Commercials Come To The Net (After This Word) 1046
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 ...
umm yeah.. no (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm... *Any* User? (Score:5, Interesting)
and now... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
riiiight... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Expensive (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
What the hell. (Score:3, Interesting)
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]
Lynx (Score:2, Interesting)
So they're saying these ads will work with lynx/links (or whatever your favourite TUI browser is), if so what do I get for this guarantee? :)
I predict.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Right!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Before you complain... (Score:3, Interesting)
They won't have any visitors.
I don't even go to ESPN anymore. Ever since they started all that full motion video crap, the site has gotten worse and worse. I've avoided gamespot and gamespy for the same reasons; too much annoying crap to dig through.
I predict that not far in the future, you'll 'pay' to see only the half-annoying ads that already circulate every content page on earth, just like cable once offered free content for pay and now has ads just like every other public TV station.
I'm already switching from AIM to Trillian, as they started putting sound into their already annoying new ads. Which frankly is stupid, since no other messaging program does this.
Pretty soon the world will be like Stephenson's Diamond Age, people's eyes will have to filter through all the crap because ad campaigns will implant chips into babies when they're born so their ears hear the dr pepper song while they're sleeping.
Of course that's BS, but you get the point. Where will it stop? Already ball clubs have logos pasted on, pretty soon you'll see them looking like Nascar drivers.
i will simply opt out. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:umm yeah.. no (Score:3, Interesting)
Vote With Your Browser (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Don't forget download limits (Score:2, Interesting)
Regards,
Steve
P.S.I'm sure in a week Moz's nightly build and/or a Moz plug-in will have some feature blocking these.
One Browser for Them All (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
The image this puts in my head, (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
I think that initially many had a reasonable expectation of the net. It was a print media. You put ads on the page, and, like a newspaper or magazine, consumers would look at the ones they wanted. The nice thing about the net was that ads could be more directed, but frankly, weren't ads already pretty well directed? I mean magazines have already pretty much mastered the art of delivering a demographic to an advertiser.
I think the place where everyone messed up was ignoring the branding effect, and expecting excessive numbers of immediate responses. Many print and TV ads are not made so the consumer will make an immediate purchase, and those that are tend to be slimy products that a self respecting retail outlet would not touch.
Yet magazines survive. Companies pay massive amounts of money for slick pull out ads that most will just rip out and trash without even a single look. The ads layout of magazines themselves, with 20 pages of ads hiding a table of contents, makes me want to not buy the magazine. I suppose if we take the rational view that the editorial content of the magazine is irrelevant, then the fact that the table of contents is less important that the ads is a defensible maneuver. The ad formats of the web will be the same. The sites that use the most aggressive advertising will be those whose editorial content is meaningless and main purpose is delivering the impressions.
Anyway, some people will enjoy downloading these commercials. I won't because they tend to crash my browser. I learned this from The Onion and no longer go to that site. Also, if the ads are as badly designed as those on /., these companies are going to miss important branding opportunities for those that do not play the full ad.
Re:Wrong perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Wrong perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Expensive (Score:1, Interesting)
A careful reading of the article suggests something much worse. If its not finished by the time you leave the site it carries on downloading and pops up later. So even if you press the back button or move on you get hit. I'm not in the habit of closing my browser every time I leave a site.
Luckily I don't use IE, I guarantee they'll manage to keep a hidden copy running even if you quit the browser. Crl-Alt-Del on IE is unlikely to have good effects.
Standing in a bathtub? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Wrong perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm more interested... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Wrong perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wrong perspective (Score:2, Interesting)
Having said that
Re:Why not e-mail the companies and complain? (Score:4, Interesting)
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. ;-)
Not without my PERMISSION (Score:3, Interesting)
Perfectly every time? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
This is just the start (Score:2, Interesting)
Note that he's not talking about the audience for these ads - he's talking about the advertisers. Once they get comfortable with 300K, they'll start pushing 500, and then 750, and then say hello to megabyte ads.
Re:Standing in a bathtub? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Expensive (Score:3, Interesting)
If I'm going to see the ads anyway, I'm not sure I also want to pay.
WEBRING (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry.