Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Wiis, PlayStations, iPads, blogging platforms, Facebook and anything else worthy of buzz in the digital world.
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:07 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
TAsunder wrote:Well, maybe he can clarify, but I'm pretty sure he didn't ignore 3/4 of the page.

Wasn't referring to anything Esmond said, I'm questioning your above assertion that an effective ad is one which you don't realize is an ad. That simply doesn't make a lick of sense.

If I don't know it's an ad, I'm not getting the message that something is for sale. I mean, I hate to be rude, but duh.


I don't understand your reasoning. Just because you didn't know it was an ad doesn't mean you are unaware that something is for sale. That's part of the reason why viral marketing campaigns work.

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby fisticuffs » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:10 pm

There's a big difference between not knowing you were advertised to and having your ad go completely unnoticed.

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:18 pm

fisticuffs wrote:There's a big difference between not knowing you were advertised to and having your ad go completely unnoticed.


Roughly 3/4, perhaps more, of useit.com's homepage is advertising various offerings. The two bolded links on the right and all of the sub-topics are advertising conferences. The links to external publications below that are more or less a form of advertising. On the left side, everything except the alertbox is advertising. So, as I said, I suppose it's possible that they were completely unnoticed, but I find it rather doubtful.

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby fisticuffs » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:25 pm

You call them ads. I call them links.

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:31 pm

They are both ads and links. Much like all (or at least most) of the ads on TDP and most online ads in general.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10053
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:32 pm

fisticuffs wrote:You call them ads. I call them links.

Exactly.

TAsunder -- if you hadn't told me those were ads, I still wouldn't know.
I went to the site, looked it over, nothing caught my eye, and I left.
How is that effective advertising?
Again: I didn't know he was selling anything, so clearly, I'm not buying.
How is that the most effective form of advertising again?

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:40 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
fisticuffs wrote:You call them ads. I call them links.

Exactly.

TAsunder -- if you hadn't told me those were ads, I still wouldn't know.
I went to the site, looked it over, nothing caught my eye, and I left.
How is that effective advertising?
Again: I didn't know he was selling anything, so clearly, I'm not buying.
How is that the most effective form of advertising again?


And you think you would have bought one of his $200 reports or a ticket to one of his conferences if you had known? The point is, you saw the ad, and you were made aware that the product existed (whether you knew it was an ad for the product or not). His product happens to be of zero interest to you, but you were still made aware of it.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10053
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:05 pm

TAsunder wrote:The point is, you saw the ad, and you were made aware that the product existed (whether you knew it was an ad for the product or not).

Again... huh?
If I don't know it's an ad, and I don't know he has products, how was I made aware of anything?
You simply aren't making sense.

TAsunder wrote:His product happens to be of zero interest to you, but you were still made aware of it.

No, I wasn't made aware of it from his website.
You told me they were ads. I assumed they were just more links to diatribes like the one you linked to earlier.

But I finally understand where you're coming from. You think the only good ads are ones which advertise things which you might actually be interested in. This is, of course, not at all the point of advertising.
If there's something I know I want, I don't look at ads, I just Google it or go to a store where I know they'll carry it.

A major point of advertising is to get you interested in things which you wouldn't normally think of yourself -- or things which you know you don't need. Another point -- like why Pizza Hut advertises when we all know they sell pizza -- is name brand recognition. Neither of those objectives can possibly be achieved by text links which don't stand out in any way.

jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby jjoyce » Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:36 pm

TA is really starting to spew some righteous B.S.

As I said before, block ads or don't. But don't get all sanctimonious about it, particularly when you have yet to reveal how you make a living. I make a living off advertising and proudly so, since I know that our clients are local businesses that I visit, some frequently. I also know that Isthmus and TDP are institutions in this community, which is no small feat.

I think if you enjoy this site and visit it frequently while blocking ads, you're being intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. To be a fan of this site is to understand that advertising pays for the hard work that goes into building it, maintaining it and writing on it. Evidently, you have no appreciation for that, perhaps because you're so busy trying to get the rest of the world to cater to your delicate and specialized interests.

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:20 am

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:No, I wasn't made aware of it from his website.
You told me they were ads. I assumed they were just more links to diatribes like the one you linked to earlier.


So you looked at a section on the right referring to conferences and thought that if you clicked on that, it would just be some diatribes and not any information about a conference? And, similarly, if you clicked on a link under reports or books, you figured, those probably aren't actually reports or books, but instead diatribes? Interesting... :roll:

A major point of advertising is to get you interested in things which you wouldn't normally think of yourself -- or things which you know you don't need. Another point -- like why Pizza Hut advertises when we all know they sell pizza -- is name brand recognition. Neither of those objectives can possibly be achieved by text links which don't stand out in any way.


