PDA

View Full Version : Earthlink BLOCKS Pops


Pages : [1] 2

Steve_S
08-19-2002, 03:40 AM
Iv'e had better days <sigh>

Exstracto: "The pop-up blocker software, which eliminates all pop-up and pop-under ads, is expected to help EarthLink differentiate itself as it tries to gain market share from market leader AOL. "


The full story:

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954279.html?tag=cd_mh

Can you imagine if AOL + MSN jump into the marketing game by matching this "feature" ?

You suddenly have a potential universe of about 60 million (rough guess) + surfers blocking Pops.

:mad:

Scuba
08-19-2002, 06:10 AM
Personally I don't like popups. But I understand that it's an important source of revenew for lot's of sites today.
I think that webmaster are bringing it on themselfs. By abusing the PopUp media feature on lot's of sites they have anoyed the visitors so much that they have opened a market for PopUps/Banner blockers. and it was only time untill some ISP (unfortunatly one of the bigs) decided that in order to give his visitors a "better experiance" he will "add" one of this programs as a standard feature to the tool's he give them.

My main problem is diferant.
This type of programs practically disable a feature that is builded into the faundation of the HTML/JS standards. If using this type of programs will be more common, I for example will not be able to use this features also for things that are not ad oriented.

Still it's much more easy this way.
Just direct all the visitors from Earthlink to a page that say that this site is up deu to the popups in it, and that if they want to view it that they better get a real ISP that don't try to stop the usage of stansards.

On the buttom line - It's much more easy to block visitors from a single ISP than to try and detect the use of PopUp/Banner blockers on a personal visitor base.

Hope I make sense :angel:

Lil_Red
08-19-2002, 06:41 AM
Maybe, this will be a wake up call to the ad networks that pops don't work and only serve to alienate eyeballs. As far as I'm concerned, Fastclick is absolutely the only company so far that does pops correctly.

Furton
08-19-2002, 07:16 AM
"The pop-up blocker is the most exciting feature. About 4.1 billion pop-up ads are served on the Internet and we have had consumers tell us that is the most annoying experience on the Internet. We are happy to give customers the ability to control their Internet experience," said EarthLink's vice president of product development Jim Anderson.



And I'm happy to stop visitors with pop up blockers from visiting my sites, what goes around comes around.

Mehere
08-19-2002, 07:37 AM
Main reason banner clickthrough rates are down is ad networks are to agressive with pops on entry and exit.
Surfer no longer clicks as he is frightened of pop up hell and frozen browsers.
some of the below from another forum made interesting reading
Here's some of the features that these programs include:

Blocks banner ads
Blocks pop-ups
Blocks animated Flash ads
Filters cookies
Blocks pop-unders
Blocks background music
Block 'referrer' strings
Single Click Cookie Cleanup
Customize the ad database
Clear browsing history

Source:
http://www.adsubtract.com/pro/features.html

So, not only can they block the ads - they can also stop you making money from ads. Basically, if the surfer is using one of these bits of software, you're in big trouble. There's not THAT much that you can do.

Check out this extract too:

"The emotionally charged nuisance factor often sparks people's interest in blocking online advertisements, but there are other good reasons to fight back: Blocking ads frees up precious bandwidth and can protect your privacy. Ads take time to load, and they get in the way. "They're forcing us to do something" that most people don't want to do, says Intermute CEO Ed English, whose company makes the AdSubtract ad-blocker program."

Source:
Block, Block, Block That Ad
http://www.pcworld.com/features/article/0,aid,86929,pg,3,00.asp

... which makes my blood boil... As I said at the end of last week I believe - why are websites meant to produce content for free? It doesn't make sense.

And the author of this article seems sympathetic to our cause:

"It's an Advertising Virus

Ad blockers turn advertising into a computer virus. Those of us who make our living from advertising will do what we can to beat the ad blockers. We'll figure out how they work and then find a way to get past them and deliver ads to users. And that will work for only as long as it takes the software companies to create a "patch" that screens out our latest attack."

Source:
Another Hurdle: Ad-Blocking Software
http://www.clickz.com/tech/ad_tech/article.php/841571

The aricle also states that there are... "fewer than 10 million users of this kind of software"...

Further Reading:

The Dilemma of Ad-Blocking Software
http://www.clickz.com/media/media_buy/article.php/840581

Writer's block ad-blocking software
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9907/12/fiction.idg/

Could ad-blocking software end the web as we know it?
http://www.hightechcareers.com/doc699/networking699.html

Will Banner Blocking Software Kill Internet Marketing?
http://www.iboost.com/promote/advertising/banner_advertising/articles/00604.htm

Scuba
08-19-2002, 08:41 AM
One of the sites I visit several times a day have a DHTML/Flash ad's that pop one time a day. some times this things have a "X" to close them on the spot, but some times this very anoying pop's acn't be closed untill they finish to show the animation. Add to it a very anoyin sound that almost every time embadded into them and interfear with other sound erlated aplications that I actually need and want......

I have never clicked on a ad that made me angry And will not buy from a company that advertise itself using such anoying ad's.

The more anoying and intrusive ad's will become the more antegonisem they will create and the market of Ad blockers will grow.
By usint too much popup's, popup hell's, trap's, bandwidth eating animaions, banners that don't need to be clicked cause they have a "onMouseOver" web masters bring this on themselfs.
I bet almost every one here remember a time when he fell into such a trap, and was thinking to himself "maybe I'll get one of this programs" :rolleyes:

funtoon
08-19-2002, 08:47 AM
This is really annoying now ISP start blocking pop-ups.

Recently we installed the Antiadbuster Pro (beta) version, with the pop-up blocking detection module as a test case on a large website (the % of pop-up blockers that we detected was quite high) and my god I got quite a few mails from visitors saying how could we launch a product that blocks if them if they block the popup, they were arguing that they have every right to block the pop-ups!

I guess one pop-up per session is okay and visitors should not mind that for the free-content they are getting, I guess if other ISP start this practice, I dont know what will happen to webmasters already our revenue is way south.

But on the other hand I guess some webmasters are also to be blamed for who have abused the popups by spawning multiple pop-ups, pop-up hell, they ought to understand that this is not doing any good to anybody……and sooner or later advertisers will realise that this sort of stuff is not doing any good infact it will hurt the image of the comapny and eventually advertiser wont advertise on pop-ups.

Fei
08-19-2002, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Scuba
One of the sites I visit several times a day have a DHTML/Flash ad's that pop one time a day. some times this things have a "X" to close them on the spot, but some times this very anoying pop's acn't be closed untill they finish to show the animation. Add to it a very anoyin sound that almost every time embadded into them and interfear with other sound erlated aplications that I actually need and want......

I have never clicked on a ad that made me angry And will not buy from a company that advertise itself using such anoying ad's.

The more anoying and intrusive ad's will become the more antegonisem they will create and the market of Ad blockers will grow.
By usint too much popup's, popup hell's, trap's, bandwidth eating animaions, banners that don't need to be clicked cause they have a "onMouseOver" web masters bring this on themselfs.
I bet almost every one here remember a time when he fell into such a trap, and was thinking to himself "maybe I'll get one of this programs" :rolleyes:

i hate those flash ads...just because of those i stopped visitng ifilm, gamespydaily and planetunreal. they should get rid of those and popunders..

lmergen
08-19-2002, 10:24 AM
Is this even legal what they're doing?

I mean, I always see people using pop-up blockers as thieves (they steal content, in my opinion) , and now large ISP's start blocking pop-ups, isn't there something we can do about this?

I mean, us, hard-working webmasters/site owners/marketers/etc , we try to make profit out of a site in which we provide its services for free, and in return we ask them to view the ads, and even possibly buy something from the advertisers.

This is just like a kiosk store selling newspapers, and a kiosk next to it cuts the advertisements out of the newspapers, yet, they both pay the same price for the newspapers from the vendors.

Just my $0.02 on this issue.

qball0213
08-19-2002, 10:48 AM
Well maybe we should send visitors looking for eartlink to earthlink.net or eartlink.com, hehe, I just tried em both and it was popup and gator city.

Guava
08-19-2002, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by qball0213
Well maybe we should send visitors looking for eartlink to earthlink.net or eartlink.com, hehe, I just tried em both and it was popup and gator city.

Might want to double-check that qball. I went to earthlink.net (same as earthlink.com) and there wasn't a single pop or reference to gator.

Did you actually mean the mispell of earthlink.com to be eartlink.com? I went there and it was ugly. Pops and gator DL's just like you said.

