Page Will Not Be Displayed
Fast forwarding though ads on recorded shows, changing stations or flipping channels when watching TV, turning the page in a magazine without a second thought, showing up 10 minutes late to avoid the ads at the theatre - it's all one simple motion that's very comparable to clicking once to close a pop-up ad. I still fail to see how the pop-ups are any more annoying.
The difference is that all of the former are dumb techologies without a method for the end user to control the blocking of ads. The logical extention to the internet is advertising embedded in the content.
For a site like mine (coasterimage) that translates to say - a 15 second spot running at the beginning of every video or a small ad graphic located in the corner of each picture that's actually part of the photo jpeg file itself. You can't see the content without the ad because the ad has become part of the content. If end users continue to defeat the ads, they'll just become more and more intrusive. As they have in other forms of media (Nate's product placment example is perfect)
When you put down $8+ for a film, the theater may see $1 or $2, but that's it.
If you want a clean, comfortable theater with big screens, state of the art projection and sound, it's gotta come from somewhere. Where? Coke and Scion Ads, plus $4 sodas and $5 popcorn.
More proof that NOTHING is free.
". . . don't you know baby that life is a scream!" - Gordon Gano
But why? But why? But why? - You were told why. Quit whining. If you don't mind clicking every one of those pop-ups, then more power to you. Some people do mind.
"If end users continue to defeat the ads, they'll just become more and more intrusive." That is a very naive statement. The ads will become more intrusive regardless of the end users action. Advertisers are always looking for an edge to get their "product" out there more than the competition. That is why ads will become more and more intrusive.
GregLeg said:
Heck, advertising happens even IN media you pay for. Go to the theater, pay $8.50 to see a movie, sit down, and before the previews, ads for Coke. (And before those, stationary ads for the local restaurants and the like)
Don't forget the various movies themselves with advertising in them...such as The Matrix Revolutions, with the PowerAde billboards during the scene where Morpheus, Trinity, and Seraph are chasing the Trainman...
Haha no I'm not giving Patrick the finger 
freakylick said:
Quit whining.
But why?
The ads will become more intrusive regardless of the end users action. Advertisers are always looking for an edge to get their "product" out there more than the competition. That is why ads will become more and more intrusive.
Perhaps, although I disagree. But in terms of internet advertising, I never saw invue style ads or interstitial ads until the pop-ups became ineffective. TIVO never served these "billboard" ads until people found ways around the more traditional ones.
Now you either deal with those or you miss the content. (as evidenced by Kyle's original post) - until someone finds away around and then a new more intrusive ad style appears.
If you don't mind clicking every one of those pop-ups, then more power to you. Some people do mind.
That's fine too, but the people who do mind kill it for people who don't mind supporting the services they use.
I can't speak for Jeff's site, but if you go to mine and download a video - you'll be hit by one of every ad type I serve. Why? Because videos are high bandwidth downloads that use up lots of bandwidth which in turn costs me lots of money. I like to think sharing the videos is a nice gesture - I already have them, I don't have to offer them to anyone. In return for a copy of the vid - all you have to do is make an extra click or two to help cover the cost of the bandwidth being used by my sharing the video with you. If that's too much trouble, then frankly, I don't need to share my videos with you.
The thing is, there's no way of knowing who is taking the videos and who is trading clicks for vids. But if enough people simply take, then everybody loses when the videos disappear - even those that helped support them. You're killing it for the people providing content and for those who don't mind supporting it. (and saying you don't care if a site goes away because you block ads and you'll just go somewhere else just makes people sound like bigger, non-contributing leeches)
It seems incredibly selfish to me in that someone would expect me to pay to share my videos, photos, etc with them. If I sent you a physical copy of those videos, I'd expect you to pay to have it sent, why should it be any different to send it over the internet?
I don't care how you rationalize it as an 'inconvenience' or an "overreaction' on the part of the people providing the content - name one other media you get for free. TV over the antenna has ads, Cable/Satellite TV has a monthly fee and advertising (both in the programming and in the info bars most systems use), movies, concerts, DVDs, CD's, phone conversation, video games, amusement parks, books, magzines, museums, sporting events, newspapers - no media/entertainment is free.
If you want free, go to the library. :)
*** Edited 12/14/2004 9:48:45 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
Lord Gonchar said:Perhaps, although I disagree. But in terms of internet advertising, I never saw invue style ads or interstitial ads until the pop-ups became ineffective. TIVO never served these "billboard" ads until people found ways around the more traditional ones.
Ah, the old Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
That's fine too, but the people who do mind kill it for people who don't mind supporting the services they use.
Not all people who mind kill it...Some of them deal with it, some of them suck it up and pay the $20..
If that's too much trouble, then frankly, I don't need to share my videos with you.
You're right. You can choose. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
It seems incredibly selfish to me in that someone would expect me to pay to share my videos, photos, etc with them. If I sent you a physical copy of those videos, I'd expect you to pay to have it sent, why should it be any different to send it over the internet?
No one expects you to. You do it and others take advantage of it/you. You say it makes them leeches. They say it makes you a fool. Pop-ups are very annoying to many users. If you want to annoy users to your site, it's your prerogative. Just don't be surprised when they annoy you right back by blocking them.
name one other media you get for free. TV over the antenna has ads, Cable/Satellite TV has a monthly fee and advertising (both in the programming and in the info bars most systems use), movies, concerts, DVDs, CD's, phone conversation, video games, amusement parks, books, magzines, museums, sporting events, newspapers - no media/entertainment is free.
I don't know what other media's have to do with the internet, but talk about them all that you want.
I don't know what other media's have to do with the internet, but talk about them all that you want.
Ahh, the old "I have no retort" retort. At least I now see why you miss the point. You don't see the internet as the equivalent of other types of media. Check back as the whole thing matures and bask in the glow of how strikingly similar and parallel it all is. (especially as these various medias begin to merge)
Consider me a visionary. ;)
Ah, the old Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
Yes, but the proof requires one to:
Show that the correlation is coincidental by showing that:
1. The effect would have occurred even if the cause did not occur
or
2. That the effect was caused by something other
than the suggested cause.
Of which neither of us can do 100% - so it is a simple difference of opinion. I see the same fallacy in the "Advertisers need an edge, therefore more intrusive ads are created" - my take on the same situation would be "advertisers need an edge, therefore better and more creative (and eye catching) advertising is created" - probably my preference of finesse over the bulldozer approach that brings me that conclusion.
You're right. You can choose [my clarification here - whether or not to offer videos for download]. I don't think anyone disagrees with that...No one expects you to. You do it and others take advantage of it/you. You say it makes them leeches. They say it makes you a fool.
Isn't that just the "Doesn't matter to me, I'll just go elsewhere" crap in disguise?
But you're right in a way. It's more of a trust/friendship than a business/customer situation. It's more like me offering videos next to a donation box on the honor system, than opening a brick and mortar store and putting videos on the shelf.
To take the goods without paying at one is stealing, at the other it's just being an asshole.
It's a shame so many people don't even flinch at breaking that trust over such a minor inconvenience.
*** Edited 12/14/2004 11:29:55 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
Guilt, perhaps? :)
(30 second skip just pounds FFWD into the dust.)
how defensive the people who are die-hard in favor of popup blockers are getting.
Where does that put me? I block pop-ups generally but pay premium sites for content support.
*** Edited 12/15/2004 5:42:58 AM UTC by Brian Noble***
Besides, I didn't think you were getting overly defensive. I just made a general statement in attempt to lighten the mood of this topic. To get a little cliche: If the shoe fits, wear it! :)
Lord Gonchar said:Check back as the whole thing matures and bask in the glow of how strikingly similar and parallel it all is. Consider me a visionary. ;)
This from the same person who just last week said he goes by the "Don't count your chickens before they hatch philosophy". I am glad that you can see into the future. Congrats Miss Cleo!
Yes, but the proof requires one to:Show that the correlation is coincidental by showing that:
1. The effect would have occurred even if the cause did not occur
or
2. That the effect was {my edit: could have been}caused by something other
than the suggested cause.
What "end user circumventing advertisers" action caused FedEx to put their name on a football stadium? What "end user circumventing advertisers" action caused dealerships to slap their name on the backs of the cars that they sell? Therefore, you can not just blanket say that end users circumventing the advertising will cause ads to be more intrusive, when they can become more intrusive for any number of reasons.
I see the same fallacy in the "Advertisers need an edge, therefore more intrusive ads are created"
Touche
Isn't that just the "Doesn't matter to me, I'll just go elsewhere" crap in disguise?
No. It's more a "if someone is going to give me the opportunity to take something for free, then I'll take it". Is that freeloading?!?! Sure. Is it right?!?! I guess that depends on how one defines right and wrong.
It's a shame so many people don't even flinch at breaking that trust over such a minor inconvenience.
Why do you insist on placing your views on others? What you consider minor, someone else may not consider it minor.
dannerman said:
The part that strikes me as hilarious is how defensive the people who are die-hard in favor of popup blockers are getting.
I'm sure that wasn't referring to me in any way.
freakylick said:No. It's more a "if someone is going to give me the opportunity to take something for free, then I'll take it".
You know, every time I'm at best buy and the sales people leave me alone (which is just about every time unless I ask for help), I have the opportunity to put CDs in my pocket and take them for free (isn't that what cargos are for? ;) ). Just because I have the opportunity to take it for free, doesn't mean I should. Not many people would argue that this would be wrong. Why is it any different in this application?
Also, note that there's a difference between the opportunity of being free, and being offered as free. If the opportunity is there, yes it's wrong to take advantage. If it's offered, then no it's not.
And I will repeat what I said in my last post: If the shoe fits, wear it.
Therefore, you can not just blanket say that end users circumventing the advertising will cause ads to be more intrusive, when they can become more intrusive for any number of reasons.
Then we'll just call it a contributing factor. Regardless, it is one that does effect the way ads are displayed. You don't think there's a million and one ad companies right now looking for ways to beat the pop-up blocker? I'd say pop-up blocking has certainly taken it's share of responsibility in furthering intrusive ad types.
Why do you insist on placing your views on others? What you consider minor, someone else may not consider it minor.
You know, you're kind of right again on that one. It doesn't even need the second half of the statement. It should read:
"It's a shame that so many people don't even flinch over breaking that trust"
No. It's more a "if someone is going to give me the opportunity to take something for free, then I'll take it". Is that freeloading?!?! Sure. Is it right?!?! I guess that depends on how one defines right and wrong.
Well, then I hope character doesn't count for points in this debate, because that speaks volumes...
...and it still sounds like the "I don't care about the effect on the person offering this to me. If I can take it, I will" approach.
"Hey guys. Here's a bunch of coaster videos I put together. Feel free to take as many as you'd like. All I ask is you let a little window pop-up. You just have to close it then download the video. It takes a second at most and it'll help me be able to keep giving these to others as well and it'll help me be able to give you more in the future. Thanks."
"I'd rather not. Yoink!"
Seems so ridiculous to me, when you spell it out like that.
Oh, I almost forgot:
This from the same person who just last week said he goes by the "Don't count your chickens before they hatch philosophy". I am glad that you can see into the future. Congrats Miss Cleo!
There's a big difference between info disappearing from a website leading to the conclusion that the ride is aborted (there's that Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy again :) ) and speculating that something that is already happening (the merging of various media) will continue unabated into the future.
No need to call Miss Cleo on this one. Besides, I like to think of myself as more of a Kreskin. :)
--George H
Brian Noble said:
(30 second skip just pounds FFWD into the dust.)
Nothing TiVo can't handle. :) I did find, though, that I actually preferred FFWD, so I changed it back.
I have no complaints about my DirecTV receiver with built-in TiVo. Record one, watch one - or record two, watch a third ... with everything integrated in one box / one menu system for $5/month.
Walt Schmidt - Co-Publisher, PointBuzz
I just want to guest on Letterman.
Hmm.. perhaps not. It's too close to my website's slogan! (see sig)
Oh, and RamblinWreck.. I have "special privileges" at my Best Buy.. It's a combination between I used to work there when I was 16, and so I've kept up with the employees there (You'd be surprised how many are still there after 6 years!) and also the ones I don't know from my retail days recognize me because I'm in there quite a bit.
Also, just a little FYI on Best Buy: That intrusive "Can I Help You" is actually more a theft-deterrent than customer service. It supposedly sends the message that the person's "being watched".
Closed topic.
