Salon Goes For Annoying Jump-Through Ads 464
macsforever2001 writes: "It looks like Salon is going to try to ram ads down our throat in a very offensive manner according to this Yahoo article. Now they won't directly link to articles, but instead link to a Web Ad which then links to the article you want. I think Slashdot needs a new category just for Web Advertising." Not as if web ads weren't already becoming more annoying, but the companies that run Web ads are probably as interested in ads that people don't hate as you are in not seeing the awful ones. What can we tell them?
Soon (Score:2)
Re:Soon (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's the information. We love advertising.
When we don't respond to it, it'll go away.
Or, rather, when we who hate advertising can teach those who respond to advertising not to respond to it, then advertisers will become defunct, like the folks who used to bring big blocks of ice to your house throughout the summer, having carved them out of the local lake all winter...
The ad-man goeth...
Is the content worth the added annoyance? (Score:2)
Sites who adopt this advertising strategy, who have previously been confident in their levels of content quality and associated user loyalty might be in for a shock as their viewership plummets through the floor - or at least I hope users will be able to voice their discontent this way.
--CTH
Re:Is the content worth the added annoyance? (Score:2)
or at least I hope users will be able to voice their discontent this way.
Reminds me of some XML information site that I found once. It had loads of useful information that I really wanted to see, but some of the most annoying pop-ups I had seen.
So, despite wanting to see the content, I found the advertising assault too high a price to pay, and do not frequent the site specifically for that reason.
So, I would say that repeat visitor traffic will be what suffers most. Whether first-time, one-time traffic is enough for their advertisers depends on whether they think such exposure is still to their advantage. This is not necessarily a given, however. Despite cussing at X10 camera pop-ups, I still know they exist as a vendor of such things.
But, does the ill-will their advertising generates counterbalance the value of the basic message that they want to implant, namely
Perhaps notRe:Quit Bitching (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you ask us to read an advertisement, any advertisement, in any form, to help pay for the content, we will of course bitch, whine, moan, and use our considerable expertise to disable, block and/or render useless you advertisement. Disable pop-ups, block banner ads, and then gloat about it.
The New York Times puts its content up on the web. It asks, if you are a not one of their business partners, only that you register, for free, to read their content. Heaven forbid. What a travesty. That would interfere with your natural law, "Constitutional" (snort) right to access all digital content for free. So somebody, in order to GAIN karma, inevitably posts the "partner" or "archive" link to access the newspaper without registration. What a hero for free speech.
If you ask us to pay for digital content, we will bitch, whine, moan, and explain to each clueless retard content provider that, besides wanting to be anthropomorphized, "information wants to be free." That we can easily and economically copy and distribute digital information, that you can't stop us, so fsck you. Then gloat about it.
And when content providers come up with technology, legislation, and/or a combination thereof to try to protect and/or receive compensation for their digital content we... you guessed it... bitch, whine and moan. We also despair over the fact that perhaps we will no longer be able to gloat, that we will no longer be able to be the bullies we claimed to despise (but instead envied and dreamed to digitally emulate) in high school.
In other words, we efficiently demonstrate via the web for all to see, world-wide, that we are selfish, juvenile, immature, pigs.
The loathsome, immature, disgusting selfishness, is demonstrated not only by our desire, and indeed feeling of entitlement, to all digital content for free, but also by many of our responses to the crises of 911. Yesterday, there was a story about a call for hackers to come to the aid of their country, and to help fight terrorism. The majority, and perhaps consensus response? Again, you guessed it, to bitch, whine and moan. "Oh, they demonize us." "They call us names." As others bury their dead (or wish there was enough left of their loved ones that they could be buried), Slashdot users engage in paranoid libertarian fantasies about a "trap." (Just a hint, we aren't worth the effort.) They bitch about the fact that maybe, just maybe, they cannot break into other people's systems with impunity. That maybe, if they do, others will think less of them or, heaven forbid, actually put them in jail for breaking the law. Pathetic.
Are all Slashdot readers like this? Of course not. Some willingly pay for content, register, or put up with ads. Some, in other words, accept the content pursuant to the terms under which it was offered. Other go farther, and actually give and contribute to society. Many, many helped during the crises, and continue to help.
Are the content providers saints who never overreach, never attempt, and indeed succeed, in limiting the right to fair use? Again, of course not. They, too, can be loathsome.
But to bitch about advertisements on Salon which provides good, quality content for free is simply pathetic.
And, on the broader issue, to think you are able to protect yourself and your family from a terror attack on the scale of 911 because you are a libertarian Ayn Rand worshiping owner of a nine millimeter is not only morally pathetic, but also pathetically stupid.
Re:Quit Bitching (Score:4, Interesting)
People want information to be free because, in most cases, they're providing it for free. If that information costs money, they will usually stray from it. As for advertising, specifically... I go to the web for a combination of information and entertainment, usually together on the same sites. I will not visit a content site that is scaling back its content due to money issues and making my visit incredibly annoying (the opposite entertaining) at the same time.
I think a lot of people aren't so much bitching about advertising, as they're bitching about the fact that that advertising will cause them to never return to a site that they liked, namely Salon.
This is good (Score:2, Insightful)
This is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
But will their readership tolerate it? Probably not, as most people are already feeling harassed by popups. I predict this will only hasten their demise.
Harassing customers != good business practice
Re:This is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is bad (Score:2)
This sucks! (Score:2)
As a typical netizen, I hate this. It does not matter if the content is free, if you annoy me too much, I simply will no longer go to your site.
This annoys me to no end. If advertising on the net was not so offensive, there would be no need for ad-blocking software.
The choice is simple though, Salon is free to implement this if they think it is a good idea, and I am perfectly free never to browse their site again...
jump through (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:jump through (Score:2, Informative)
Jump-throughs are trying to force people to look at the ad, but they will only end up getting ignored just like every other form of advertisement on the net. Likely, by Salon getting ignored.
Re:At least you can filter popups (Score:2, Informative)
Popups can be disallowed with some browsers, though I haven't yet seen anything which allows you to filter only window.open (as opposed to all JavaScript) on a site-by-site basis....
Take a look at Konqueror [konqueror.org] 2.2.1. You can globally deny/accept window.open, or specify a pop up box to set the policy for the site on first encounter.
Re:At least you can filter popups (Score:2)
Konqueror [konqueror.org] does exactly that. Disable just window.open(), or disable is for specific sites. You can also enable-disable Java/JavaScript in general on a site-by-site if you like. It also supports accepting cookies only from specified sites. Makes me happy.
When Mozilla does this, I'll be a true GNOME convert. Until such time, it's apt-get install konqueror task-ximian-desktop enlightenment for me.
Welcome convert! Stick this in your .mozilla/*/prefs.js file and say good bye to popup ads on page load/close.
user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);
Now that Mozilla also has tabbed browsing, what are you waiting for (Ctrl-T for those who don't know about this yet in the latest nightly builds). In fact the only criticism is that features get added to Mozilla followed by the UI some weeks later so unless you keep your nose in Bugzilla you miss tricks.
Still it all adds to the excitement.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Been done... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some way or another, content has to be paid for.
Re:Been done... (Score:2)
Hear, hear! It's one thing for a site to just have obnoxious ads, but it's wholly another for that site to have a combination of ads and ad-free subscription. I've taken advantage of this already on a couple of sites that I want to support. E.g. Sluggy Freelance [sluggy.com] (one of my fave webcomics) and The Weather Underground [wunderground.com] both have ad-free subscription services that I've chosen to use.</Shameless Plug>
In fact, this is even better for my personal web usage style than ads, because I virtually NEVER click through, except to occasionlly support a site by clicking through! It's ironic that the 'net is my primary source of pre-purchase information, yet web ads rarely if ever play a part in that process.
It's simple really (Score:3, Funny)
Steven V>
Re:It's simple really (Score:3)
Lynx will only protect you from seeing the ad (provided that it's a picture without an ALT tag), but it won't protect you from the hassle of selecting the link twice.
Tolerable Web Advertising (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, I do not like the outdoors or games. Why show me camping information or video cards? I do like gambling in Vegas -- show me some banners for deals offered by casinos.
Re:Tolerable Web Advertising (Score:2)
Why would I want to register with an ad agency? Why would I give them any information about myself? I hate ads, so why make their job any easier?
Screw them! Let them pay big bucks for the results of the data mining someone else has already done.
Better than some alternatives (Score:3, Interesting)
This bothers me less than popups. They have to do something for revenue. I can live with it.
Re:Better than some alternatives (Score:2)
They gotta pay the bills... (Score:5, Insightful)
Choice is good (Score:5, Insightful)
And the other choice, presumably, is to utter a hearty "fuck you" and never go back to salon.com again?
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Give 'em a Break (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything can't be free. I'd rather have the click-through ads than pop-ups. Actually, I like Salon enough that I bucked up the yearly subscription fee, though it really doesn't offer so much more than the regular Salon.
Deal with the ads, stop bitching or don't be surprised when Salon goes under like so many other Webzines.
There's a way to avoid the ads... (Score:5, Informative)
It's worth it, gets you access to additional features, and you aren't annoyed by ads. As a side benefit, you support one of the best sources of online journalism.
If you only read the occasional article, then don't bother, but don't complain about the ads. If you read all the time, then why haven't you signed up yet?
Re:There's a way to avoid the ads... (Score:5, Insightful)
Salon is one of the last independant journalism sites out there. They have no relationship with AOL/TIME, Viacom, Microsoft, or errr...Anybody that would make them even halfway biased (Aside from the occasional liberal slant). If you want it to survive I highly recommend subscribing. I know lots of you kids are poor college students and whatnot, but I know there are lots of people here that read Salon on a regular basis (cause it gets linked to a lot). Pony up people! It is probably the most worth media cause out there (besides PBS/NPR). Uhh...if there could be such a thing.
You know what I mean.
Pete
There's another way to avoid the ads... (Score:3, Interesting)
Stop reading salon.com.
Paying them to become a premium member to make the annoyances go away is rewarding them for bad behavior.
Don't get me wrong, I liked salon.com's reporting, it was quite good. But when they shifted to being essentially a pay service, that's when I stopped reading them.
There's a distinctive difference between "it's no longer free, but we'll let you sample some of the articles" and "we're going to irritate the heck out of you until you pay up and make us stop." Unlike most sites, they didn't distinguish between which articles required premium access and which didn't (although I just looked and sometime recently they started doing that). They had many irritating editorials basically accusing their readers of being deadbeats. And all along the attitude was increasing belligerent, "start subscribing or we'll make the ads more annoying."
There are other good news web sites, with better advertising/funding models, like economist.com. They'll get my money if they ask nicely. Salon.com started trying to extort it, so I left.
Re:There's another way to avoid the ads... (Score:5, Insightful)
Got ads there. Even have to pay for the privledge to see them. Ok, so you obviouly don't do that.
Newspapers?
See magazines above.
Do you have cable?
Ads there too. Ad free channels (HBO, etc.) cost even more on top of the regular cable fees. Ok, so no cable for you.
Watch regular TV?
Commercials. But it's free. Unless you are one of those people who only watch PBS but never contribuite. In which case you're (not 'you' specifically, anyone who does this) just a cheap bastard.
Salon.com?
(I know, work with me here). Commercials, but it's free and you don't have access to all the content. Or no commercials and access to all the content. Is anyone else seeing the TV analogy here too? Yes? Good.
Bills have to be paid. There are four options for this:
a) Charge for content
b) Ads
d) donations
c) A&B
IANATroll, but I like Salon and you just bashed it. I feel like I need to stick up for it or something. I also think your rational is baseless.
Pete
Re:There's another way to avoid the ads... (Score:2, Insightful)
Pete
Re:There's another way to avoid the ads... (Score:2)
I fail to understand how is a legitimate revenue model bad behavior? And claiming that "they're annoying" doesn't count. Essentially, viewing the ad is the cost of viewing the content. If the price is too high, don't buy it.
okay, but.... (Score:2)
Re:There's another way to avoid the ads... (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrary to your expectations, Salon Magazine is not a God-given right, and the heady days of free shit on the Internet are over. The majority of businesses who followed that model are long gone, and I dont' see how you can blame Salon for being so "belligerent" as to want to be able to sustain their business.
As for "They'll get my money if they ask nicely." -- they've been asking nicely for six months, and apparently it didn't work for you, since you never subscribed. You know what though? I've been meaning to sign up for that whole period, and now I'm going to-- because Salon is awesome, and you've made me realize that it's worth paying money for.
So Jesus Christ, grow up and quit being a goddamn crybaby who wants everything for nothing.
W
Re:There's a way to avoid the ads... (Score:2)
I agree. I also think that this might be the way of the future as far as online content goes -- not popup ads, but subscription.
As web advertising returns in slowly diminish, we just might have to start paying for the really good stuff, just as you pay for cable TV or magazines. I know that if I had to pay for Salon or New York Times, I'd probably do it for less than $50 a year -- and I'll wager that in less than 25 years, we will think nothing unusual of paying for online content.
You can get a lot of salon content for free. (Score:4, Interesting)
However, many of these stories are available for free at the author's main sites (which usually are not salon.com).
For example, there was an article by Arianna Huffinton which was marked "premium" , but it's freely available at her site.
http://www.ariannaonline.com/
Same goes for Horowitz articles.
http://www.frontpagemag.com
I think if salon is going to charge for premium content, they should at least bother to pay for some type of exclusivity. It doesn't make any sense to pay for something that is legally free elsewhere.
Re:There's a way to avoid the ads... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.junkbusters.com
It's free, too.
Simple (Score:2, Informative)
Really though... I think this is just the first step towards full-scale Comercials popping up every 13 min. Yikes, hope M$ doesn't think of that...
Salon has been suffering for a while (Score:3, Insightful)
While I hate to see it go, I think we're going to see Salon go the same way IGN did.
This Isn't New (Score:2)
MSNBC (Score:2)
Unreal... (Score:4, Funny)
Not only are they annoying... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not only are they annoying... (Score:2)
I note with disgust that Excite has also begun using these ads on their portal. Soon people will be disabling Flash just like they disabled pop-ups. Macromedia should really have a word with these advertisers, they're going to kill Flash if they keep this up.
Grovel Time (Score:2, Funny)
Banner ad blocker now article blocker? (Score:2)
Has anyone tried this yet?
Re:Banner ad blocker now article blocker? (Score:2)
Now if someone can figure out how to predictively generate those cookies...
--G
Ad wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there were filters. [junkbusters.com]
Then there were pop up ads, pop-under ads, and ads that pop up when you close the browser.
Then new filters were devised for these as well.
Now we have jumpthrough ads.
What we have is a continuing battle, geek against geek, for control of the eyes of the content-hungry Netizen.
Of course, all arms races are a bad thing. Eventually, this one will lead to more and more intrusive advertising and more and more destructive anti-advertising.
The solution is to de-escalate the arms race.
How do you do that?
Well, stop filtering the ads. Read them and click the ones that you are interested in as compared to the other ads.
Even if you are not interested in any of them, click the least offensive.
This will, eventually, lower the overall offensiveness level of advertising while helping to provide ad revenue to some of your computer-industry brethren out there.
Remember, advertising is a legitimate industry. Let's minimize the amount of social control it has over our lives by treating it as such.
Re:Ad wars (Score:2)
Re:Ad wars (Score:2)
Blame the business plan not the relatively few ad blockers.
The truth behind effective advertising.. (Score:2)
But *Salon*? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, I don't want Salon to go away--*something* has to remeain to make slashdot look like serious journalism.
Then again, maybe I shouldn't be so harsh--I've never heard any other editor admit that they used a single source, knowing of a prior perjury conviction and an axe to grind against the target of the story, and explain it away on the basis "it's ok because republicans are evil." . . .
[yes, I really did see this in an interview on one of the cable news channels after they ran one of their lap-dog pieces trying to refocus attention during the impeachment.]
So they make you read advertising on the way--the content of an ad is less biased and more truthful, anyway . . .
hawk
Re:Ad wars (Score:2)
Nevertheless, I do try to be reasonable with my ad blocking [tripod.com]. I don't block most 2nd party banners [slashdot.org], or ordinary 3rd party gifs on the sites that I use regularly.
Just don't throw 3rd party cookies or javascripts at me and I'll look at what you have to say. If you slow down my page loading to wait for your 17 different web bugs, I'll route the requests to nowhere.
Re:Ad wars (Score:2)
This will probably get modded down for being OT, but might I suggest that you read the book No Logo [nologo.org] by Naomi Klein? It could change your outlook on this "legitimate" industry and all of the kind-hearted saints who run it...
Re:Ad wars (Score:2)
For example, assuming that ad companies pay more for the more annoying ads:
Normal ads = 10000 visitors @ 0.01/view
Annoying ads=10000 visitors @ 0.02/view
Why the heck not? But if the # of visitors suddenly dropped by 7000 with the annoying ads, well, suddenly it doesn't sound like that good an idea. I don't really care about all this BS about how the economy is coming down, or how they "have" to use new ad technologies because of the current market. Bending over backwards and letting them "give it to you straight" so to speak, is not something I personally do.
It's been said before, but I think it would work. "Vote with your feet." Don't visit the site, and send (polite) letters to the highest up people that you can telling them that you are doing just that. A few hundred thousand "I'm sorry, I enjoy your site but I will not visit it anymore if you are going to be embracing this very annoying ad style."
Re:Ad wars (Score:2)
Tell them to stop it (Score:3, Insightful)
Avoiding Ads (Score:3, Interesting)
For me, the most effective ads are those that are entertaining/interesting regardless of the product and/or about something I want more info on... this applies to billboards, televison and the web.
HBO figured something out (Score:2)
I was on a broadband connection, so I have no idea if it would make the page take longer to load, but their web page has so much graphics that it probably would take forever anyway.
The one thing they could have done to cut the annoying factor would be to put a cookie that tells the page not to run it everytime you go 'BACK' to the main page from a sub page.
And it didn't even crash Netscape
They're going the wrong direction (Score:5, Insightful)
What really puzzles me is that these intrustive ads clearly do anger readers, and don't seem to work very well...yet this arms race of distracting ads continues unabated. There is at least one example of really effective web advertising, however, and that's Google's. Heck, they're even considering an IPO. Here's why it works:
- Their ads are entirely textual and unobstrusive, so I don't have to hotwire my brain to tune them out. They're easy to ignore, so I can pay attention to them when I want.
- They are right next to the content I care about (search results), but don't interfere with it by creating a visual distraction or a longer download time for the page. So I don't mind them being there at all.
- Above all, the ads are sometimes for things I actually care about. Google matches ads with searches, and so I actually have some incentive to pay attention to them.
The lesson, I think, is that ads have to be inobstrusive and useful. Why aren't more companies picking up on this?Re:They're going the wrong direction (Score:2, Interesting)
The reason for this fact should be obvious. The only feedback available from an ad is positive feedback: if you click the link, the advertiser knows it. They don't know why you clicked it-- maybe it was for a product you liked, or maybe it was an accident on your part. But the advertiser knows you clicked it, so another tick mark is added to that ad's score column.
If you don't click on the ad... nothing happens. The advertiser has no way of knowing whether you didn't click because you're behind a filtering proxy, or because you were offended by the ad, or because your browser crashed. There's no negative feedback mechanism here at all.
Maybe if web ads were focus-grouped like TV commercials are, advertising companies might have a better idea of how the public at large is reacting to their ads.
On the other hand, if somebody could somehow demonstrate that pop-under (or whatever) ads actually have a measurable negative impact on company revenues, that'd be another story.
Re:They're going the wrong direction (Score:2)
I know that I don't buy anything from any firm or vote for any candidate that has ever spammed or telemarketed me. I'm sure others here do the same. That's negative feedback, although it's small and unorganized.
A community blacklist would provide a way to make that sort of negative feedback more effective.
Perhaps in my spare time... alas, blacklist.com is already taken...
--G
Re:They're going the wrong direction (Score:2)
So who wants to start writing it? Maybe even a little app you just drag an ad link to from your browser...
Re:They're going the wrong direction (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have to click on TV ads. If the ad tells me about 99 cent pizzas down at Bubba's Pizzeria, I might well remember that and may go down there ... tomorrow. And that would be the same on TV, radio, newspaper, or the web. It's called an impression ad. Of course the problem is that there's no simple way to track which ad you saw. The advertiser may have many ad campaigns, notice an increase in customers, but can't tell which one is effective. The web was supposed to provide this. But that only works for ads for which click through is effective. If the ad says "99 cent pizzas at Bubba's" I'll remember that if it's important, but if it says "Click here to find out where to get 99 cent pizzas" I won't, because I'm busy right now. What advertisers thought they could get out of the web (perfect tracking) is not the reality it seems to be. I sure as hell am not going to click on an ad that says "find out what softdrink is better than Pepsi" just to find out the opinion of the Coke marketing department, or visa-versa. Most conventional consumer products aren't the kinds of things you click on, and for those few that are, many people won't anyway.
Click through ads pay premium. Impression-only ads pay far less. Maybe web content providers will just have to end up accepting advertising TV style and deal with impression-only.
Re:They're going the wrong direction (Score:2)
The point of advertising is not to get your business here-and-now but to get the brand name into you brain; it's almost a bonus if you don't notice it.
Google ads are almost exactly what I would consider the perfect ad. They are well-targeted, primarily textual, visually clean, and tend to state exactly what is being advertised and why it is of interest to you. They're small pills, easy to swallow whole into your brain, and they're spare and functional for the few people who actually pay them conscious attention.
--G
Goodbye Salon... (Score:2)
Porn Tactics (Score:3, Informative)
either way - if you read salon that much you probably ought to caough in a few dollars as it is.
-shpoffo
just wait for the bluster to die down (Score:3, Informative)
Added "user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);" to prefs.js.... restart...
Ooo. The web without any onload pop-ups or pop-under adverts. X-10? Who? Surfing actually seems pleasant again.
But my solution for click-thru advertising is simply to get my content elsewhere, and wait for this upsurge in irritating adverts to die down. And it will. Advertising drives money to content providers, but if the adverts drive the readership down, the money stops coming into the advert companies from their clients. There's a point of equilibrium that most print magazines have found, and it's just a matter of time before that balance settles down in the online-content world.
Re:just wait for the bluster to die down (Score:2)
Better yet, check out this prefs toolbar [xulplanet.com]. It rocks! It lets you disable/enable pop-ups and many other things from a nice little toolbar rather than hand editing a file and (more importantly, in my opinion) without having to restart Mozilla any time you want to temporarily enable pop-ups. It does disable all calls window.open() which blocks pop-ups good and bad alike, but this is because it was written before the disable_open_during_load feature that you mentioned was added to Mozilla and it's pretty easy to change it to use the newer disable_open_during_load feature anyway (I actually submitted a patch to do this a few minutes ago). It's nice to be able to temporarily enable pop-ups when you come across a site where they are used for more than just ads.
Letter from the Salon's editor (Score:5, Informative)
About our new ads
A note to readers
Sept. 24, 2001 | Today Salon introduces a new kind of advertisement -- a full-screen message that will show up in your browser when you click on a link, and will play briefly before moving you on to the page you requested. (The ad should only show up once per day per user, unless you have turned "cookies" off in your browser.)
As most of you know, this has been a difficult year for advertising-supported publications, online and off. Like many other companies we've responded by trying to innovate for our advertisers -- so we can remain financially healthy and continue to serve you. As with any innovation, we expect to learn from our experience over time, to keep what works and drop what doesn't.
We know that some Web users find this sort of ad intrusive. But before you send in that irate e-mail, we ask you to consider that the content you come to Salon for -- independent-minded, thought-provoking, unavailable elsewhere -- does not come free.
Today we have two ways to support our writers, editors and the rest of the staff that keeps Salon coming to you every day -- through advertising and through subscriptions. If sitting through one five-second ad before you can read an article is simply too much of a delay for you, we offer a Salon Premium subscription as a different way to support Salon -- you get access to exclusive content and the option to turn off most ads on the site. (For more information, click here [salon.com].)
Our intention, as always, is to bring you the most intelligent, provocative, fearless coverage of news and culture available anywhere.
Scott Rosenberg
Managing editor
Fishing (Score:2)
I realy don't understand how a paper can make money by placing ads next to story, but can't make money doing the same thing on the web.
I have come to the conclusion that media companies are doing there web content wrong, so maybe thats it.
I wish I had the ear of a newspaper exec. because I see several ways to improve the overall revinue of a newspaper company, using the web.
Strategy (Score:2)
Salon has already made it clear that they intend to slowly move content behind the subscription only wall. This is one way to entice people to subscribe... the carrot if you will (though since it was once freely available content, it has a stick aspect as well).
Increasing the amount, variety, and annoyance level of the ads is the true stick in their strategy. If you're not sufficiently motivated by the subscription-only content (of which you get a tantalized 2 paragraph preview if you aren't subscribed), then perhaps you'll be sufficiently annoyed by the advertising that you'll buy the o|4/\/\N3o| subscription.
Given their financial situation and the relatively low revenue that advertising generates nowadays, they really don't even want non-paying viewers. So they slowly advance the border between free and paid content and increase the advertising until they have everyone they can get.
I really like Salon's coverage and there have been several times I'd really liked to have read one of their subscription-only articles, but I'm just not motivated enough to pay. Too short an attention span. I hope one of these days they snag me, because I'd love to see them survive.
-StaticLimit
yahoo does this sometimes (Score:2)
Not that big a deal (Score:2)
This is offensive (Score:2)
It's about time these web people tried to actually make money. Annoying, yes--and necessary.
I *like* them (Score:2)
- The ad can be more informative (and thus perhaps even a useful source of info if I'm interested) since it has more real-estate to work with.
- The Ad goes away.
- The ads Doesn't distract me, get in the way, or otherwise take up valuable interface real-estate while I'm reading the actual article.
- Similarly, the ad doesn't take up ink, paper, and printing time when I print a page out.
- If I don't want to waste time looking at it, I can switch to another window for a while. Ignoring that damn flashing dwarf in the ThinkGeek ad on slashdot is next to impossible.
Drawbacks:risking readership (Score:2)
Entertainment vs Information (Score:4, Insightful)
Intrusive ads in TV is acceptable because we are just sitting there like bumps on a log and it give us a break to go do something. We know the commercials are going to last a couple minutes and we expect it. Digging deeper we all understand that those commericals paid for the content.
Web surfing is entirely different. We are interacting with the computer to find information. Basically we are in control and are most likely actively searching, or discussing and not just trying to be passively entertained. We want to find our information, or post our comment and be done with it.
Advertisers are having a tough time on coming up with a creative way to advertise on the net since their previous method (banners) had limited success, they are falling back on what they know. But what they know is a method designed for a passive medium and not an interactive one.
The one thing they have going for them, is that like TV, web advertising for the most part is targetted at groups and not so much individuals. Slashdot is going to run tech related ads. TechTV (the TV channel) is going to run tech related commericals. Generally, the specific group you are looking for will see your ad. They need to expand on that without taking it to the extreme.
One option: large ads that are not intrusive. I wouldn't mind if an ad takes the top portion of my screen. I do mind if though some fancy javascript, it follows me as I scroll, or randomly appears or is in a fixed frame. Just give me the ability to decide whether or not your products are right for me and let me continue on with the content. If you're watching TV and you don't want to see the commercial, you see what else is on or you go to the fridge or bathroom. Basically you can decide what's relevant. Advertisers are trying to take the position that they know what's relevant and you just need to spend as much time as possible looking at their ad and eventually you will buy.
With the economy the way it is, consumers are being smarter, and web-users are getting smarter about the products they purchase. I guess I'd say that the advertising isn't failing, it's the products being offered.
Jumpthroughs are annoying, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Rant mode off for a second, I think jumpthroughs are actually good in that it gives a solid measurement of who's looking at an ad. You can use jumpthrough instead of click-thru metrics to set ad rates, much like in TV or radio or print. I would rather see online advertising go that route rather than getting more annoying in the hopes of a clickthru that won't happen (like those darn flash anims).
Workaround (Score:2, Offtopic)
Perhaps someone could make an add-on like junkbuster that would modify any URL at a given domain via a rule (s/.*salon\.com/$1?x/) or somesuch?
what I dont understand is... (Score:2, Informative)
entertainment time to advertising time... and even the commercials are entertaining sometimes...
but for a web page you spend more time closing/avoiding ads than you do on actual content... I am at a HIGH volume destination (18 web servers, each producing around 1 gig worth of log files a day) average time spent here is 6-7 minutes...
I have yet to see many banner ads/pop up ads that were remotly interesting or entertaining..
Make the ads infomative (Score:3, Insightful)
Even for less well targeted readerships, look at newspaper ads for ideas of things that work. Announce a sale for your online store, mention a new product, or give people some other reason to follow the link! Make pretty, flashy ads, and people will tune them out. Make informative, intriguing ads, and people will follow.
Also, one more suggestion: make an advertiser index, like magazines do. Sometimes an ad will look appealing, but you don't have time to follow up on it just then. Later on, you can't find the ad again, so the site doesn't get the hit it deserves.
not a bad idea, but... (Score:2)
Now even less likely to sell anything online... (Score:2)
If a company doesn't value me as anything but a mindless consumer, I'm not going to buy anything from them. If I wanted to be forced to watch ads, I'd watch live television.
Skip them! (Score:2, Interesting)
Pity; Salon did have some good stuff on occasion.
Open in background (Score:2)
Trickster Coyote
Get over it! (Score:2)
Why don't you stop whining like a little girl and thank them? These people are busting their butts trying make the business model of ad supported content work so you can read the stuff for free! If you don't like it, send them money!
Commercial internet sites cannot make money with nonintrusive advertising. This is why thousands of web sites are disappearing every month, and eventually there won't be any free content sites left that are not provided by the people trying to sell you more of the same content. It will hit everyone, even sites like Slashdot.
It's easy (Score:2)
Filtering proxies (Score:2)
FilterProxy [wisc.edu]
--Bob
Put your money where your mouth is. (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Buy a subcription to their premium service. You won't have to click through the annoying ads.
2) Don't buy a subscription, but continue to feel that you have a right to read the news stories that they provide. Spend 0.5 seconds a day clicking through an ad which I'm sure they're able to charge more money for.
