those sites will be restricted to say anything negative about that company or its affiliates. And granted that there'll be more spyware created by some companies to send you to their shitty website, which in turn help the anti-spyware companies make more profit by making you constantly on the look-out for spyware. I can't wait. I can't wait until the countries decide that the internet needs to be controlled to. I can't wait until our entire lives, on the internet and in the physical, are just one big advertisement. I just can't wait. Human beings are meant to advertise and make a profit, don't you know? Knowledge, reproduction, physical self, pshhh... you need to make money and use every medium possible to advertise.

Wrong direction

[linuxhansl]

I find it strange that we are all "worshipping" a company whose only revenue stream is placing internet ads and whose main focus is to pester us with more ads.

Re:Wrong direction

[robertjw]

I always thought their MAIN focus was to provide us with search results so we could find stuff on the Internet, the ads are just a byproduct.

Blame wrongly placed me thinks...

[dbmasters]

I think a lot of you are placing blame in the wrong places...for every company willing to pay somebody to place a nasty popup, popunder, expanding flash, spyware injecting or moving target type of advertisement, there is also a lame webmaster that actually PUTS IT on their site...so, who is to blame, the company trying to buy it, or the webmaster that puts it online? I for one never accept those types of ads for my sites, for the reason you guys site, they suck...and are even dangerous... don't hate the player, hate the game

Surprising

[jandersen]

I am very surprised to hear this. I personally have only seen a handful of adverts on the web in the last few months - this is because I use firefox and adblock as well as a few other tricks. And I help everybody I know to do the same.

The truth is - most people despise adverts because they are deceptive, annoying or irrelevant (and quite often all). When I buy things it is often despite having seen an advert for it; that is how I feel about the kind of advertising we are presented with, and I think many feel the same. When I want to buy anything more expensive than a bottle of milk, I first research what my options, find what I need and where it is cheapest - then I buy. Adverts don't enter into it, unless you count such things as catalogs that you pay for. And that illustrates the difference between reality and the fantasy if the advertisers: my research presents me with the information I want, whereas advertising is in your face, disruptive - and highly unwelcome.

What I find particularly strange is that what you would have thought was otherwise sensible businesses keep doing this when it so obviously alienates a lot of people.

Re:Surprising

[dbmasters]

Well, while I personally agree with your sentiment, it's obviously simply not true because ads sell things...false ads work...hell, look at politician ads around election time when they start getting desperate. I put your thoughts up there with many I read here, many /.ers think that everybody thinks like them, works like them and shops like them, and it's simply not true, /.ers are, on the average, more technically proficient and savvy people, most don't know HWO to block ads and many shop with them, the statistics prove it...that said, stats can prove anything with the right number-cruncher :-) Ask any marketing dept. in the world, all you need to sell something is a catchy little phrase...

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

there is a huge problem with 3rd party ad servers. you never know where that one pixel image (and yes Google uses one pixel images too - check the source code) comes from.

You probably trust slashdot servers, but do you trust doubleclick or any other of "no evil" doers ? what if one of tens servers you load JS from gets compromised ? how much does it cost for an adversary to put any JS on the ad server ?

you enter a store. you touch things there. you expect that it clean. you are wrong. you find out that this is not one store but ten stores behind the same door, under the same roof. it's like a luxury sushi bar and a garbage can in the same time.

Spending depends on service

[Spiderwookie]

I work for a consulting firm who's focus is return on investment models for marketing dollars. What we are seeing is that online advertising for most branded products is not cost effective because of high CPC. Where online ads are working well is for B2B services firms that have higher ticket sales. So the story goes... Branded products less than $100 (i.e. cannon, sony, blah..) / Online Advertising is not effective Branded products greater than $100 / Online advertising is very effective Business to Business services greater than $500 / Online advertising is moderately effective Business to Business services greater that $10,000 / Online advertising is effective if combined with permission direct mail

advermatizers can be D.U.M.B.

[Thud457]

So, if, say, somebody was using FF with adblock, do the blocked elements get counted as viewed on the server? Wouldn't that give advertisers the mistaken impression that they've made, well and impression? Wouldn't this erroneously skew their statistics? If so, is that a good thing or a bad thing for consumers?

What about popup blocking?

Re:advermatizers can be D.U.M.B.

[networkBoy]

you can config Adblock to either download and hide or not download. I choose the latter specifically because if a page is poorly designed (waiting on an external ad server to load before loading page content) you will still have to wait for the page to load.
Besides hopefully the web master will compare page hits to ad impressions and notice the blinky ads have less impressions than the nice ads. Maybe (hopefully?) they'll get a hint.
-nB

Re:advermatizers can be D.U.M.B.

