Commercials Come To The Net (After This Word)

ctwxman writes "Say it isn't so. Full-motion commercials, when you go to click off a page, are coming to a website near you! The New York Times (standing in a bathtub with an electric iron required) reports: "Beginning tomorrow, more than a dozen Web sites, including MSN, ESPN, Lycos and iVillage, will run full-motion video commercials from Pepsi, AT&T, Honda, Vonage and Warner Brothers, in a six-week test that some analysts and online executives say could herald the start of a new era of Internet advertising." Unicast, the company responsible, says the ads will play regardless of pop-up blocking. "The only format that loads completely before it is allowed to play, the Full Screen Superstitial is guaranteed to play perfectly for every consumer, every time." I work in TV where commercials pay the freight. Is this so wrong on the net? It's not what we're used to, but maybe we're asking for more than is reasonable. I just don't know." I think I hear the whip swinging back, but harder ...

Expensive

Some people, particluarly in smaller countries, pay for Internet by the MB. How much are these ads going to cost?!

Re:Expensive

Some people, particluarly in smaller countries, pay for Internet by the MB. How much are these ads going to cost?!

Very true. Advertising on unlimited broadband is merely a nuisance. Full video, multi-MB sized advertising on a metered low-speed connection should be a crime. Why should people have to *pay* to receive corporate advertising?

That's like the high-school kids who pay Nike to be a walking billboard for the company. If I'm going to wear clothing that has large corporate logos, names, or slogans printed on it - they damn well better be paying *me* to do it.

Re:Wrong perspective

No, you're both wrong... of course no one forces them to provide content free of charge and no one is forcing you to visit a site that "tricks" you into downloading an interstitial.

It's capitalism--if you don't like the ads, stop visiting the sites, if you don't mind them, keep going there. If enough people don't like them, the company will change its ways or go out of business. It's that simple. The choice is yours 100%. Personally, I don't visit sites with pop-ups or interstitials, one offense is enough for me to know not to go back to that site, and even if I were paying for bandwidth, after it happened once, I've learned my lesson and can add that site to my hosts file as one to block.

Re:Wrong perspective

Still wrong. If you pay for you Internet connection based upon the amount of bytes transmitted/received, and you won't know the web site is forcing an advertisement down your throat until you have already "consumed" the bandwidth to download it, then I say it is still wrong. *And* it wasn't up to the end user as to whether to dl the advertisement or not.

Now, that said, the end user can remember the site and choose not to go there again, but how much bandwidth ( money ) is it going to cost him before he has built up a decent "blacklist". Even then when he/she first visits a new site, there will be the chance they will get burned.

Sorry, there is no justification for forcing things ( ads and what not ) down end users throats. When you set up a web site or other service on the Internet, you do so with the understanding that it is going to cost you, and if anyone chooses to support the site ( financially or otherwise ), it is 100% their choice, not yours.

Re:Wrong perspective

The real shame is that it's not going to be any more effective than the other attempts at web advertizing. All the people that ignore other web ads will ignore these newfangled full-motion ads too. Some people who put up with pop-ups and such will be pushed over the edge and just stop going to the site(s).

And in the end they are left with the same target group as they had before, only they are spending way more money to attract them. While ignoring the root cause of the problem: believing that click-throughs were indicative of ad effectiveness.

Oh well, not my money being wasted...

Re:Wrong perspective

Ooh, this uses WMV? Sweet.

Full-motion ad block? Mozilla Firebird.
I don't need that mime association. It's better
to just save my videos to disk for later viewing.

What? This isn't about pr0n?

Re:Wrong perspective

What about lynx? I seriously doubt the ablity for this full motion advertisement scheme to work for `play perfectly for every consumer, every time'. Then again if i use *nix am i a consumer?

Re:Wrong perspective

They will make it compulsory to have aalib installed... :-)

Even more wrong perspective

Why should the websites that these people are seeing the ads on be forced to develop and support a website free of charge?

Forced? Sorry, do we live in different countries, where your government holds a gun to peoples' heads and tells them "update your website or we kill you and your family"?

No one "forces" websites to do anything. They don't "need" to work for nothing - They simply don't need to work at all.

Those sites with an actual product, which at the moment appears limited to storefronts, some news outlets, and porn sites, deserve to stay solvent because they actually provide a service people will pay for. Every other site can go pound sand, or stay up because its owners love doing it (ie, most personal sites, blogs, and certain hobby-oriented informational sites).

Naturally, the obvious followup question involves Slashdot's status under this idea. Personally, I think it falls into a "hobby site that trades bandwidth and hosting costs for massive amounts of good karma for OSDN. That might not have a direct dollar value, but in terms of effective advertising, it means more than all the half-time SuperBowl commercials put together.


To address the parent article, I for one will not EVER visit a site that shows any advertising that I can't either ignore or circumvent. I said that long ago about popups, and well before popup blocking became incorporated into the major browsers, I wrote a crude local proxy server for myself and a few friends to do nothing but filter them out. I'll attempt to do similarly for these new ads, but if the hype holds true and they really do prevent me from visiting the site without watching it, I can guarantee them the permanent loss of one visitor. And I doubt I'll act alone in that regard. People avoid ad-heavy sites already - Having to watch a full 30-second spot will turn off even the most computer illiterate grannies out there.

Re:Even more wrong perspective

I for one will not EVER visit a site that shows any advertising that I can't either ignore or circumvent.

