Graphics Coming to Google Ads

Firmafest writes "New York Times reports that "Users of Google's search engine will soon see something they are not used to on the notoriously spare site: advertising with logos and graphics. And the advertisers will not be limited to America Online, whose talks with Google prompted the change in policy, according to two executives close to the companies' negotiations." The Financial Times has more on the partnership" CT: Sorry folks. My email is broken this morning and i'm not getting error reports.

Comments

Who's hosting the logos?

[hal2814]

I do hope that whatever Google does about displaying logos, images, etc, they do not sacrifice the decent speed the search engine has right now. I'd hate for Google to turn into another site that has good information but that stupid image from doubleclick has to load before you can see any of it.

It was bound to happen

[pryonic]

But I think Google will alienate a large percentage of its user base. People started to use Google because it was clean. Even with the introduction of text ads, the site managed to remain clear. Normal banner ads will just make the site look cheap and cluttered.

Maybe time to find a new search engine. Anyone any suggestions?

Re:It was bound to happen

[NeoSkandranon]

The site will only look cheap and cluttered as long as it takes me to AdBlock all the banners.

Up until now I've refrained from using any kind of blocking mechanism on google's ads because they are always restrained and discreet, and I suspect I'm not the only one who's formed their banner-blocking behavior in this way.

Re:code

[TripMaster Monkey]

It should be ammended to:

Don't be evil...until you can afford to be.

No flash, please!

[bedroll]

At least it appears that the graphics they'll be using will be limited in scope. Hopefully this isn't a precursor to flash ads and animated gifs. The day they start using pop-over flash ads is the first day of Google's demise.

Re:No flash, please!

[bedroll]

You hit the nail on the head.

The problem with the pervasiveness of advertising today is that eventually you become numb to it and just wade through it trying to get to wherever you were going (the next exit, the next page, the next tv show...). So then they have to ramp up the volume on their message to try to break the monotony and make you pay attention (loud commercials, bulky magazine inserts, moving billboards...).

What Google has done is take us back to a time when advertising was little more than attempting to get the word out for something that may not be widely known. They put ads on pages in a classy way, then attempted to ensure those ads were context sensitive so that it may actually help people find things. Adding classy touches that are subtle but noticeable, like small graphics and preferred placement, make a difference without changing the purpose.

Of course, they also are a precursor to the inundation of advertisement that we get everywhere else. The good news is that the people at Google acknowledged this problem long ago and may be aware that their success is tied to it.

Re:Also... [AOL + Google]

[nospmiS remoH]

I couldn't agree more. A good rule of thumb is that AOL + ANYTHING = crap. I literally got a knot in my stomach when I read "...America Online, whose talks with Google prompted the change in policy..." AOL killed Winamp and Netscape, and now they are threatening Google. This is a sad day, if only it were April 1st there would be hope that this is all just a lie. It is like AOL is a parasite and only remains alive by sucking the life out of everything it touches.

Google: "Don't be evil."
AOL: "Don't appear to be evil."

Re:code

[slavemowgli]

Don't you think it's a bit of an overreaction to automatically call a switch from text ads to graphical ads "evil"? Especially when they haven't actually made the switch yet and nobody really knows whether they will at all or (if they decide to go through with it) what exactly those graphical ads will look like...

Really, it's like Godwin, only with the nazis. Don't cry bloody murder every time something happens that you don't 100% approve of (and that goes for the grandparent just as much as you).

Re:code

[lengau]

As long as they stick to Jpegs and PNGs, I'm not complaining. But as soon as they allow animated GIFs, I'm blocking them.

Re:google?

[uberdave]

What is worse, is that this someone "who has root access on god knows how many Unix and Linux boxes, and whose job it is to support these boxes", had absolutely no idea what SSH was.

Re:code

[bigpat]

Don't cry bloody murder every time something happens that you don't 100% approve of (and that goes for the grandparent just as much as you).

If you wait until someone goes "too far" before complaining, then they have already gone too far.