PlanetLaunch
08-19-2002, 11:34 AM
Just Earthlink's way to try to get an edge on the competition and a boost in their stock price (up 10% today). The company is in pretty bad shape with very little growth over the last couple of years, so they need to find something to get a competitive advantage.

Unfortunately they taking away the bread and butter revenue from many free content websites with what they are doing. But since it is not coming out of their pockets, they could probably not care less.

This is certainly another case where webmasters and publishers need to band together to send a clear message to Earthlink (and any other ISP that will follow their lead) to stop the blocking of ads or changing the way that websites are displayed. If their is no backlash on this issue, then all of the other ISP's will follow the lead in order to give their stock the same kind of boost that they are all struggling for.

Personally, popups do annoy me, but I can choose not to visit websites that annoy me. Also, one single popup per website visit is acceptable to me in most cases. Most of your major free content websites use the single popup. It is really a small price to pay for what is being offered on most of the top tier websites.

Obviously if ad blocking continues to increase in usage, the major sites will all become subscription based or go out of business. So in the long run who really wins? Nobody. Just a temporary lift for some ad blocking software companies and ISPs. Shame. Shame.

budsinc
08-19-2002, 11:35 AM
I definitly agree with lmergen on the legality issues. Also shouldn't it be illegal for them to be altering our html code without our written consent. As far as I'm concerned, if we have a java pop on our page and they are removing it, they are altering our code, which is copy protected. So companies like MaxWorldwide, 24/7, and all the rest, not t mention the IAB, who I feel does nothing should sue Earthlink.

darnell
08-19-2002, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by lmergen
Is this even legal what they're doing?

I mean, I always see people using pop-up blockers as thieves (they steal content, in my opinion) , and now large ISP's start blocking pop-ups, isn't there something we can do about this?

I mean, us, hard-working webmasters/site owners/marketers/etc , we try to make profit out of a site in which we provide its services for free, and in return we ask them to view the ads, and even possibly buy something from the advertisers.

This is just like a kiosk store selling newspapers, and a kiosk next to it cuts the advertisements out of the newspapers, yet, they both pay the same price for the newspapers from the vendors.

Just my $0.02 on this issue.

Currently it is legal. But this goes hand and hand with the TV companies fight against Replay TV and ad skipping. If they can MAKE IT illegal to skip ads then we will be able to win a legal fight against ad blocking too.

But for now a person can legally alter the content knowingly.

This is a blow for us all.

But I'm glad I started selling my best content in book and CD form. So users must pay if they want the good stuff. I think everyone should just start running something fee based. Let them block all the ads they want. They will pay me for the true quality stuff ;) .

PaulT
08-19-2002, 12:47 PM
Well, I don't really think we can do much about this.

However, to be honest with you - I don't see either MSN or AOL going down this route, simply because they both own large web-properties that run pop-up / under ads.

If they did decide to block pop-up ads, surely they would be shooting themselves in the foot as they may suddenly find their web properties unprofitable?

I have to agree with Lil_Red about pop-up delivery. I've seen many sites with 3 or 4 pop-up ads on just one page, and when I've informed the ad networks (ValueClick for an example) they simply aren't interested at all.

qball0213
08-19-2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Guava


Might want to double-check that qball. I went to earthlink.net (same as earthlink.com) and there wasn't a single pop or reference to gator.

Did you actually mean the mispell of earthlink.com to be eartlink.com? I went there and it was ugly. Pops and gator DL's just like you said.

Doh, how the heck did I misspell both of them, hehe, what a maroon.

maddeningcrowds
08-19-2002, 01:05 PM
>> Just direct all the visitors from Earthlink to a page that say that this site is up deu to the popups in it, and that if they want to view it that they better get a real ISP that don't try to stop the usage of stansards.

Exactly

I don't make any money from those with ad blockers, so I don't loose anything by not letting them visit my site. If many webmasters do this..... well I think not being able to get to the page you want is much more annoying than an occasional popup.

OC
08-19-2002, 01:10 PM
Let's try to remain fair and balanced. It's too easy to get worked up because this is a touchy subject that is very annoying and very unfortunate for a lot webmasters.


It isn't illegal right now. So does EarthLink have the legal rights to do this? Yes.

You also have the legal rights to block all EarthLink users. I wouldn't recommend this unless your site's revenue is generated primarily by pop ups.

highschoolnation
08-19-2002, 01:17 PM
Someone's loss is another's gain..thats how business works..Sad,but true.

darnell
08-19-2002, 01:36 PM
Earthlink now has their pop-up blocker page up (http://support.earthlink.net/support/DLOADCENTER/popup_blocker/) .

Steve_S
08-19-2002, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by PaulT
Well, I don't really think we can do much about this.

However, to be honest with you - I don't see either MSN or AOL going down this route, simply because they both own large web-properties that run pop-up / under ads.

If they did decide to block pop-up ads, surely they would be shooting themselves in the foot as they may suddenly find their web properties unprofitable?

I have to agree with Lil_Red about pop-up delivery. I've seen many sites with 3 or 4 pop-up ads on just one page, and when I've informed the ad networks (ValueClick for an example) they simply aren't interested at all.

I certainly hope they (AOL + MSN + others) don't join the frey BUT, it's seems to me a rather trivial matter to permit pops on a MSN or AOL site. After all, each client machine uses their software to connect which can easily be modified <sigh>

In some respects you could think of this in the same vein as the Gator "blackmail" where they sell a given URL which will be excluded from the Gator attack. I believe it was 25K a url.

BTW, pardon the broken record comment but this issue effects Merchants and Publishers.

Natch, just my views and hope like heck that I'm wrong :)

funtoon
08-19-2002, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by darnell
Earthlink now has their pop-up blocker page up (http://support.earthlink.net/support/DLOADCENTER/popup_blocker/) .

This is just great, I was recording around 6-7% usage of pop-up blockers, now they give these stuff for free, I dont know how much % increase will we see ........ :mad:

Robert from SI
08-19-2002, 01:59 PM
No matter if your feelings on popups are good, bad, or indifferent the real issue here is that a large ISP has decided how YOU should make money.

I guarantee you that if Earthlink took a poll of its users 90% of them would say that they hate banner ads. Maybe Earthlink will decide next that they won't display your banner ads. Or too many of their users will be "confused" by skyscraper ads. Let's ban them too.

Remember that all surfers want all content for free, with no ads, 100% of the time. The surfer does not care about web publishers making revenue.

Websites that use the "slash-and-burn" method of never ending popup chains pretty much dissapear on their own anyway.

I'd find the range of Earthlink's IP's and redirect them to a page which contains Earthlink's toll free customer support number and email address and tell the user that Earthlink has modified your website and that they are not permitted to view it and to contact Earthlink to fix the problem.
edited for spelling (My 3rd grade teacher Miss Riccardo would have been shocked!)

darnell
08-19-2002, 02:20 PM
I'm thinking the AOL's of the world (Aol, netzero, etc.) will not jump on. Since they (AOL) are not even going to block pops in Netscape 7. So other major ISPs is not an issue.

But many of the tiny ISPs may jump on board.

I think the best way to fight back would be to have some MAJOR web sites ban Earthlink users. That along with smaller sites banning Earthlink users just for being with Earthlink would raise some issues for the ISP. I mean, if Earthlink users were banned from Usatoday.com, CNN.com, Abcnews.com, Weather.com and a few other major sites that their users know and love that would cause Earthlink some major customer support problems.

I'm hoping some major players react to this.

funtoon
08-19-2002, 02:25 PM
Just curious but does any body know the % of traffic earthlink has.

Darryl
08-19-2002, 05:18 PM
From Earthlink's page:ć A customizable list so you can view pop-up windows at sites when you want to or where they are required Interesting - so what we REALLY need here is something that detects whether it's been activated AND whether your site is included or excluded in the blocking.

I wonder if Earthlink would be willing to provide us with data on how this could be detected?

joetec
08-19-2002, 05:38 PM
I think a bunch of sites and ad networks should team up and sue the larger adkilling companies (earthlink, adsubtract, etc) in the same way the new york times, washingtonpost, etc did with gator.

It is pretty much the same thing as gator is doing just in a slightly differnt form. Companies like adsubtract and now earthlink :( are changing the publishers webpage without consent from the publisher.

And right now the anti-ad blockers are the only way to keep this from happening.

If someone here wanted to try to start a lawsuit like this I would be happy to donate some cash to the cause.

Lil_Red
08-19-2002, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Robert from SI
I'd find the range of Earthlink's IP's and redirect them to a page which contains Earthlink's toll free customer support number and email address and tell the user that Earthlink has modified your website and that they are not permitted to view it and to contact Earthlink to fix the problem.


Technically, they are not modifying the website. They are simply disallowing the ad network's code. To me, this is a good thing as way too many ad networks abuse pops. If the ad networks limited themselves to ONE pop per user per visit then ISPs would not feel the need to step in.

From the publisher's perspective, we should put pressure on the ad networks who abuse pops. Maybe now would be a good time for SI to step to the forefront and show ad networks how to responsibly display pops.

Wiggum
08-19-2002, 06:33 PM
There is no question that some publishers and ad networks abuse Popups but under NO circumstances should an ISP, Browser. or individual user be able to alter the content of a website or block network ad code.

Just like any other medium, if a user is unhappy with the amount or frequency of ads that they receive then they can simply go elsewhere. They have absolutely no right to prevent a publisher from earning revenue.

These days, web sites have to fight for every advertising dollar and the advertisers delivery method of choice is currently pop-ups. If other ISP's follow Earthlinks lead you can be sure that a lot of good sites that offer good content will be forced to close their doors.

Lil_Red
08-19-2002, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Wiggum
These days, web sites have to fight for every advertising dollar and the advertisers delivery method of choice is currently pop-ups. If other ISP's follow Earthlinks lead you can be sure that a lot of good sites that offer good content will be forced to close their doors.

So far publishers have had no effect on convincing the ad networks to smarten up. I actually hope more ISPs will follow Earthlink's lead and then maybe ad networks will start concentrating on doing a better job delivering ads.

Wiggum
08-19-2002, 07:34 PM
This isn't 1999 anymore. In case you haven't noticed, it's a buyers market - the networks have to give what the advertisers want and right now the advertisers want pop-ups.

Blaming the networks for their delivery methods is missing the point. A publisher owns the website, they own or lease the server it's hosted on and they PAY for the bandwidth it uses. NO ONE can deny their right to earn revenue for their service or the content they provide - END OF STORY.

Lil_Red
08-19-2002, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Wiggum
This isn't 1999 anymore. In case you haven't noticed, it's a buyers market - the networks have to give what the advertisers want and right now the advertisers want pop-ups.

Blaming the networks for their delivery methods is missing the point. A publisher owns the website, they own or lease the server it's hosted on and they PAY for the bandwidth it uses. NO ONE can deny their right to earn revenue for their service or the content they provide - END OF STORY.

Advertisers generally do not know what they want. They buy whatever the ad network convinces them is best which is generally the most expensive, flashiest product.

From the publisher perspective, it takes work to make money which is the only real change from 1999. In 1999, you didn't need to do anything except slap a site together and sign a contract. After that, you could go relax on the beach and collect your check.

In 2002, you know have to do real work to monetize your site and sometimes this means that you face the harsh reality that making money involves work.

qball0213
08-19-2002, 07:59 PM
Well as a heads up, Earthlink is running a popunder at Fastclick for their wireless, are all companies nowadays two faced or what? Banning by ip address sounds good to me.

Wiggum
08-19-2002, 08:07 PM
Having dealt with some of the largest advertisers and their agencies I can assure you that they absolutely DO know what they want. They want performance. They also know how much they want to spend. The advertiser dictates the buys - not the network.

joetec
08-19-2002, 08:22 PM
Having dealt with some of the largest advertisers and their agencies I can assure you that they absolutely DO know what they want. They want performance. They also know how much they want to spend. The advertiser dictates the buys - not the network.

I agree totally with wiggum. Some of our clients come to us saying "we want this many in this time frame for this ammount... take it or leave it".

I think adkillers are not just on par with gator, but worse.
With gator you have a slim chance of making money... but with adkillers you have none what so ever. Some even go as far as getting rid of affiliate links and text ads.


THE ONLY WAY A VISITOR SHOULD BE ALOWED ABLE TO NOT RECEIVE ADS WHEN THEY VISIT IS TO PAY SOME SORT OF FEE TO USE THE SITE.

Lil_Red
08-19-2002, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Wiggum
Having dealt with some of the largest advertisers and their agencies I can assure you that they absolutely DO know what they want. They want performance. They also know how much they want to spend. The advertiser dictates the buys - not the network.

If they know what they want then why are they so incompetent? If they actually want performance then they are being snookered by the ad networks since pops are the worst performers of any ad medium. If they actually wanted performance then they would go with text links but text links aren't flashy and pretty. If they want the maximum bang for their buck then they would tell the ad rep what they want. I've dealt with ad sales people and they do a really slick dog & pony show. It's not surprising the advertiser falls for the most expensive, wasteful type of advertising.

We've dealt with the ad networks since 1997 and so far none of them seem capable of figuring out the ads need to be relevant to the site. Here's a perfect example: I was on a site today looking for information on a particular type of domestic cat. The ad banner was for genital herpes and I don't know what the pop was, I closed it without even looking at it. The herpes banner had nothing to do with cats and the pop was wasted money since it was closed without even being looked at.

Casale Media
08-19-2002, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Lil_Red


If they know what they want then why are they so incompetent? If they actually want performance then they are being snookered by the ad networks since pops are the worst performers of any ad medium. If they actually wanted performance then they would go with text links but text links aren't flashy and pretty. If they want the maximum bang for their buck then they would tell the ad rep what they want. I've dealt with ad sales people and they do a really slick dog & pony show. It's not surprising the advertiser falls for the most expensive, wasteful type of advertising.

"Why are they so incompetent?" -- I sure hope you're not referring to all advertisers in that statement.

"If they actually wanted performance then they would go with text links but text links aren't flashy and pretty." -- Advertisers are usually looking for high volume, or at least we are, I can't name any ad network that can send 100,000's of visitors to a site daily from a text link.

"I've dealt with ad sales people and they do a really slick dog & pony show." --- Having dealt with many ad sales people, it all boils down to this: You have the money, they have the inventory, you ask for what you want, and they deliver.

"It's not surprising the advertiser falls for the most expensive, wasteful type of advertising." --- Again, you're categorizing all advertisers in this statement, why?

funtoon
08-19-2002, 10:43 PM
Taken from Newsfactor.com

But Giga Information Group analyst Ken Smiley told the E-Commerce Times that the pop-up ad manager is a short-term differentiator at best. MSN is coming out with a similar product in its next version, Smiley noted, and it would not be difficult for AOL (NYSE: AOL) to follow suit.


Full Story: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19063.html

I hope this is not true!!!

OC
08-20-2002, 12:14 AM
This is a critical issue for many all of us, let's try to remain balanced.


Robert's ideas are great. Companies will consider adding these features twice if you make it a customer support nightmare for them.


Originally posted by Wiggum
NO ONE can deny their right to earn revenue for their service or the content they provide - END OF STORY.

You are correct. However it is arguable that blocking pop ups alone denies webmasters this inalienable right. :p

Earthlink has the legal right to do this at the moment. One can't really blame them for trying to do what's best for their business. We just have roll with the punches and return as many as we can.

Originally posted by funtoon
Taken from Newsfactor.com

But Giga Information Group analyst Ken Smiley told the E-Commerce Times that the pop-up ad manager is a short-term differentiator at best. MSN is coming out with a similar product in its next version, Smiley noted, and it would not be difficult for AOL (NYSE: AOL) to follow suit.


Full Story: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19063.html

I hope this is not true!!!

Wow. If this becomes more confirmed... :eek: If you own a successful pop up-sponsored site or business that relies on pop up advertising... bail out before-hand. There's no way you can manage banning MSN & AOL.

The winds of change have picked up.

Originally posted by joetec
It is pretty much the same thing as gator is doing just in a slightly differnt form. Companies like adsubtract and now earthlink :( are changing the publishers webpage without consent from the publisher.

I've never used a blocker (some pop ups are actually useful... and the the other 99% don't phase me) but as I understand this is not true with all pop up blockers. I went to Download.com and found that a lot of them just sit open and close down pop up windows the split second they pop. Again, this is just my understanding and I'm probably wrong.


Originally posted by qball0213
Well as a heads up, Earthlink is running a popunder at Fastclick for their wireless, are all companies nowadays two faced or what?

Funny I hadn't thought of their own pop ups! :D


Though they'll probably start using pop up advertising to dig in the face of non-blocking ISPs.

OC
08-20-2002, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by darnell
But this goes hand and hand with the TV companies fight against Replay TV and ad skipping. If they can MAKE IT illegal to skip ads then we will be able to win a legal fight against ad blocking too.

It is ironic that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/) --supported earnestly by the geek community at large-- is fighting for Replay TV. Soon they will start to realize they are effectively fighting against a significant portion of their supporters.