[Ponyegg]

Ad impressions are ALWAYS less than page impressions in my experience (I look after adoperations for a very large UK site), this is primarily as a result of the various adblocking initiatives out there, of which adblock represents only part, other well established adblocking utilties, .hosts files routing known adserver traffic to localhost etc.... depending on what type of advert and which network/server it is being delivered from it is will give you varying degrees of difference. Why anyone would want to download the ad but not watch it is The issues you describe regarding waiting for a page to load are easily overcome on the publishers side by using iframes as the delivery mechanism, however they have their own overhead and security issues and have been dropped by many publishers over the past 3 years reverting to javascript tags instead... Adblocking used to really wind me up, but now I've seen it level out it doesn't bother me that much. In the greater scheme of things I get more headaches in reconciling adserver and 3rd party descrepancies or dealing with rogue spiders/bots than I do worrying about adblocking.

Central Ad Places

[trollable]

Proposal: remove all ads and put them on dedicated websites

Rational: people like to see ads when they choose to

Re:Non sequitur

[MS-06FZ]

Thank $diety for adblock.

But how diety is adblock? It won't help me lose weight...

I'd like to share a little poem:

'I' before 'E',
except after 'C',
Or when it sounds like an 'A'
as in "Neighbor" or "weigh"

Obvious puns.

[The Cydonian]

Yup, the die has been cast!

Recognition

[Short Circuit]

"Hey! Look! An X10 unit!"

BLAM!

There are still ads?

[StarkRG]

Wow... I guess that just goes to show how good my adblock is working... the only ads I still see are google's text based ones (and I could block those too since they're in an iFrame).

I left the google ads because they're less obtrusive. Though really I don't pay much attention to them since I'm rarely in the market for anything they're advertising, the ads aren't as targeted as they could be, and besides I don't have any money...

The worst nightmare...

[squizzz]

The worst nightmare that can ever happen to a male geek is to have penis enlargement offered by one of these Google's relevant text ads.

Click Fraud from Shareholders? Easy stock boost.

[Anonymous Coward]

To what degree might Google shareholders click Google ads simply to boost their company's profits? I think it would be an interesting and valuable point to research.

It is so easy to do and (I believe) it isn't illegal. How many shareholders does Google have? How much would it boost Google's profits if many of them clicked a few ads per day? These small acts could quickly add up.

What if people started buying 'pay-per-click' business stock simply because it gives them this direct control over company profits? I ask myself this, and I get flashbacks to dot-com scammers who worked the web to influence stock price. We know those kinds of people are out there.

This is all the more concerning given how many publicly traded companies are rushing into pay-per-click services.

Re:Non sequitur

[networkBoy]

I don't particularly care . . .
but on a different note, I've never heard that ditty before, so I guess its* a push.
-nB

*Yes it is it's not its, just thought I'd give you more fodder :P
-nB

Re:Non sequitur

[Rai]

'I' before 'E',
except after 'C',
Or when it sounds like an 'A'
as in "Neighbor" or "weigh"

"And on tuesdays and weekends and all throughout may.
And you'll always be wrong, no matter what you say!" -Brian Regan

Still waiting for the TRUE turning point...

[gnovos]

Every ad next to yours reduces the impact of your ad geometrically. One ad is effective. One ad in a sea of thousands no so...

SO, the TRUE turning point in advertizing will be when ad companies start paying for BLANK space on all the billboards near thier ads. Imaging just a single ad on the road between here and Nantuckett, instead of 300... Imagine two minutes of black screen followed by a single ad, followed by two more minutes of black... THAT ad will have serious impact!

Re:Non sequitur

[hobbit]

'I' before 'E',
except after 'C',
Or when it sounds like an 'A'
as in "Neighbor" or "weigh"

And to greater increase your spelling pleasure,
acknowledge exceptions at your leisure.

Last Hurrah for Web Advertising

[mdavids]

What? There are still advertisements on the web? I hadn't noticed thanks to the Firefox adblock extension. It's only a matter of time before someone comes up with a bayesian filtering mechanism to operate on arbitrary HTML elements, and even text-based advertising will be a thing of the past. Spam still survives because it's virtually free for the spammer. People have to pay for web ads, and once they find most of their audience are filtering them out it is no longer an attractive proposition.

Google's ads prosper because they are not really ads in the conventional sense. I don't know what you'd call it; "sponsored push search", anyone? They just package and sell the services as advertising because that's what their target market understands. In time, these services will look less and less like ads, and more like something useful to people. This isn't the turning point but the last hurrah for web advertising before the arrival of (hopefully) less obnoxious marketing techniques.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion