Slashdot Mirror


Dealing With 'Advertising Pollution'

theodp writes: "Everyone gets that advertising is what powers the internet, and that our favorite sites wouldn't exist without it," writes longtime ad guy Ken Segall in The Relentless (and annoying) Pursuit of Eyeballs. "Unfortunately, for some this is simply license to abuse. Let's call it what it is: advertising pollution." CNN's in-your-face, your-video-will-play-in-00:25-seconds approach, once unthinkable, has become the norm. "Google," Segall adds, "is a leader in advertising pollution, with YouTube being a showcase for intrusive advertising. Many YouTube videos start with a mandatory ad, others start with an ad that can be dismissed only after the first 10 seconds. Even more annoying are the ad overlays that actually appear on top of the video you're trying to watch. It won't go away until you click the X. If you want to see the entire video unobstructed, you must drag the playhead back to start over. Annoying. And disrespectful." Google proposed using cap and trade penalties to penalize traditional polluters — how about for those who pollute the Internet?

40 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. i'm glad to work for free by alen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most of Youtube is professionally produced videos where youtube shares the ad revenue with the creator. That's how people make money to be able to produce more videos.

    you either get rid of advertising and pay to watch each video, or you put up with advertising. My account is enabled for revenue sharing, but i rarely upload anything and don't rely on it. but if took and produced videos and relied on ad revenue, i would stop very fast if i didn't get paid.

    1. Re:i'm glad to work for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can we pay you to learn how to use the Shift key?

    2. Re:i'm glad to work for free by Rising+Ape · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you either get rid of advertising and pay to watch each video, or you put up with advertising.

      I have no objection to paying for ad-free stuff. Of course, to be fair, I'd then like a refund on the part of the price of the stuff I buy that goes to advertising it.

      That's the worst thing about advertising - it's surely more expensive than just paying directly, as you have to pay people to make the ad, plus various extra middlemen. And in return for that extra money you get to be assaulted by obnoxious audiovisual pollution.

    3. Re:i'm glad to work for free by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

      So? Plenty of people paid E. E. Cummings not to use the shift key.

    4. Re:i'm glad to work for free by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you either get rid of advertising and pay to watch each video, or you put up with advertising.

      False dilemma. We could watch the video with adblock plus installed and not let you waste our time with some ad selling bullshit we don't care about.

      i would stop very fast if i didn't get paid.

      Good. Take your ball and go home. The internet could use a few less for-profit entities twisting their content in order to maximize cashflow.

    5. Re:i'm glad to work for free by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They've invented adblock detectors.

      They don't show the video unless you allow the ad to show.

      So at the least, the game rachets up a notch.
      At the worst, adblock's days are numbered.

      ---

      TV used to have 52 minutes of content for 8 commercials.

      Now it has 42 minutes of content for 18 commercials.
      And in some cases 39 minutes of content for 23 minutes of content (by over laying the credits of the prior show with commercials).

      I mostly just don't watch it any more.

      But I've also gotten really good at not seeing the commercials. At first I had to try but now it's like I can sort of go blind and deaf to the commercials until the show comes back on.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    6. Re:i'm glad to work for free by Jupix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you either get rid of advertising and pay to watch each video, or you put up with advertising.

      I choose the former. 100%. Now how do I do that on Youtube?

    7. Re:i'm glad to work for free by nabsltd · · Score: 3

      The idea is that when you want a product like what they're advertising, you'll think of the one that was advertised.

      I'm more likely to remember that I've seen dozens of annoying ads for their brand and intentionally avoid it.

    8. Re:i'm glad to work for free by sudon't · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good. Take your ball and go home. The internet could use a few less for-profit entities twisting their content in order to maximize cashflow.

      Wish I had mod points, I couldn't agree more. I liked the web better before the commercial gold rush. Of course, I've been blocking ads since they began appearing, so that's not a big problem - but content was better before, IMO. And the whole spying game began with, and continues to be driven by, advertisers.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  2. Good point by desertrat_it · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I sat down to watch Paddington Bear with my 19 month old son.

    The advert that I couldn't skip was for a horror movie.

    Thanks, youtube. That was *fantastic*.

    1. Re:Good point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Use adblock, it gets rid of ALL the adds on youtube. And if it's not your device, just hit F5 and you should get something else.

    2. Re:Good point by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Use adblock, it gets rid of ALL the adds on youtube. And if it's not your device, just hit F5 and you should get something else.

      The amusing part is that youtube know this and has not "fixed" it. I guess they realize we are not a receptive market for that crap.

  3. Start small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I never watch forced ads. I've yet to see content that's worth it. Pages get reloaded to pass the ads a couple times, failing that I'm off to something else. Oh, and adblockers and outright hostname and IP blocking still works. I'm sure they'll figure out a way to be even more abusive, they're google after all. But even they need to learn that trying too hard easily causes a loss of those precious "eyeballs".

  4. No Advertising does not power the Internet. by pubwvj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No Advertising does not power the Internet. Bogus assertion to begin the article. The internet ran fine before the ads. It would run fine without them. Advertising is one aspect of the internet. It does not power the internet in any way, shape or form.

  5. Reason I installed addblock. by Insomnium · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I installed addblock because videos and streams I watched had add volume loudness so loud that it was a real problem. I often watch videos during the night and when the loudness jumps up for the adds it becomes annoying really fast. And that was the only reason.

    I don't really mind adds and I know they run the content creators, but just that one small issue was enough for me.

  6. Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When people say "internet", they mean content showing their favorite celebrities, mainstream news, and the same special-interest articles that used to appear in print manages. They don't mean a bunch of bearded, pasty-faced nerds discussing filk music and making obscure UNIX jokes on Usenet like the "internet that ran fine before the ads" that you are thinking of.

  7. "advertising is what powers the internet" by Snufu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No. The internet was implemented by the federal government, funded by citizen taxes, and later extended as part of the communications infrastructure. The internet was not invented to serve businesses, it was invented to serve the citizens.

    For those who voluntarily go to ad laden websites, you can't regulate self harm.

    1. Re:"advertising is what powers the internet" by queazocotal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, it really wasn't.
      The internet was invented to be an interesting communication protocol.
      Later on, commercial entities and the general public got connected to it.
      For a _long_ time, it was .edu (as latter became) only.

      Imagining that the internet was destined to win, and there were no alternatives is revisionist history.

      The internet very nearly didn't win, avoiding being relegated to a communications experiment that died likely sometime around 2000.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... - as an example of a competing service that lasted a long time, in the face of growing internet.
      Aol, compuserv, and all of the other services didn't quite get joined up fast enough to make the internet irrelevant.

      It was quite possible that this could have happened.
      They decided that it was in their commercial interests to isolate their services, so that you couldn't email people on different networks.
      This (amongst other similar issues) ended up killing them as other than ISPs when the internet took over this function.

      If, for example, AOL, compuserv, Prodigy et al had gotten together and made it possible to email other services members, a prime reason for the explosion of the internet would have gone away.

      Similarly, minitel could be a model of what the 'internet' might have looked like if the internet had not won.
      It would be very, very different.

      Network effects are _powerful_.

  8. When "free" isn't free by PapayaSF · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is because most or all website revenue comes from advertising. CBS has ads, but Netflix doesn't. Books don't, and newspapers and magazines have a limited amount, because part of their revenue comes from selling their publications to consumers. (Without ads, a copy of something like National Geographic or Playboy would cost $20 or more.)

    The problem is that we don't have a good way of buying small amounts of content online. You can subscribe to some sites by the month or year, or perhaps buy limited access via PayPal, but the cost tends to be $ or $$ or $$$, and nobody wants to subscribe to CNN or YouTube. They want to see that video now, with no registration and commitment. The answer is the great lost Internet opportunity of 15 years ago: micropayments. If there was an easy and universal system for paying (say) a few cents to watch a video, why not? It'd be trivial for viewers, but could add up to real money for sites.

    If I were a huge content provider, I'd figure out a way to make it happen, perhaps through ISPs. Subsidize them to give every user maybe $10/month credit. Offer content providers a great deal to install a one-click "Read/Watch Now for 1 cent" buttons. Get people used to paying tiny amounts of money to view content. If something like this could get going, it'd benefit content providers of all sizes. E.g. a comedian who writes one joke a day could make a living with 10,000 readers paying 1 cent per day ($100/day = $36,500/year).

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  9. why? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    CNN's in-your-face, your-video-will-play-in-00:25-seconds approach, once unthinkable, has become the norm.

    Why unthinkable? Why should free video be so very different from free TV?

  10. Let's call it what it is: SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ads are spam. Does spam power email? Do pirates power seafaring?

  11. use your tabs by Todd+Palin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mute the sound and go to another tab for however many seconds. You don't have to watch it or listen to it. Use ad blocker for the rest. You don't have to be bothered with ads if you don't choose to be bothered. There are some serious annoyances in this world, but internet ads aren't a big deal.

  12. Re: You dorks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I disagree with ads on a very fundamental level. they're manipulative and serve to change and circumvent logic and the decision making process. I don't appreciate anything or anyone that is intentionally trying to manipulate me.

    I am still going to go to all the same web sites as I always have but you can bet I'm going to adblock as many ads as tectonically possible. The industry brought it upon themselves by pushing the intrusiveness way to far. I don't feel guilty in the slightest.

  13. Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you remember the Internet before advertising? I do. It was mostly educational, and technical. It was also low bandwidth. The modern Internet is a lot of expensive to produce and deliver content. That money has to come from somewhere, and Universities are not financing it all like they used to.

  14. Also those sliding "give us your email' boxes by david.emery · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've noticed a really annoying trend, where you're on a site for a 10-20 seconds reading their content, when this (presumably JavaScript) box pops in front of the content soliciting for your email address. This is really annoying, since it totally breaks the concentration on what you're reading. Since this apparently done with JavaScript provided by the hosting site, pop-up window blockers and cross-script blockers don't prevent it.

    So here's a hint for web designers: THIS IS F***KING ANNOYING! STOP IT!

    Thank you.

  15. Re:You dorks by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ads and marketing in general have evolved from simple, respectful "hey, try this! It's good" into manipulative nonsense. Few people can see through it and the result has been devastating to them. It has shaped and certainly harmed the culture of the US and even results in violence in some extreme cases where people want things so badly they hurt and kill each other to get it. Though most will disagree exactly when things have gone "too far" few will disagree that they have.

  16. Re:Ads are good for the internet. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People seem to forget, the internet RUNS on advertising money. It's what pay's the "real" bills for servers, staff & redbull's.

    People used to have their own web sites about their hobbies and interests.. they used to actually participate until mass media came along and turned the network into a TV set. It was standard practice to offer users personal home pages when they signed up for Internet service.

    IMO, if ads stopped across all internet sites, or the online advertising industry completely collapsed. The internet as we know it, would be gone.

    Good riddance.

  17. Why I use... by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Informative

    Adblock
    NoScript
    CookieMonster
    And Flashstop

    Adblock removes most of the ads. I turn off for sites I want to support or that don't annoy me with obnoxious ads.

    NoScript is on for any site I can use without javascript. Java slows a lot of sites down without providing me any useful functionality in most cases. Also most of the annoying things a site can do like throw pop ups at you is done in javascript. So I just keep it off for most things.

    CookieMonster blocks cookies which I do anywhere the site I'm interacting with doesn't need me to have a cookie. If I'm not doing anything complicated on a site and there are no logins then there's no need for cookies.

    Flashstop stops all those annoying flash animations and videos and audio files that otherwise would auto play when you load a site. Its even good with youtube because you can load up five or six different pages at once without them all auto playing.

    This is how I interact with the web now. Come at me.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  18. advertisement doesn't work by Tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...except, of course, for the ad companies selling it to companies who try to get sales. I'm not in marketing, but I got some insider information from people who are, and they all say that about 50% of all the money put into advertisement has basically the same effect on sales as burning it would have. The only reason it is wasted this way is that a) many customers don't know it and - more importantly - b) they don't know which 50%.

    But, as in so many things, when something stops being effective, the first answer to the problem is to do more of it. The enemy has built bunkers against our bombs? Drop more bombs! The virus is becoming immune to our medicine? Raise the dosage. People have begun to ignore or block advertisement? Throw more ads their way.

    Yes, it is pollution, the term is spot on.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  19. Re:You dorks by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly you nailed it. For those that say that the ads have become manipulative, sorry but how are they different than old TV? Sure we have Tivo like apps but the reality is that commercials have always been in your face. It is just that on the Internet we have become used to non-invasive free Internet (as in free beer). The fact that this has changed does not surprise me in the least. Don't like it, do like the parent poster said, don't vist the site. Or better yet fork over money so that sites don't need ads.

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  20. Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > It was also low bandwidth. The modern Internet is a lot of expensive to produce and deliver content.

    Bandwidth costs have dropped exponentially since then.
    We are looking at a 2000x drop in pricing from 1998 to the end of this year.
    In 1998 it was $1200.00/Mbps by 2015 it will be $0.63/Mbps

  21. Re:You dorks by WaffleMonster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For those that say that the ads have become manipulative, sorry but how are they different than old TV?

    Well for one thing on old TV ads didn't pretend to be part of the show you were watching. Viewing them didn't turn your computer into a botnet, track your every move or adorn your sets control knobs and television cabinet with vendor advertising. TV ads also lack self awareness.

  22. Re:You dorks by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Also, you don't have to go to the CNN site if you don't like their ads. No one actually forced you to read CNN. It is their media property, they can do what they wish."

    Sure, just as it's our right to render on our screens only what we wish.
    And we do that.

  23. Adblock, NoScript, DoNotTrackMe. by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Really, I don't know what I'd do without them. Probably stop using the Internet as much as I do now, find some alternatives, or do a hell of a lot more bitching.

    When running a fresh new installation of a web browser, the first ad I see immediately causes me to halt everything I'm doing and install those three plugins. Annoyingly, I usually don't even hit two consecutive websites before that happens--the wretched fucking things are literally everywhere. Video ads really fucking piss me off, and even more on Android, because the god damn things are *designed* to reduce your access to the system, which effectively prevents installing ad blocking software without gaining root.

    I have actually in the past, when confronted with an ad while trying to watch a video, cranked the volume all the way down and turned the phone upside down. If I did happen to see what brand was advertising, I add them to my mental blacklist of products and services to AVOID. Yes, I am so against advertising, it has the exact *opposite* effect on me when it comes to buying things. I'm sorry, but I can think for myself, I can do my own research and come up with an educated conclusion as to what I want or need. I don't fucking need someone spewing bullshit, trying to force me to buy their junk.

    These days? When I even come across ONE ad when attempting to watch YouTube, I have zero tolerance. I close it. It is not worth the hassle. If I want to watch something bad enough, it will be on a proper computer with the necessary extensions. Android is one of the worst platforms to visit web pages or watch videos on.

  24. Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Advertising is also why the Internet has evolved far past Usenet discussions. Ads bring us current TV episodes and today's news. I'll take that over alt.whine.virginity any time.

  25. You need by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Informative

    Youtube Center. I run that with Adblock and it automatically makes videos play in the larger window and always sets the volume to 10%. That is just a few things you can fix. The addon has tons of tweaks.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  26. Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. by jdavidb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Notice that the guy who said it is an advertising guy. That's his whole worldview. That's the way he thinks it is and the way he thinks it should be. Meanwhile for the rest of us, we have lots of alternatives. Paid sites, community-supported sites, ad-blocked sites, sites run by people who love what they are running a site about.

    Basically this is a little advertiser wanting us to support clubbing a big advertiser, Google. He'd like us to get mad at his competition. What he wouldn't like is for us to start noticing just how much what he is advocating is in his self-interest.

    I recommend we all switch to ad-block and screw them all. If some sites die or have to switch funding models, works great for me.

  27. Re:You dorks by Rix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't get to decide things you don't pay for. The people that pay for things gets to decide them.

    If you ever feel the need to install an ad blocker, you're doing it wrong.

    Hence why CNN doesn't get to decide whether their ads display on the computer I paid for or not.

  28. Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. by Roger+Wilcox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There were many people producing their own content on the Internet before big business saw a profit in it. To frame them all as pasty-faced nerds is disingenuous and obviously false. These were ordinary people exchanging ideas and sharing whatever they felt was worth sharing. This was, and still is, the crux of the Internet's greatness.

    The kind of content you mention is the kind of content that does not utilize the unique interpersonal capabilities of the Internet. That stuff is ordinary mass media content that has moved to the Internet only because the corporations producing it were losing their readership and revenue to the Internet (see previous paragraph.) They came here to fight for our eyeballs and our opinions because we chose to ignore them in favor of communicating with each other.

    Advertising, as irritating as it can be, can help us to distinguish between content motivated by money (probably distributed by a giant corporation with an ulterior motive of keeping you suckling at their teat while feeding you politically slanted pseudo-news) and content motivated by some other impetus. For me, content that is laden with irritating advertisements practically screams "don't listen to me! I'm a scumbag!"

    I'd much rather hear from ordinary people who have enough respect for me to tell their story without trying to monetize me. Lucky for us, plenty of those people still exist on the Internet.

    (properly formatted this time)

  29. Re:Ads are good for the internet. by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IMO, if ads stopped across all internet sites, or the online advertising industry completely collapsed. The internet as we know it, would be gone.

    Correction: The Internet as you know it would be gone. The actual Internet would be just fine. Universities, stores, hobby sites, government, and people generally interested in communicating with each other would pay their ISP bills and continue without interruption.

    Did you just suggest I pay for something online? Damn, I've never been more offended in my entire life. I use Facebook for my corporate website, Gmail for my inbox, and YouTube to distribute my advertising. Why the hell would I pay for anything?!?

    Sincerely,

    (The reason we're here today)