Dude it runs on windows(R) so just get LINUX(R); until redmond ports Windows Media Player software, which an estimated 8 of 10 Internet users have on their computers to LINUX(R) we're safe! The magic 8 ball says LINUX(R) on the desktop just got a big leap forward.

Re:Fsck this world

Actually, you know... I'm _not_ anti-capitalistic. In fact, I'm probably as pro-capitalistic as it gets.

However, my idea of capitalism, dunno, has more to do with what it used to mean, a long time ago in a galaxy far away. The idea that you try to build a better product. That you try to give people something they need, and they'll give you money for it.

At some point it used to be, at least theoretically, that a transaction produced value for _both_ parties involved.

E.g., if I'm a baker and you're hungry, for you a loaf of my bread is worth more than the price I ask for it. And for me, having more loaves than I can possibly eat myself, that money is worth more than the loaf. Thus the transaction is a profit for both sides involved.

Now in this high tech market all this got turned upside down. The whole idea is to rape the consumer as hard as you can. As long as you got their money today, fsck 'em.

Just in the software industry alone, billions of USD worth of _worthless_ software is sold each year by marketting, bribery and lies. The kind of snake-oil transaction which actually produces a huge _loss_ to the buyer (e.g., the wasted time of 20 contractors over 2 years trying to work around the bugs) for a tiny profit to the seller. In fact, the kind that rapes you harder than if they just stole that money out of your account.

Plus it's sad to see everything thrown back in time some 500 years.

A _very_ long time ago, long before computers or even electricity, merchants had discovered that being honest and respectful pays. It paid big time. A satisfied customer was a customer which came back tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, and next year. And often brings other customers.

Those people were planning to be in business for a long time. For generations, if possible. _Not_ to pull a quick scam.

Nowadays, again, that all got turned around. People are not planning to be in business for generations. At best they plan to show a bigger figure at the next board meeting. Plans now span a year, or in the worst cases barely weeks.

Hence, now it's perfectly acceptable to sell snake oil, and doubly so to screw the customer hard. He may not buy from you again next year, but, hey, who cares about next year? Rape 'em with a red hot poker, if that's what it takes to get their money NOW.

Dunno, somehow I think this is _not_ what capitalism was supposed to mean. Most of those business models are IMHO closer to the good old medieval highway robery, or to flying the Jolly Roger and plundering the Spanish Main, than to anything capitalism was supposed to mean.

Re:Wrong perspective

Good point! This is exactly like cable was. When cable tv first rolled out they told us that we only had to pay to watch tv because there would be no commercial advertising except on the rebroadcast local channels from outside our area. Well it didn't take long before all the cable-only channels started playing commercials, but they still charge us outrageous prices to pipe video over lines they strung 20 years ago. And it didn't cost them anything to run the cables in the first place since they charged us 10 cents per telephone pole to have it run from the next town over! Now the cable companies make money from both ends. They charge us consumers to watch the commercials that they charge the advertisers to play for them.

Re:Wrong perspective

People misanalyze the "failure" the past ad formats gave.

If we held TV commercials like popup ads were to be rated, Pepsi would be wasting $2 mil on a Superbowl spot if people didn't get up-- before the end of the game-- and buy Pepsi.

If you expect that, then ANY advertisement technique short of "click here to remove the window" will fail. The ads are incidental to the desired info in the eyes of the consumer.

The only exception is ads that tie in well to the content. I have bought from such ads. When I look at a review site, there's a reasonable chance I want the item reviewed, so show me a shop.

The good news: In all likelihood, the first few sites to try it will face a DDoS from users who click "refresh" every few seconds in the attempt to get the page to show... "Why is the next page downloading xxxxkb? Must be broken."

Re:Expensive

Who's forcing them to go to these sites ? Last time I checked, you had access to this smart little "X" button that would close the window. I'm all for those ads. They dont try and trick you by using faked windows, they just plain make their sales speech, and then you move on. If you dont like it, there are a bunch of other sites around that dont use them.

That's just it - they *DO* trick you. The article clearly states that *while* the user is browsing a given web site, the full motion video ad is being downloaded in the background. It is only when you leave the site that the video starts playing.

You don't have the option to check the "No thanks, I pay by the MB for my downloads" button. You don't even know about the large download until after it's done!! That's the offensive part.

One can only hope that the sites which feature these ads have a warning.

Re:Expensive

According to Unicast, each advertisement is aprox

15 seconds
300k file size
Full screen
Plays between pages during consumer transition

300KB/7KBps == 42+ seconds of *extra* download time, presuming the user is downloading at a full 56kbps. Just think, if every page has this ad technology, this is going to make for some very long browsing sessions for modem users. I don't know about the rest of you, but I never was able to reach a full 56kbps when I used to be on modem. It always dropped back down to 26kbps or a similar speed.

Imho, it is advertising suicide. Then again, not every user knows there are alternatives to MSN, ESPN, etc...

Re:Expensive

Why should people have to *pay* to receive corporate advertising?

apparently you've never heard of cable television.

Re:Expensive

> apparently you've never heard of cable television. Or been to a Google-plex movie theatre recently, or purchased a Disney DVD with ff-disabled ads eating up, oh, the first 1/2 hour of the damned things (which is 1/2 the reason that, if i do buy a Disney movie, it's on cassette). Recently I was at the end of a AAA call when I locked my keys in the car and after she told me my service code the operator recited a commercial! I was standing in freezing cold weather trying to make out all of her words in the howling winds and I wasn't sure if she was finished, and after she repeated it I was floored that she was doing some advertising at the end of my cellphone call! What next? As you come to, the paramedic leans in close to you and says, "This defibrullation has been brought to you by...."

Re:Expensive

Like here in New Zealand? Broadband is still a fairly rare beast, and when it is available, it's 20c per MB thank you very much. Looks like I now not only have to get up and do the 'ad-break' walkaround, I'm going to have to pay for the privilege...

..k

Re:Expensive

Like here in New Zealand? Broadband is still a fairly rare beast, and when it is available, it's 20c per MB thank you very much.

That's right, would you believe this, I have to go stick coins in a machine down the hall regularly to get broadband, otherwise I get disc

Re:Expensive

From the people that brought you (and are still bringing you) Kazaa Lite comes Supertrick [accs-net.com], effectively a Hosts file used to redirect the servers that provide advertising to your loopback address. Also, if you're not already running a server, you can get eDexter [accs-net.com] to make any "blocked" into transparent GIFs that don't break the page. Should work pretty well for these background loading ads. :^)

Oh great...

How will this help people on modems? They'll sit at a blank page for 5 minutes before seeing a commercial then having the page load.

Re:Oh great...

Yes, but I think the key thing the people creating these ads are miss is that they won't sit there. They'll click on off to some other space across this internet place. I'm on broadband but if an ad came up the took up the whole page, I'd hit stop, and then go someplace else.

I think a lot of people would do that.

Re:Oh great...

I use a mozilla-based browser with the ad blocking userContent.css that can be found here. [floppymoose.com] I find that also helps.

Re:Before you complain...

Sounds like the 80's when it was, "Remember, since you're paying monthly for cable TV the cable only stations won't need to play commercials."

Re: Before you complain...

Sounds like the 80's when it was, "Remember, since you're paying monthly for cable TV the cable only stations won't need to play commercials."

You make it sound like because you pay for your Internet access, all Web sites should be free. You made the one big mistake of forgetting that you did not send payment to the Web site you are visiting, you paid the person who let you get there.

It's like using a toll road to get to a restaurant. You paid money to use the roads, but you still have to pay for the restaurant.

umm yeah.. no

These will play for everyone everywhere no matter what? I'd really REALLY beg to differ... I'm fairly sure my Mozilla based Linux distro of choice will be just fine and dandy hiding from these things.. goodgrief.... man!

Re:umm yeah.. no

Or if the ads still work, just use Lynx.

Re:umm yeah.. no

heck a poorly configured one probably will just display a 'get plug in' page/icon.

And my userContent.css will suppress even that:

object[codebase*=flash] { display: none ! important; }
object[code-base*=flash] { display: none ! important; }
embed[type*=flash] { display: none ! important; }

I don't have the plug-in installed and this suppresses even the alert.

However, they can easily code sites such that you can't find out the real link destination until the flash movie completes and redirects the main browser there. To bypass this with Mozilla, it would need to be able to decode the Flash movie (or whatever they use) and find the redirection. Assuming they haven't obfuscated it amongst many false leads or made the ad too interactive.

Re:I wonder how long

You won't need a plugin to hide it. It requires Windows Media Player, so you'd need a plugin to see it in the first place.

Re:I wonder how long

Reading the unicast site and viewing their ad demos, it uses Flash.

Looks like this will push Flash blocking through quickly. :)

Konquerer for me, please

Good thing Konquerer lacks compatibility with everything odd! I don't even get half the ads that are on web pages just through the browser's compatibilty problems, though important content almost always makes its way through.

"the start of a new era"

could herald the start of a new era of Internet advertising.

Yeah, it could make millions of people get around to learning how to block ads..

-jcr

Re:"the start of a new era"

I like this quote from the guy from Pepsi

"Yes, it's intrusive," he said. "But I think customers will like it, because it will be so far superior to anything they've seen online."

To me, isn't that kinda like saying:

"We are going to shove red-hot pokers up our customers' asses, but I think they will like it, because it will be far hotter than anything they've ever had up their asses."

free hosts file ad blocker

I've been updating this list for a few years now [everythingisnt.com] and it works fairly well with very little to no blocking of legitimate content. Enjoy.

Before I get flamed for "blocking ads," first off its my PC and I'll do as I please. Don't like it? Switch to a subscriber model. When Salon.com went pay I sure as heck forked over the money. I can't imagine doing that for msn.com or the other sites mentioned. If their content isn't worth it chances are they're going to subsidize their lack of worth with gimmicks like these.

Secondly, text ads are far superior, convey real information, and the google method puts them in the context of the website itself, so you don't get car ads on a site about bicycles.

Hmmm... *Any* User?

The ads sure don't display for me on Mozilla 1.4 with this handy click-to-play Flash hack [squarefree.com] I saw on another Slashdot posting. <sarcasm>Oh, darn.</sarcasm>

Re:Hmmm... *Any* User?

For a preview, try one of the sample SUPERSTITIAL ads [unicast.com], available from the firm marketing them. You can even test your browser against some of the other formats [unicast.com] offered by the same company.

My favorite quote [unicast.com] (from near the bottom of the paragraph):

Full Screen Superstitial is guaranteed to play perfectly for every consumer, every time.

I'd sure like to see the terms of that guarantee... <grin>

My HOSTS file is gonna get reallllly big.

now I just need a utility to send a nastygram to the admin of whatever domains do this. I am already getting yelled at for bandwidth issues with my ISP (distro torrents)

10 minutes...

10 minutes to discover how it works.
1 hour to code the block.
1 day to submit to mozilla.
1 week till al bugs are out, and a patch is out and woring for windoze, linux, BSD, MAC, and maybey even DOS.
Nothing to worry about.

Re:10 minutes...

0.5 seconds to click "View Source"
10 seconds to find the advertisement tag
2 seconds to add the host to the squid banlist ACL
2 seconds to restart squid

Sure.

Full Screen Superstitial is guaranteed to play perfectly for every consumer, every time.

Like those godawful, browser-filling Flash interstitials they already use? Those do a perfect job of grinding my poor little laptop (600mhz, but only 300 or so on batteries) to a halt as they load up. Not to mention, the volume levels are usually jacked up so if I'm using headphones, I'll get my eardrums popped.

Dear web advertisers - I hate you, I hate you, I hate you.

--riney
p.s. I hate you.

No more pixels! Sweet!

From Unicast's site:
"This format breaks-through the shackles imposed by pixel-constrained and technology-led units, giving creatives a full and blank canvas to work from and with" [unicast.com]

Finally. Smooth CRT graphics. These people should get a Nobel or something.

Off-beat browsers

Unicast, the company responsible, says the ads will play regardless of pop-up blocking.

The good news is that this requires Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, so I don't even need to modify my ad filter to keep them from showing up!

Guaranteed?

"...the Full Screen Superstitial is guaranteed to play perfectly for every consumer, every time."

Oh, I doubt that. I doubt that very much. I have CSS2 on my side, after all. That, and I never go to MSN, ESPN, Lycos, or the rest anyway, and certainly won't now.

And what's the guarantee? Free week's worth of ads every time someone hits your page with lynx? This guarantee business is baloney from so many points of view.

Free Tech Support.

You don't understand. They are really volunteering to come personally and tweak your linux installation until it works perfectly.

Gone are the times when you would be replied "we don't support linux" - they guaranteed it.

Hosts file, yet again

As was mentioned earlier today . . .

My hosts file is already open and waiting to be editted. Lets see how "guaranteed" your advertising is then.

and now...

Beginning tomorrow, more than a dozen Web sites, including MSN, ESPN, Lycos and iVillage, will not be visited by people who read Slashdot.

The rest of Internet users will call their ISPs and complain.

Why is it that so many media companies have to start "wars" with consumers? Is biting the hand that feeds you a perfectly acceptable practice now? Instead of investing all this money into fighting the consumer thieves, they should work on new business models that don't "port" the old ones onto new technology.

Block flash

The mozilla "click-to-play flash" add-on will probably prevent this from running. If this doesn't use flash, then it would have to install some other player which the user could just cancel (no no such opportunity was presented, then that would be legally questionable). Of course such a player wouldn't even be available on unix, so we wouldn't even see it.

Either way, ad blocking is here to stay and I highly doubt that these ads will remain unblocked for long. In fact I'm looking forward to them. It lets me practice my regular expression skills in privoxy!

Sites that don't let me in without forcing me to see an ad I just don't need to go to. Why don't these people learn from google's plaintext advertising experience. You don't need large, obnoxious ads to get people to buy your stuff.

What the hell.

Beginning tomorrow, more than a dozen Web sites, including MSN, ESPN, Lycos and iVillage, will run full-motion video commercials from Pepsi, AT&T, Honda, Vonage and Warner Brothers, in a six-week test that some analysts and online executives say could herald the start of a new era of Internet advertising.

There is a revolt [slashdot.org] over popups. Who thinks this is a good time for full-motion commercials? What kind of reaction are they expecting from the public on this one?


--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor? [colingregorypalmer.net]

American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]

Next: television-free televison

Jeez, next thing you know, these corporations will try to convince consumers to purchase a new DVR with a 'content-skipping' feature so we can enjoy all of their commercials without interruption. The future's so bright...

Flash Controls?

Don't get me wrong, Macromedia Flash is a great addition to delivering multimedia on the internet. We can use it for good, but quite often it can be used in an instrusive manner such as advertising.

Perhaps someone out there will come up with a neat powertoy to better allow us control on what flash content is loading.Perhaps by blocking flash content on selected sites or something.

It will be great to see such a tool, unless of course there is one already, which I'm simply not aware of.

Boycott is the best method

I will refuse to visit any of these sites.

If ESPN does it, I'll get my sports info from CBS Sportsline. If CNN does it, my default news page will be Fox, etc.

If MSN does it, my default internet portal will be... oh wait I guess there's no problem there.

Oh my god, think of the bandwidth

I'm in .au, where its perfectly normal for business grade connections to be provided with a 19c/meg bandwidth charge, sometimes as low as 9c/meg. Excess charges on home ADSL connections vary from 1c/meg to 20c/meg. Many home connections are shaped after x gigabyte, for some major providers to as slow as 28kbit (yes, thats slower than a 56k modem on a bad line).

To put that in perspective, for some people:
1 full motion advertisement, weighing in at 5 megabytes would cost up to $1 AUD to download (.75USD == 1AUD at the moment).

2 Advertisements would cost as much as an iTunes track.

For, say, an optus cable user who's already used their allowance for the month (was 3 gig, now 6 gig, is going up to 12 gig thanks to some stiff .au pricewars at the moment) to download such an ad would take 41 minutes (assuming constant rate of 2,000 bytes/second).

Yuck.

No Free Lunch

Unfortunately for us, companies need revenue to provide content. That means at least one of 1) subscriptions, 2) advertising, 3) pay-as-you-go.

Take the NY Times for instance. The same content that one needs to pay $6 a week for a subscription is available free on the web. Some of that cost is newsprint and delivery, but -over the long term- they need a way to make revenue from their product.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a system where I would be charged $0.05 to read a particular article. I usually only read a few items each day.

The other option that we, the community, have to maintain are user experience is to attempt to actively patronize advertisers who choose less intrusive means, and boycott those who choose intrusive advertising. If the least instrusive advertising is most effective, the more intrusive methods will be abandoned.

So...?

"It's TV, without the television," said John Vail, director for digital media and marketing for Pepsi-Cola North America, a unit of PepsiCo.

What the hell does Mr. Vail think TV is short for?"


--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor? [colingregorypalmer.net]

American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]

Why not e-mail the companies and complain?

It's a six week test - presumably the companies want to get some feedback. If the ads annoy you, just e-mail their customer service department or wherever with a polite request that they stop using the ads. See where that gets us.

According to the article, it will be possible to skip the ads by clicking on a button, and also they'll be designed to work with Windows Media Player. It would be interesting to see whether the pages in question function correctly in something lacking WMP (e.g. Konqueror) - if they don't because of sloppy JavaScript or whatever then that would be another trigger for a polite e-mail.

I think it was Henry Ford who observed 'Half of the money I spend on advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don't know which half.' Our job must be to suggest that it's the half spent on ads which actively impede our enjoyment of the web.

Re:Why not e-mail the companies and complain?

It's a six week test - presumably the companies want to get some feedback. If the ads annoy you, just e-mail their customer service department or wherever with a polite request that they stop using the ads. See where that gets us

Well just make sure you don't use your spam-free email address when you complain because chances are that anyone who's arrogant enough to use up your bandwidth without permission also won't think twice about spamming you or adding your address to the spam lists (sorry -targeted email marketing lists) they sell their clients.

Re:Why not e-mail the companies and complain?

If the ads annoy you, just e-mail their customer service department or wherever with a polite request that they stop using the ads. See where that gets us.

On their opt-in mailing list I would imagine. Here's an idea, post the links to the ads in a +5 insightful and get every /.er to download the files five or six times each. When their server self destructs under the load and their bandwidth bill arrives, they'll probably can the idea entirely. ;-)

Wrong

"I work in TV where commercials pay the freight. Is this so wrong on the net? It's not what we're used to, but maybe we're asking for more than is reasonable."

I work in advertising/marketing. And yes, it IS so wrong on the net. Repeat after me, "THE NET IS NOT TV". We're not asking for anything unreasonable. The net was fine the way it was before, and now its broken, horribly, because of companies who want to clutter it with push content, and because of "ad agencies" (i use the term loosely) who create this kind of software that evades popup blockers.

To all companies out there considering using this advertising method. Don't. If I block popups, it means I don't want to see your message. I don't care how much you think I want to see your bandwidth sucking ad, I don't.

The reason advertisers want to turn the net into tv is so that you have no choice about what you see. With banner ads, most people just kind of tune that area of the website out. Popup blockers are the next step. So with every method you have of controlling your choice, that is one less venue for a company to deliver "an urgent, important message" to you.

"Sponsored by"

Whatever happened to those two magic words, "sponsored by". What's so wrong with just getting your company's name up there, saying you paid to make this program possible, without blasting cheezy animations and audio at the viewer? It works pretty well for PBS. Why do the advertising flacks think that annoyance is required for advertising to work?

And why do we need "YOUR COMPUTER IS BROADCASTING ITS IP ADDRESS" or "YOU HAVE ALREADY WON" or other similar forms of deceptive advertisers to pay for internet content anyhow?

Right!!!!

"the Full Screen Superstitial is guaranteed to play perfectly for every consumer, every time."

A couple of things bother me about this concept:

1. yet another attempt to hijack my cpu whether I like it or not. What I like about the web is that it is an interactive medium where I choose what I want to view. Anyone remember push technology? People still haven't figured out that you can't turn the web into another TV without destroying its value.

2. Commercial content appears to have decreasing value on the web. I've found more and more over the years that I spend less time at some of the "big" sites and find more value in the content from smaller organizations.

3. Um, somehow I doubt they've found a universal, cross-platform, vendor-neutral, browser agnostic, method of delivery. Unless it is plain old w3c html 3.2 I doubt it. We'll see how some of the more obscure browsers deal with it (Elinks, lynx, dillo, etc).

4. I find it offensive to refer to the general public as "consumers". Maybe it's just me, but it reeks of a corporate world view where the only thing that is relevant is the exchange of goods and services and lets not forget where your place is in this relationship.

5. Generally speaking, the first time I run into a "commercial" of this nature at a web site will be the last time I visit that site. My 56k home connection is strained enough as it is.

Google Link & my humble opinion

partner=GOOGLE [nytimes.com]

"The new ad technology, from Unicast, an advertising company based in New York, invisibly loads the commercial while unwitting users read a Web page, then displays the ad across the entire browser area when users click to a new page"

What a shitty idea. This is exactly like an exit pop-up (you know, those ones that only show up when you try to x out a page). Worse than that, is that they DL in the background, which will choke 56k modems. "The resulting ad is identical to TV, whether the user has a high- or low-speed connection."

