Ad Blindness Rules: Even Fewer People Clicking Ads
from the bye-bye dept
We've been discussing why online advertising is often a bad idea for advertisers (not so much for many publishers, but that's a different issue), as ad blindness rules the day. Now there's even more evidence, as the already tiny clickthrough rate on online ads is dropping, rapidly. Basically, it sounds like more and more people are simply ignoring online ads, which is to be expected, since they rarely (if ever?) add much of value. This is the advertisers' fault. There are lots of ways that advertisers could actually add value for consumers/readers/users online -- but they're all so scared to death of actually taking that step. Instead, many are so focused on obsolete metrics like the CPM, that they're unable or unwilling to really branch out and try marketing and advertising programs that actually are effective. Simply tossing up more ad banners isn't doing the trick. Really engaging with users would help, but most brands still haven't figured out quite how to do that, even if it isn't particularly complex.
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
Filed Under: ad blindness, ads, clicks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But you have...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as brands not figuring out how to use internet ads/banners effectively, that's true, but at the same time you have to give them a little credit. You have to be really creative to come up with engaging content for such a small area of on-screen real estate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Umm, they seem to be making enough from them that they aren't aren't exactly getting rid of them, are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you should consider doing the same before starting hurl personal insults at people because nothing you said contradicts anything in the post you replied to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, have I got a deal for you! I'll give you $1 per month for the next 10 years to wear my advertising. The ad will be in the form of a tattoo, on your forehead. Now, I'll pay for the tattoo so the cost will be zero to you. Heck, I'll even send the tattooist to your home so you don't have to go anywhere! The ad will give you "very little money at zero cost", so you will "have no reason to remove it". Surely you wouldn't refuse "a revenue stream because it is less profitable". Ready to get started?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure it is.
In your deal the cost is in the public embarrassment of having the tattoo on my forehead.
No, that's your "feelings".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really. Where did you study economics anyway, The University of Boo-Hoo?
Tell ya what, the next someone hurts your feelings at work (that is, if you work), try claiming the "loss" as an expense your tax return. I think the IRS will probably explain the difference to you much better than I ever could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, there are plenty of high quality websites that have been operating for years, charge no admission, and run no ads. They are either making money elsewhere or don't care about making money. Either way, the content is still getting produced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [TDR]
Also, as far as ad blockers go, I don't have any hard numbers (or any numbers whatsoever), but I doubt a high percentage of people use them. Furthermore, I decided that, though I ignore 99.99% of all ads, eventually there is one that catches my eye that I actually click on.
Either way, I don't see it being a big deal. Ads aren't all that profitable anyway. The best way to make money is to actually charge for something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: [TDR]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact is, the ads usually aren't particularly good or useful. Worse, since they make use of words that show up in the text of the sites and are chosen by software, they often end up advertising something to which the content of the site itself is being critical. In any case, they're seen as intrusive/nuisances more often than as something helpful, and they require a lot of creepy activity tracking for targeted delivery. Even if those things worked/were welcome by readers, there'd still have to be a product or service of value being sold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Additionally, click through rates (CTR) are not the best indication of growth or lack thereof. It's conversion rates, revenues, etc that really matter.
Google's search ads CTR is declining, but their ROI is soaring. I seriously doubt you'd say that Google is in trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Passive advertisements
So why is it that advertisers expect web viewers to break out of their standing agreement, and "click" on their ad? Interactive, or engaging it doesn't matter. Even if I'm totally fascinated by their special ad, if I'm in a hurry, I'm not going to click on it.
If you make it memorable, I'll remember it. But I won't click on it. {sigh}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean, like T-shirts? Or lunch dates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising Pricing Models
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advertising Pricing Models
The site's goal is to aggregate eyeballs. The advertisers site is to make the most sales for the least clicks.
It's why you see ads on google that might specifically list the price points in the ad. They only want people who are paying to click.
It sort of defeats the purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AD Blockers
- Disabling Adobe Flash will cut down alot of ads at the expense of some site features not working.
- moving the screen so that I can see when the video ad ends but not the ad itself so I can pull the screen back to viewable for the content I was looking for
Ads suck, plain and simple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like ads
Ads these days are a bunch of wasted money by stupid advertisers thinking their investment is seeing a return. But, sometimes ads stop the premium payments of sites. So I like that.
Unfortunately I have NoScript and ABP and never see any ads, ever. But both of those operate via domain blacklisting, and if advertisers got their acts together and dropped out cookies and privacy invasion from advertisements and just make their ads:
1. A clean, gimmick-less ad
2. Seriously, a shenanigans free ad
3. An ad that actually describes an actual product accurately
4. Includes a link to that product, a clean link, without 30 forwarding sites each with their own privacy invasions and tracking cookies
If they can do all that, I honestly don't give a fuck if every ad I see from now on is for Vagisil or training wheels on bikes, I would definitely whitelist any advertisement domain that cut the bull shit and gladly view and maybe even click their worthless ads just for shits and giggles and to fuck with their heads and make them think their money isn't wasted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Trick
No, what you need to do is to figure out how to get those ads more up in people's faces. That way they have have to pay attention to them. JavaScript and other active content ads that block the content until you interact with them are also useful, especially if you make the content unavailable to browsers with script blocking. Lots of bright flashing animated graphics helps to get attention too. Finally, you need to find ways around ad blockers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Real Trick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Real Trick
Those lame leeches weren't going to buy anything anyway. Legitimate readers realize that ads are an important and valuable part of the online experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cut the gimmicks
I will absolutely NOT watch an ad that instantly starts video (sans audio) and asks me to click it to get the sound.
Nor will I patronize any brand that uses the ads that expand if you happen to mouse over them and then you have click "close" to get them to go away.
I will never buy anything from someone that uses a floating window above the content I wanted to read and makes me click "close."
I won't use any service (Netflix or otherwise) that manages to open an ad window behind my browser window, especially if they did it by going around my popup blocker.
Advertisers need to be content with us just SEEING their ads. Quit trying to force us to watch videos or have to close windows/floaters/etc. to get to our content. Frankly, it puts me off of a site if I know they use that sort of advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I use noscript + adblockplus and rip addons for firefox and improved my browsing a lot on last couple years.
I wouldnt mind a few ads on webs, i even liked it if they were somehow usefull, but mostly are stupid sh!t about ringtones, msn smiles and other crap full of spyware ... fck it ...
I even dont install flash on firefox because it avoids me much crap ... when i want to see any flash related stuff i go to a session of IE.
Once again blame theirselves ...
Even with then unblocked when i use other pcs than mines, i just ignore the ads ... so they are not loosing much with me ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Online ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ad blindness answer
Good luck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]