Ad Blockers Working To Get Rid Of Annoying Flash Ads
from the back-and-forth,-back-and-forth... dept
Most people know that lazy (bad) marketers are never going to realize that forcing annoying ads on people is not the proper way to build a sustainable business, but is it too much to hope that some will realize there's a better way? These days they just seem to move from one bad idea to another. As more and more people have started using pop-up blockers, advertisers are increasingly switching to "rich media" ads, usually using Flash technology, that takes over the browser to display some ad, rather than what the surfer is looking for. That is, instead of realizing that people don't want to see their ads, and maybe such intrusive and annoying solutions are a bad idea - they just find new intrusive and annoying methods that get around the blockers. As we were just discussing, this pisses people off, because it screws up the reason they're online. Pissing off your potential customers doesn't seem like a good long term strategy. Already, the various ad blockers are working to block out these rich media ads as well, and we can be pretty sure that these same lazy marketers will put what little effort they have into coming up with another annoying and intrusive ad campaign - rather than figuring out how to deliver something people want.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fire Fox
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who needs flash anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
When someone visits my website, there is an agreement between the surfer and me, the webmaster. I, the webmaster, agree to provide my visitors with content, free of charge. In exchange, they agree to view my ads which pay for the content they are viewing. If someone doesn't want to view the ads on my site, the deal is that they should leave, not STEAL from me by breaking this agreement, blocking my ads, and stealing my bandwidth. If I choose to run popups on my site (which I don't because I know it annoys visitors, but some sites don't have much of a choice) then visitors either agree to put up with them or leave.
Unfortunately, most web surfers who are using popup blockers do not understand the above, nor do they realize that by using popup blockers (and especially blockers that block banner ads, Adsense ads, etc) that they are helping to KILL some of their favorite sites.
Please don't tell me that sites need to be more "creative". Some sites just throw popups at their users because they are A) Ignorant or B) Greedy. But the majority of them know that they are scaring off some of their visitors, and why would they want to do that? Because they don't have much choice. In any case, if you don't like the advertising offered by a website, the proper response is to not visit that site anymore, not just block whatever ads you happen to not like, and continue to use the resources those sites are paying for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
How in the world is that possibly "stealing"?
And, how in the world can you say that these sites "don't have a choice"? There are plenty of sites that figure out creative ways around it. Just because you don't want to be creative, we have have to suffer? I don't get it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
Isn't it funny how much technology goes into "advertising" and into the technology to remove it... makes you think that people really don't like commercials of any sorts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
This is the "agreement" that I am talking about. If it costs someone $x to run their site, and they cannot pay for it because people are blocking all their ads, well then, they're not going to be around much longer.
"Just because you don't want to be creative, we have have to suffer?"
Nope, you don't have to suffer. That's why you're not forced to visit websites you don't like. If you don't like the ads a website is running, don't visit it. Just because you don't like a particular website's model to generate revenue, doesn't give you the right to circumvent their methods and take their content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
Basically he called viewers thieves because they don't watch commercials.
Basically, nothing gives you the right to tell me what or how to run my system...basically, you find ways to make money...which is fine...
But if I decide I don't want popups, well that's MY right too, even if I view your site. If I don't see or click the popup, its not because *I* am cheating *YOU* its because *YOU* couldn't find a better way to earn revenue.
If you REALLY don't want to give away your information/service, then charge upfront for it. If its good, you'll get your revenue...or find ways to make advertising part of the experience
(For example, I've always loved kuro5hin's take on it..and the google textads)
Ads (banners, popups and otherwise) are the annoying commercial breaks of the web, and I'm entitled to go take a piss when they come on..get me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
And so the challenge for the web is to make advertising as interesting and relevant and fascinating. Make ads that I WANT to look at -- which definitely means not forcing popups or Flash on me when I'm looking for something else, because that makes me NOT want to look.
What would make me want to look? On-topic or relevant ads... Smartly done ads that don't interfere with my browsing -- hey, I'm "browsing" after all, I often do take the time to look at ads so long as they don't piss me off first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sorry Maam.
Sorry Maam. I do not agree with this. Please post the list of 'your sites' so I can avoid them as I do not agree with your 'secret contract'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Contract
Maybe your first page should be this so-called contract where a viewer has to "sign" an agreement to view your website...
Or, maybe you've already surmised that you would receive few to no visitors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
If you want to require your users to view your content and ads in a certain way, then you are welcome to serve such content using a protocol that will enforce that. (And surfers are free to avoid your site if they don't like it.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
Nope, you're not the only one. Before the previews of The Passion, they had an excellent American Express card commercial that featured Tiger Woods as the Bill Murray character in Caddyshack. Normally I hate commercials in the movie theatre, but this was so well done that I actually found myself not minding.
MLO
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Stealing" content
You think your content is worth something, then setup a paypal gateway and make people pay for it - or make them sign an agreement to view the pop-ups. They won't do it, the yes, that means it's not worth nearly as much as *you* think it is. Free market, baby.
Sure, 5, 6 years ago, it was pretty hard to make money on a website. But now, if you can't come up with better advertising with all the means out there today, you don't deserve to be in business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My contract with YOU
As I charge $45.00 per hour for this "service," which you are "reselling" to your "advertisers" for a profit, you owe me $90.00, since my minimum charge is for two hours (got this idea from my lawyer).
Oh, wait, you didn't KNOW ABOUT OUR CONTRACT. Well that's no excuse. It should be obvious to you that my time is worth something. After all, reading your website advertising cuts into my other profit-earning time.
So, either cut me a check, or consider yourself the thief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ads Begone!
And then one day recently it hit me! I have a HOSTS file on my PC--I can locally change what my PC "thinks" that ads.x10.co.uk actually is (to name an annoying ad provider). If I make an entry in my HOSTS file I can tell my PC that ads.x10.co.uk really is my computer instead. And I'm certainly not going to have that particular advertisement content, right?
I'd suggest that people forget about third-party add-ons and other expensive solutions. Simply figure out where your HOSTS file is on your PC and add one line per site that offends you, for example:
"127.0.0.1 ads.x10.co.uk"
And for those out there who make advertisements: If you think that an advertisement is effective by being annoying or graphically-intensive, think again. Bandwidth is money and in this case, it's my money that you are wasting.
Imagine being charged by billboards that try to behave like toll gates, taking money from your wallet as you attempt to drive by and without your permission as they do so? Now imagine that these billboards hide behind buildings so that you can't see where they're hiding? Would we put up with this kind of behavior on the highway? This is the way the Internet behaves right now. The only reason it's like this is because we've grown complacent and put up with this kind of behavior. Take matters into your own hands. It's your money. Why let them take it from you without a fight?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fire Fox
[ link to this | view in thread ]