Bullshit. I have yet to see a decent video that can be downloaded by a 56k modem in the time it takes to read a page and be played fullscreen. I picked up a freebie program back in my 56k days and i still use it. No-Flash [geocities.jp] lets you disable java, flash, pictures, animations, videos and so on. This little program made such a huge difference (especially by killing animations) in my browsing experience. At the bottom of their page, they admit the google toolbar does pretty much the same stuff. Hopefully that means it'll stop those videos from downloading, not just from playing.

why isn't internet bandwidth like cell phone time

Why are banners and ads able to be "forced" (term used loosely) to your PC while telemarketers and text messages from businesses aren't able to call you or send messages since it costs me money. My internet bandwidth is not unlimited so shouldn't it be right to say that ads are costing me money. I would agree that it is somewhat debatable since your visiting that site and so you are almost agreeing that you'll accept the ads. As an arguement to that, how do I know a site will pop up advertisements (ie to the extreme, porn)? Should a site notify you before it loads stating that "to view the site, you accept that advertisements will be displayed on your computer"? Where does customer/visitor accepted advertising start/end?

Just some thoughts. Anyone have any thoughts on that rambling?

Wonderful!

I work for an ISP, I can see getting *tons* of calls for this. "How do I stop these commercials?" ... "You can't if you run widows. You'll have to install Linux."

Who said this wasn't the year of desktop Linux?

TV and Internet are different.

I'm at work, so I had a Windows box handy to check this out. I went to the Unicast site and loaded an example ad. Sure enough, it took up the whole screen.

That, while being the selling factor for advertisers, will also be the downfall of the medium from a user's perspective. Full screen ads work fine on TV, because there is no concept of a window or multitasking.

Users quite often have multiple windows open while surfing the web, either multiple browsers or multiple applications. I will quite often type in an address, hit enter, and then switch to a different window while the page loads. Or I will simply queue up a site knowing I'm going to need it in a minute as a reference when writing a document.

I wouldn't mind these ads so much if they were full-window ads. Who is the advertiser to say that they have the right to become full screen, and become the focused application when I may be typing into a word processor or code editor?

People typically watch TV and aren't concerned about getting things done. However, using a computer they usually have are trying to accomplish a task. Any form of advertising that gets in the way will not be tolerated.

Re:TV and Internet are different.

Who is the advertiser to say that they have the right to become full screen, and become the focused application when I may be typing into a word processor or code editor?

It's called arrogance and it is very common in the advertising world.

What the fucking HELL!?

The analogy between television and the 'net is spurious. Here in NZ at least, and most other countries of the world, TV is broadcast free to air. The Government supports it a little, but it's bread-and-butter is paid commercial advertising. Fair enough, I say, it's how they make enough money to stay in existance.

The net, on the other hand, is a totally different kettle of fish. We _already_ pay to use the net. We pay a monthly access fee (in NZ, broadband pays by the Mb, too). We pay for our hosting space, and our domain registration. We pay excess bandwidth use if we have a popular site, or if we want extra mailboxes or services.

Someone explain to me _WHY_ we now have to watch commercials as well??!

Somewhere, an ad exec is clubbing a baby seal

Boss: Bad news gang. It turns out people and blocking and closing our popup ads. They're disabling Flash and Active-X because of our overlay ads. What are we going to do? Drone 1: Stop annoying them with those ads and go back to unobtrusive banners? Boss: You're Fired! Who's got a GOOD idea Drone 2: How about we hijak their entire monitor, makign sure they can't even begin to think about closing our ads? Bross: That's brilliant. Drone 2: Then we can kick them in the balls. Bross: Brilliant! Anything else Drone 2: Well, I have been kicking around this idea involving armies of parachuting advertising monkies... Bross: Great, leave a memo on my desk. I've got a tee time with Gates and Eisner at 2:30.

i will simply opt out.

i've opted out of news sites that require registration.

i've opted out of operating systems that tell me what i can and can't do with my computer.

i've opted out of television unless i can get it without advertising (canceled my cable but the bastards just won't come and shut it off).

i will certainly opt out of any site that requires me to be face-fucked by advertisers before accessing their content.

the truth is, advertising-supported media will always cater to those kinds of people who are susceptible and receptive to advertising: in a word, imbeciles.

i say: kill all the advertisers. content will then come from two sources: individuals and communities who are truly passionate about their subject matter, and those with content that is actually worth paying for. i favor this for web, tv, radio - all of it. i want to just pay for my fucking content and get it free of all the time-wasting, soul-destroying, mind-manipulating, insulting, humiliating shit that drips from the lobotomy scars in advertisers' foreheads.

have i mentioned that i don't like advertising?

Vote With Your Browser

Don't go to any site that uses this technology.

It's coercive to run an ad deliberately intended to evade consumer ad-blocking software.

Show your displeasure - do not go to these sites, send email to these sites telling them so, and send email to the ADVERTISERS telling them so.

Enough people revolt, the companies paying for this crap will stop paying for it - simple business decision.

These people need to be told that the Net is NOT one-way broadcasting.

One Browser for Them All

Both with Motion and the Unicast commercials, "advertisers can reach people during the day, when they typically don't watch television, and continue delivering that brand message in the same creative format," Mr. McDonough said, adding, "It's a wonderful way to surround the consumer."

I am thinking that this BS is not going to go away. Advertising is in trouble (dont know about you, but I rarely see commercials since I got tivo). Television commercials, radio commercials, and print ads are becoming less effective every day - as people move to the internet for their entertaiment/information.

They are losing their captive audience and are going to try as hard as they can to "surround" it again. Anyone think they will really discontinue such ads if people complain?

It seems to me that the only way to prevent circumvention of these ads (without requiring user feedback "enter this code") would be to control which browser they use. IE only sites? Where is your Trusted Computing Certificate? Don't have one? Sorry, you are not "trusted", you can only surf the "unsecure" web.