I guess there is a third option, and that is to do neither of the above, and then moan that quality internet journalism has disappeared once they and many other online magazines go bankrupt in a year or two. I really hate invasive pop-up ads, but they do need to make money. If you value the service they provide, quit whining and click through the bloody ad, or subcribe! If you DON'T value the service they provide, well then, don't visit the site anymore. If I sit down to watch the evening news on TV, I have to put up with 5 minutes of ads for every half hour of actual programming. I don't have a problem clicking through an ad for a second if it will allow me to read quality news stories online.
Adcritic has a new kind of ad system... (Score:2, Informative)
- [grunby]
The good old banner (Score:2, Funny)
Anyway, I am prepared to pay for services, at reasonable prices. One of the ways to pay is by viewing (and possibly clicking) on ads online. I say that is a fair price as long as the ads are not thrown in my face.
I have full understanding that it costs money to be online - and I am prepared to support good content online.
Furthermore, I think that if advertisers hadn't done what they have done, which is going to stupid extents to try and draw our attention, they would still be able to live on advertising.
I mean, if an ad interests me, I actually click on it. Such as those that appear here on slashdot for instance - they get my interest now and then. A popup ad however... it gets killed before it can show me anything. Not to mention those that popup 5 and try to set themselves as my start page and so on...
And no. I will not get any filters or similar. For the first thing, I should not need it. For the second, see above: I actually support online advertisments that are targetted, discreet and "good" (whatever that means).
If ads is a way to pay for, and encourage good online content, by all means bring them on. But keep to banners. Those that are interested WILL click on your ad!!! Those that are not will not because you give them 200 popups.
Thank you.
You've got to pay the piper sometime (Score:3, Insightful)
What's most important about this is only obvious if you're a regular Salon reader - it's overall the best news site on the Web. Especially for politics and consumer/corporate issues, Salon is simply indispensable. I paid for a "subscription" the day it was offered, and I'd pay again, and pay more, for the kind of kickass independent journalism only a site like Salon can provide.
Ads? I don't see them with the "premium" service, but who cares? I don't understand why
There's other places to get news - but they don't make money! There is no Internet-only news site that makes money - period. Salon is a very high-profile experiment that will, one way or the other, guide many decisions made by corporate managers about whether online is a viable market.
News organizations pay a LOT of attention to Salon and how it's doing, because they know it's a bellwether. Take it from a media professional - if Salon goes down you will feel the repercussions. Even the most insular geek sitting in the dark will feel the absence of useful journalism on the Web. And it will be because you, the Slashdot reader, didn't care enough to make it happen.
Pay! It's only thirty bucks, you know you can spare it. You'll be doing yourself more of a favor than you know. And if you can't be bothered to shell it out or deal with ONE ad a day for a few seconds, fuck you - no free lunch for you, asshole. Thanks for ruining it for everyone else.
Don't want the ads? Use Proxomitron! (Score:2, Informative)
But it's not television! (Score:2)
Had to break it to you, but this is the net, not television! Why are you trying to shoe-horn advertising methods invented 30+ years ago into the new technology of today? Why try to continue on with the same old shit of "barrage the customers with flashing graphics and maybe they'll buy something." Actually, the stupidity is multi-tiered. The Companies using the advertising agency are convinced that if enough people see their ads they'll get more sales (sadly the argument is that this is true) and the advertising company wants to do everything it can to stick the ad in front of your face so it can tell the companies that they are advertising for that they got X click throughs or Y impressions.
Last time I clicked on a banner ad it was an accident, even on sites that I like. Even the thinkgeek ad above offends me, and I will type 'thinkgeek.com' in the url bar instead of clicking on it. It's not that I don't like
If companies would come out of the fucking stone age they (like the RIAA) would realize that the technology is there to do some amazing things that, wow bring their services to the people who want them, and make peoples lives easier, instead of just annoying them.
How will this effect search engines? (Score:2, Interesting)
You gets what you pays for. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about you, but I value my time enough to see that it is worth paying for some things.
You need a time machine. (Score:2, Funny)
I recall in the late eighties the sheer outrage directed at someone who had the audacity to post a *gasp* commercial message in a newsgroup.
O Tempora! O Mores!
Re:Add on boot up (Score:2, Funny)
My Windows boot up screen has a an ad for "Microsoft Windows". The really annoying thing is that it makes me view it for like 2 minutes before it lets me log in!