Text links contextually placed inside of a site > banner ads that the user is ignoring because there's never any content on that portion of the site. It doesn't matter whether it's to promote a new brand you weren't aware of or not. Banner blindness has been an acknowledged phenomenon for some time. In fact, banner ads are pretty well recognized as among the most inefficient ads compared to contextual text ads and heavy multimedia ads.

thebookpolice
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8633
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby thebookpolice » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:25 am

I'm not an advertising professional (yet), so this is just one man's opinion, but here goes.

I am 100 times more likely to click a banner ad than a text ad. The reason? Text ads are usually (correct me if I'm wrong) keyword-based. The bot reads what's going on on the page and then generates links that seem topical. Except A) they often aren't, and B) they're to services or websites that I don't recognize. See, for example, the "helpful" links generated at the top of Gmail's Spam folder; they're all SPAM recipes. Handy! (no)

Banner ads, while perhaps more visually intrusive, are consciously placed by the webmaster, usually by specific agreement with the advertised company or service. They reflect print advertising. Text-only ads reflect the classifieds, and I'm not inclined to rely on the classifieds unless I have a specific need that traditional, graphic advertising can't address.

dave esmond
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 4:15 pm
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby dave esmond » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:34 am

TAsunder wrote:Because you didn't realize they were ads, which makes them the best type of ads possible.


Huh?

Let's say you're right tho'. You've just admitted you and Nielsen are wrong if those are the "best types of ads possible".

Of course that's a false statement too.

They are one kind of effective ad. And only one kind.

Oh if only people studied advertising for a living.


This isn't my first time around the internet block. I've been doing graphics since the '70's and doing web design since the '80's. It's hardly the first time I've encountered Neilsen's work. Lot's of people considered him wrong and a kook in 1995. I've read up on this stuff, sat thru the lectures, attended the conferences. He's got some good ideas. But just like the usability folks on the other end of the spectrum who told me we needed to switch to a Second Life style they both got one basic thing wrong.

They assume we all use the web the same way and want the same experience from it. People don't work like that. Some want all text. Some want an online 3D experience like Second Life. Most people want somewhere in the middle and even then it's driven my the specific site.

Neilsen went wrong when he wanted his ideas, again some of them good, to be RULES.

Look at Wagstaff's example above. One of his rules was pages couldn't take more then a second to download because people wouldn't wait any longer. Those of us designing websites knew in 1995 that was bullshit. How long people would wait depended on what they were waiting for. Today's weather? Yeah a second was about right. Pictures of Pam and Tommy Lee doin' it? People would gladly make a sandwich and wait. But Neilsen only saw one kind of user and then made RULES around that user.

People just don't all USE things exactly the same way. But for Neilsen's rules to work they all have to.

The other end of the spectrum is just as wrong. I'd personally rather use a yellow font on black background all text web page then spend 5 minutes in Second Life.

As I said before one size does not fit all.

BTW same thing goes for advertising. What makes for effective advertising is not one set of rules. It's many things. It depends on the product, it depends on what the advertiser wants the viewer to do, it depends on the intended audience. Any claims of "the most effective" form of advertising that doesn't address those things and many more factors is often gonna be wrong.

Because countless studies of users performing specific tasks on sites have confirmed this.


See above. It depends on what you define as effective.

The advertising that people who study advertising consider the best or most effective pretty much always involves graphics.

These VW ads are classics. They're known for being very effective and for pretty much starting the idea that an ad didn't need much text to work. They're considered game changers by people who study advertising.

30 years before Neilsen.

http://www.greatvwads.com/

You forgot the part where you get a PHD in the field. Where's your PHD in this field, BTW, that you think that you are somehow equally qualified?


You can't get a PHD in art or graphic design.

Plus I'm old enough to have met a lot of PHDs who weren't all that "expert". I certainly don't take it as a guarantee of expertise.

Am I more qualified when it comes to usability? Nope. I'd say I know a LOT more about graphic design and actually making websites then Neilsen. I also know a lot more about how people react to art. Hint, not everyone reacts in the same way.

Sorry but I'm not going to take the word of an expert who admits to not knowing much about graphic design and then tells me it's not important on the web anyway.

I'm not an expert on usability. I've had to study it tho' and I'd never say it's not important. Lot's of good ideas in the field. And obviously it's an important field when it comes to something like web design. But then so are sociology, design, art, writing and advertising. I wouldn't take advice on good web design from anyone who only focused on one of those fields either.

Plenty of other people with PHDs who get themselves hired as "experts" in usability disagree with Neilsen. So if the experts can't agree I'm gonna go with the idea that they all have a bit of truth to show us, but I wouldn't trust the ideas of just one of 'em.


If you can't ignore effective advertising then I suggest you actually do some research on eyetracking and effective web advertising, because at this point it seems you haven't even done a cursory look into it.
[/quote][/quote]

Actually I've done a lot of looking at it. It's a flawed method for gauging effectiveness of web advertising. It's not without value, but it clearly doesn't tell us everything about the web and how people use it. Or really anything about what makes an effective ad.

Frankly at this point I can't believe people still defend Neilsen's ideas. The growth of web usage and the ways people choose to use the web prove most of his ideas were wrong. Just like some experts back in the day were saying.


Once again, one size does not fit all.



PS I totally understand not wanting to see ads. Say it as a personal preference and I'll get your back. Just don't pretend the science is in on this stuff.

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:36 am

jjoyce wrote:I think if you enjoy this site and visit it frequently while blocking ads, you're being intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. To be a fan of this site is to understand that advertising pays for the hard work that goes into building it, maintaining it and writing on it. Evidently, you have no appreciation for that, perhaps because you're so busy trying to get the rest of the world to cater to your delicate and specialized interests.


So who is being sanctimonious again? I'm defending my use of ad blockers and pointing out that MANY users use them for the same reasons I do. Twice in this thread you ignore what your own users have requested and instead attack them. Not exactly the ideal response.

The fact that you repeat this party line to me indicates that you don't actually care about your own customers enough to do anything about it. I've outlined two clear reasons why I won't whitelist TDP and you have yet to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, your users, who have told you directly that they don't like certain things, could be worth listening to. This is a fundamental mental block or something, I guess.

Furthermore, how many times do I have to tell you the various ways I'd be willing to offset my reduced ad revenue, and yet you come back spewing this inane horse crap indicating that I don't care about the site, blah blah blah. This is the same nonsense that Ars is spewing... it goes like this: "you are hurting the site" "I'm willing to pay for no ads, but I don't appreciate the ads you have" "you're hurting the site" ... in other words, you and Ars have users who have directly stated their willingness to provide income to you directly, and rather than actually do anything about it or do anything to make them willing to turn off an ad blocker, you just sit there accusing us of being hypocrites.

Nice...

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:37 am

TheBookPolice wrote:I'm not an advertising professional (yet), so this is just one man's opinion, but here goes.

I am 100 times more likely to click a banner ad than a text ad. The reason? Text ads are usually (correct me if I'm wrong) keyword-based. The bot reads what's going on on the page and then generates links that seem topical. Except A) they often aren't, and B) they're to services or websites that I don't recognize. See, for example, the "helpful" links generated at the top of Gmail's Spam folder; they're all SPAM recipes. Handy! (no)

Banner ads, while perhaps more visually intrusive, are consciously placed by the webmaster, usually by specific agreement with the advertised company or service. They reflect print advertising. Text-only ads reflect the classifieds, and I'm not inclined to rely on the classifieds unless I have a specific need that traditional, graphic advertising can't address.


This is what most people would assume, but countless eye tracking studies have confirmed that banner blindness is real and that users have unusual habits compared to what you would expect.

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:46 am

dave esmond wrote:Huh?

Let's say you're right tho'. You've just admitted you and Nielsen are wrong if those are the "best types of ads possible".

Of course that's a false statement too.

They are one kind of effective ad. And only one kind.

Oh if only people studied advertising for a living.


Best implies that there's more than one. So yes, there are multiple kinds of "effective ads"

They assume we all use the web the same way and want the same experience from it. People don't work like that. Some want all text. Some want an online 3D experience like Second Life. Most people want somewhere in the middle and even then it's driven my the specific site.


That is why there are actual scientific studies and what not. No one assumes anything. Basic tenant of science. And Nielsen openly states that certain sites benefit from certain approaches that don't work for others.

30 years before Neilsen.

In a completely different medium. You seem to repeatedly assume that all forms of media are the same. It is a huge mistake.

Actually I've done a lot of looking at it. It's a flawed method for gauging effectiveness of web advertising. It's not without value, but it clearly doesn't tell us everything about the web and how people use it. Or really anything about what makes an effective ad.


Explain exactly how it is flawed to actually record where users look. I'm sure that google would love to hear this since they repeatedly refer to eye tracking studies in their blogs.

PS I totally understand not wanting to see ads. Say it as a personal preference and I'll get your back. Just don't pretend the science is in on this stuff.


Show me how the science ISN'T in on this stuff and maybe I'll agree. You haven't offered any links or evidence to actual STUDIES demonstrating that banner blindness doesn't exist. All you've done is link to stuff about paper advertising and other nonsense which is not necessarily relevant.


Return to “Technology & Video Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests