I got this in my email today. It\'s about how banner ads are taking over the internet and how they are making the internet a less enjoyable place. It is pretty interesting. So if you have 10 minutes to spare, here it is:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I was asked to address the Southeastern Louisiana
University Association of Computer Machinists this past
Thursday night. I had to say yes simply because the
name sounded so important.
This was a group of about 40 computer science students
who were hard-core PERL, JAVA, and C++
programmers. They were the cream of the programming
crop at my university. The two students who invited me
asked if I would discuss design rather than actual
programming. The group does enough of that on their
own. That seemed to make sense so I prepared an hour on
Web design.
We had a great time talking and critiquing Web sites.
Towards the end, one of the programmers told me that he
was "disgusted" with the number of banner ads on Web
pages. He proclaimed to always surf with his inline
images and JavaScript functions turned off. That way he
isn\'t bothered by all of the ads. His voice rang with the
sound of someone who has stuck a blow against the
establishment.
We talked and I made my usual "what if everyone surfed
without looking at the banner ads - the Web would be a
pay-for place" speech. He somewhat agreed and then
proclaimed, "It just bugs me that so many sites are not
only putting ads on their pages, but now have pop up
windows and applet windows and windows when you
leave. Why do they do that?"
Before I could answer, another student blurted out,
"Because you ain\'t looking, man."
Poor English aside, he\'s wholly and fully correct. We
ain\'t looking.
Oh sure, we may be looking, but we sure aren\'t clicking.
Because we\'re not clicking, advertisers are starting to
incorporate tactics that were once seen as nasty methods
used only by porn and SPAM sites.
Just this morning, I was surfing around looking for some
information about the new Aerosmith CD. At
Aerosmith.com, I was greeted with not only a pop up
window, but also an applet pop up window that forced its
way to the top of the browser pile. It had a timer
proclaiming I had only 30 seconds to act upon this
stunning deal for a free pizza.
After finding out about the CD, I split for Amazon.com to
see if I could pre-order. Bingo. There was another pop-
up window. I went to CNN. There was a pop-up
window. I left and hit Camp Chaos. There was another
pop-up window. I then left to hit Tabcrawler.com to get
the guitar chords for that Foo Fighters song at the
beginning of the TV show ED. There I was greeted with
not only a pop-up window, but also the request to set
Tabcrawler as my HOME. I had to click "no" twice to
see this page. Furthermore, every time I returned to the
homepage, I got that darn window again.
Woah! My morning surf has become annoying. I am not
only being shown banner ads, I am having them thrown
in front of my face. This would be equal to the woman at
the cosmetic counter tackling you to squirt the latest
perfume in your face.
In all honesty, I cannot remember the last time I clicked
on a banner ad. I know the sites I enter so well that I
have a serious case of banner blindness. I am part of the
reason why these pop-up windows are starting to flourish.
I am the person that must have the ads thrust in front of
my face. If it doesn\'t happen, I don\'t look. I can\'t tell
you the banner ads that appeared on the homepages, but I
can tell you the banner ads that popped up. Those I will
remember.
But so what? I remember the ad, but I certainly didn\'t
click. In fact, I cursed the ad and closed it as fast as I
could. My guess is that the vast majority of the people
reading this newsletter are doing the same.
It bothers me that advertisers are undertaking the tactics
once thought to be performed only by shysters and
cheats. It bothers me further that we\'re only seeing the
tip of the advertiser revolution that\'s about to hit.
It\'s obvious that a simple viewing of banners ads is not
enough for many advertisers any more. Those advertisers
are stepping up the method of presentation attempting to
force you to look. But, if looking wasn\'t enough before,
how will looking be enough now?
Some might suggest that simply looking is still enough to
satisfy an advertiser. The problem is that there\'s no sure
method of proving that someone looked at a banner ad
that is sitting on a page. If the ad pops up in a new
window, an advertiser can be fairly sure that the user
looked at it.
Well, maybe. The proliferation of pop-up ads and other
in-your-face tactics suggests to me that advertisers are
becoming aggressive because they want more than just
eyeballs on ads. They want increased traffic and sales
and these new tactics are giving that to them.
So...success, right? I don\'t know. If the aggressive
formats are truly successful, then more and more
advertisers are going to demand it from the sites that
display the ads. The Web will become a blur of new
windows and soon the audience will reach what\'s known
as the "threshold effect". Everyone is doing the same
aggressive tactic so no one stands out. Someone will
have to raise the stakes and do something even more
aggressive.
I understand that many programs now alter a user\'s
browser when installed. I\'ve not run into one myself, but
I\'ve read that many programs install, change the user\'s
HOME setting and disable the BACK button. (Source: Cnet News)
That\'s overly aggressive and it\'s not going to sit well
with the consumer.
This is a battle that\'s just beginning. I can see this being
the big Internet story in a couple of years. Dig this time
line...
Users, for the most part, do not like banner ads. Users do
not click on banner ads in large enough numbers so that
advertisers are satisfied. Advertisers become more and
more aggressive, forcing users to look at the ads. Users
still resist. The advertisers continue to become more and
more aggressive until a critical mass is reached. There
really isn\'t much more aggression to be implemented.
What then?
I fear that advertisers will start to see banner ads as not
effective and start to put their ad money in more
traditional media. That means lower ad revenue for the
sites that would run supported solely by advertisers. The
costs for running the sites won\'t go away anytime soon, so
the money has to come from somewhere. The users are
going to have to be charged or the site will die.
I read a great article about what sites will be the most
likely to succeed in the future. The overwhelming
answer, at least according to this author, were sites that
sell product. He believed that ad-supported sites would
have serious worries soon.
Could we be seeing the beginnings of that prophecy
coming true? Is this new found advertiser aggression
suggesting advertisers want more than page views for
their money?
If so, will the problem simply escalate until users resist
advertising to the point where advertisers don\'t see it
being worth their time and money anymore?
I hope not. I would like to keep HTML Goodies free to
you, but it isn\'t free to me. If your surfing is becoming
more and more annoying as more and more windows pop
up, think not only about how much you dislike those ads,
but also why those ads are being thrown up so often.
It might be a foreshadowing of a real problem in the
future of the Internet
--Joe Burns, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you guys think? How are banner ads going to affect the internet? What will the internet be like in a couple years? Also, do you have any ideas of how to solve this problem?