Release OS X for x86 - Linux Desktop Developers get your heads out of your ass and create something as functional and easy to use as Windows - time is of the essence!

It's reasonably gay, but not really gay.

If you check out the specs sheet of the "Superstitial" full screen ad format here: http://www.unicast.com/formats/htmlspecs_fs.asp?do cument=FullScreenSpecs%5F05277521%2Epdf [unicast.com]. At least the specs are reasonable.

- All ads are essentially Flash movies with set limitations
- max file size 600K
- limit to 15 seconds max
- *MUST include sound off button
- *MUST include a skip commerical link
- if no buttons are visible at any point during the commerical, clicking on the commerical itself will allow the user to "bail" from watching it.
- embedded videos can be no larger than 320x240

And all interactivity and motion/animation is done in flash, most using actionscript. It almost seems like a crime to pass this off as new technology, when it fact it just appears to be flash movies forced to run full screen.

And no I don't agree with what they're doing, and I don't believe that I should have to pay with my own bandwidth to watch someone elses ads, but at least they're giving up the option in these ads to skip them... Which isn't much a silver lining but..???

The most important thing is that when we see these commercials, we should not click on anything but the "skip" button. If we make sure the skip them all, I think our message will be heard loud and clear by advertisers.

The difference between TV and the Internet...

... is that anyone can set up an Internet site, whereas very few people have the ability to set up their own TV station. So let these guys make their sites as annoying as they want, it will only encourage alternative sites to spring up. One day, ESPN will wonder where all their viewers have gone, only to find they have migrated to opensports.net or somesuch.

Adblock for Moziila doesn't have a problem with it

Blocking http://*.unicast.com/* and http://*.enliven.com/* seems to take care of this new annoyance quite handily.

Some constructive MSIE user suggestions

• For those of us using MSIE for one reason or another I can't recommend strongly enough MyIE2 [myie2.com]. A free shell for MSIE it adds another 2MB but in that include features like tabs, mouse gestures, various sorts of filtering including by string and by domain, and yes, trivially enabling & disabling Flash. There are other similar products but IMHO this is the smoothest.

• Next I'm betting the the Google Toolbar [google.com] will be revved pretty quickly to counter this, they'd be fools not to. Indeed I'm betting nearly every pop-up blocker will be jumping on these. FWIW I use Norton Internet Security Pro [symantec.com] and it's ad-filtering is pretty good once one undoes it's favored-partners exceptions.

• Finally there will indeed be a rush to block the offending IP's, unless the advertisers get crafty and start making their adverts appear to come from the content IP's, then it'll be ugly everywhere. Hopefully things won't come to that and over the next few days we'll start seeing handy "filter these" notices.

• And yes, there will be the flood of "Switch to Mozilla", "Use Linux" & "Use MacOS X & Safari" etc. postings. Thanks folks but most of us are well aware of those options and for one reason or another aren't taking advantage of 'em, or are but also using MSWin & MSIE too. Just deal with the fact that there are unenlightened or dissenting or locked-in folks and not be annoying proselytizers please. Oh, and MyIE2 is beta-ing [aab.spin.ee] Mozilla support for those wanting/needing to keep a foot in each camp.

Not the same at all...

"Is this so wrong on the net?"

Yes. It is as wrong as if a TV commercial could prevent me from changing the channel, turning on the radio, or going to the bathroom while it was playing.

A full-screen advertisement as herein described consumes my bandwidth without asking (potentially forcing me to pay more to my ISP), hijacks my entire computer interface (which usually does much more than just web browsing).

I have little problem with net advertising in general, as long as it respects my control of my property. A website that requires you to click-through a page of advertising may be annoying if you are in a hurry, but is completely reasonable and up front. A website that silently loads a high-res movie in the background, then takes over your entire screen when you try to leave, is an abomination.

This is sooo easy to block

Download and install the latest version (1.6) of Mozilla or MozillaFirebird. Turn off pop-ups AND also go to the extensionroom [mozdev.org] and get the Adblock extensions. This will let you block ANY content on a regex. For example, put in *servedby* and wham, no more crap form servedby.XXX.com. If you get one of these commercial ads, just look at the host they come from and put it in your Adblock list and it will be no more.

Just don't use crappy IE and you won't be exploited by this crap.

Some good catch-alls for Adblock

*servedby*
*/ad/*
*/ads/*
*doubleclick.net*

Re:What country are you from?

Its interesting how many people have pointed out that cable TV used to be commercial free. So why are we now paying to receive ads on cable? This [makethemplayfair.com] should give you some insight. Basically everyone in the United States who subscribes to cable or satellite is paying a Disney Tax, mainly due to fees for ESPN. That's right, when you watch ESPN, you are bombarded with commercials, you see onscreen advertising, and on top of it your cable companies are charged out the ass for the rights to carry ESPN. But should they decide to drop ESPN or move it to a premium package, Disney will threaten to pull ALL of their channels from that cable company. This means no Disney, ESPN, ABC, and whatever other channels they own. The cable provider would lose lots of subscribers over this, so they must play along. But why does Disney feel that consumers should be forced to pay to watch ads? Because they clearly are willing to do so. Sports fans who pay almost $100 per game ticket and then $12 for a beer and slice of pizza, and then watch ads all through the game are more than willing to pay whatever they are charged for ESPN. What is unfair is the fact that every cable subscriber must pay whether they watch sports or not. The summary of this post is: Fuck ESPN. Fuck them in the ass with a concrete dildo.

TAANSTAFL

But it ain't already free. They're just being greedy and trying to make more money out of it.

Pretty hypocritical, considering it wouldn't exist without a lot of donated tax-money research and net-hacker time.

Standing in a bathtub?

The New York Times (standing in a bathtub with an electric iron required) reports:

What does that mean, we all know that there is registration required for NYT, and even if you don't you'll find out pretty fast. This whole ripping on the new york times because you have to register is really lame and childish- almost as bad as the FIRST POST thing-- maybe I stand alone on this one, but it makes me not want to read the story after that lame ass joke.

Works for "all consumers"?

This is one situation where I hope it will work only under Windows.

I'm more interested...

... in what my machine will be sending back to them as part of this process. After all, it does have to send something to tell them my browser is open and waiting for their wonderful content. There's got to be some kind of ACK packet or piece of cookie or something, right?

Oh my golly, I certainly hope that these little ACK packets don't get all munged up and get some big ole MP3 or something accidently cat'ed to them. Why, that'd shove a whole bunch of useless junk up their widget while it's waiting patiently to feed me my commercials.

The difference between TV and the net is, we always wanted to tell the TV off, but couldn't. We've been waiting for years for this, and now we can.

Not without my PERMISSION

I have had ENOUGH of visiting sites with Gator pop-ups, etc and now this. While these sites do have the right to generate revenue to sustain themselves, grown and make a profit it is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE that these sites automatically push this type of content to you with your explicit permission. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is an infringement to the security of your PC. One could call this tampering with your PC...especially the adware crap that's out there now (Gator, etc). It is a CRIME or should be! I think what really needs to be done is a filtering intitiative needs to be started just like we have for SPAM. Sites should be filtered based on the content they push to viewers. Then viewers can use these filters with a custom plug-in to their browsers and be warned in advance to opening the page as to what it is pushing to viewers. "WARNING: this site will attempt to push Gator software to your PC" "Do you want to proceed?" "This features full motion commercials" "Do you want to proceed?" Something like mailwasher except for websites instead of email. I have one machine that I use specifically for web browsing (and use Mozilla Firebird) and gaming and one for my business related matters that I do not browse the web with at all. I don't need the headaches from potential problems like this.

Perfectly every time?

"The only format that loads completely before it is allowed to play, the Full Screen Superstitial is guaranteed to play perfectly for every consumer, every time."

I've never heard of this format, but it must simply be awesome if it's universally supported by every browser on every operating system. Heck, I've even had MP3 audio files that wouldn't play, so it must simply be amazing if it's perfect.

I'm using FreeBSD with Konqueror. And no plugins. Will this work for me? Or will I have to do all of the horribly complicated things to get the Flash plugin to work under Linux emulation mode? Maybe it uses Java. Does it use Java? If so, how can it play perfectly if I have Java disabled?

Of course, I know the real answer. They're phrase "every consumer" means only those consumers running Windows, and possibly Mac. So what happens for the rest of us? Will these render these sites unusable, because there's no way to get past the requirement to view the advertisement? I'm thinking of all those sites that are completely and utterly inaccessible without flash.

p.s. No, I'm not going to switch to Windows, Mac or Linux just to see some ads. No site is worth that much. Ditto for switching to anything else.

Make my day?

Now how this company is supposed to get through privoxy, squid and iptables, and start a process on my linux box is beyond me. I can't help but wonder if this stupid scheme is dependent on some "feature" available only in MSIE and/or WinXP.

Nothing will start a mass migration towards an open-source OS/browser as an enraging stunt like this if that's the case. Go ahead and exploit every security hole/feature in Windows, I don't care. Make MSIE/Windows the platform of self-selected victims more than it is now. In the end users will choose between OSX, Linux or BSD, and the internet will be far better for it.

Perhaps I'll stop getting Swen.W32 every single day then. I'm so terribly tired of suffering the effects of users choosing Windows.

Look at the source

Look at the HTML source at:

http://www.unicast.com/gallery/

Check the 'Full Screen Interstitial' example. It isn't Flash, but Windows Media Player. It bails right away if you aren't running IE with the right version of media player. Also requires Javascript.

Not a problem for me. :)

- Necron69

PROXOMITRON

Proxomitron is a local proxy that lets you write powerful scripts the alter your incoming and out-going browser data-stream 'in real time'. Yes, you can intercept Shockwave/flash as easily as any other sort of file, as well as Javascript and .CSS files. You can not only block ads and pop-ups and cookies, you can customize your entire browsing experience! You can also SEND things like spoofed cookies and other codes that let you control your browsing experience. The add-blocker CSS for Mozilla/Firebird is good but but this is an order of magnitude better.

Proxomitron. Get it, learn it, keep up with the cookie snoopers and pop-up pushers.

http://www.proxomitron.info/

Re:The problem I foresee...

I am happy to see targeted banners and text ads - I regularly click slashdot banners or Google AdWords because they relate to the site I am browsing and are actually interesting and sometimes beneficial to me.

I tolerate useless banners that tell me I have won a prize or there is an urgent message waiting because they are just the work of a misguided webmaster trying to pay the bills. I never click these, I don't want their crap and I don't support their cause.

I block popups altogether - anyone who wants to hijack what I'm trying to read rather than become part of the page does not deserve listening to. If they want my help then they should be polite - I don't expect my newspaper to flash an ad for 20 seconds before I can read the story.