It goes to show they don't really have a regard for the salaries of people that rely on pop-ups or TV ads or record sales (they're defenders of P2P networks that allow copyright-infringing file sharing). Every one deserves every thing for free w/ no regard for any one.




Edit: I just realized I replied to pretty much every post in the thread. :nonono: :0 I'll try to curb my reply-to-everyone posts from now on. Sorry!

lmergen
08-20-2002, 03:28 AM
I personally don't think a company like Earthlink will mind that they would not display any pop-ups anymore on their websites...

The money gained by customers going to them/not leaving them because of their pop-up blocker is far more than the money lost by that few not displayed pop-ups...

EvDeon
08-20-2002, 04:30 AM
Just curious but does any body know the % of traffic earthlink has.
I believe it is 7% of US visitors.

Source: http://www.isp-planet.com/img/research/us_isp_q22001.gif

maddeningcrowds
08-20-2002, 04:57 AM
>> pops are the worst performers of any ad medium

Not true at all IMHO.

e.g. X10 cameras. Would you have even noticed them if they were text links or banners? No. But now everybody knows about them and many people own them.

Lil_Red
08-20-2002, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by OC

Robert's ideas are great. Companies will consider adding these features twice if you make it a customer support nightmare for them.



It's a silly idea. Why not just adapt and explore different revenue streams?

Lil_Red
08-20-2002, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by 00FUN
Again, you're categorizing all advertisers in this statement, why?

In over 4 years of dealing with advertisers and ad networks, I have rarely dealt with an advertiser who has ever had a clue what they want.

lmergen
08-20-2002, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Lil_Red
It's a silly idea. Why not just adapt and explore different revenue streams?

I think that's exactly the point where we should head to right now... I mean, we can install anti-ad-blocker software and such, but I think we should rather see it as a sign.

If people really think pop-ups are THAT annoying, advertising using that medium can't be good for your image in the long run.

One pop per session (as done here on GV) is really agreeable.

But I think publishers need to think of their own innovative advertising methods now...

Casale Media
08-20-2002, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Lil_Red


In over 4 years of dealing with advertisers and ad networks, I have rarely dealt with an advertiser who has ever had a clue what they want.

Ouch!

Wiggum
08-20-2002, 10:55 AM
FYI: the pop-block sofware being used by Earthlink (GuardIE) advertises the following:

"GuardIE blocks script-based drop-down ads, Macromedia Flash Ads, and many others and, most important, is continually being upgraded to address more and more of these annoying advertising tricks - if we don't block it now, we probably will very soon!"

The Earthlink Pop Up Blocker download page advertises "The free final version will become available for download later this year and will include extra features"

Anyone who thinks this will end with Pop-ups is kidding themselves.

OC
08-20-2002, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Wiggum
Anyone who thinks this will end with Pop-ups is kidding themselves.

It looks like Earthlink's share has dropped down to 3.3% in 2002 according to http://isp-planet.com/research/rankings/usa.html

If AOL & MSN jump on board, at least 26% of American users will have access to pop up blocking.


Originally posted by Lil_Red
It's a silly idea. Why not just adapt and explore different revenue streams?

I wouldn't call it silly. It was good idea... just not realistic. :p


I think you could find my overall stance is adaptation. It's somewhere in there.... I just don't want to read those horrendously long 1:30AM posts again. :D

JustMe
08-20-2002, 11:20 AM
Just my humble opinion as small webmaster...I make nice money with pop-unders but:

If all browsers and ISPs would start to block popups/unders now it would be GREAT

Reason:
That I get only .40 CPM and many even block my 468:60 banners is not the fault of some dotcom crashes...it is the fault of using advertising not as part of the experience like in TV or radio...they use it as an insult, to make money any way and all have to pay for it now. Most market researcher recommend to invest ad budget better in million $ TV ad campaigns because studies show that branding becomes impossible when after a well designed web ad people are insulted with "HIT THE TARGET" or "YOU HAVE WON" the next moment...pop-ups not even to mention...

To formulate it extremely radical (sorry for that) :)

Insulting advertising is like a form of disease...and that those of us who care about the future of the Internet may perhaps earn a $ or two in a distant future, the infected sites and ad companies must perhaps die first....at the end your sites, also mine...are all replaceable...if we stop them, others will even overtake without to earn anything...

"They have no right to change my code" ...nonsense... actually it is an intrusion in other peoples computer system to open a new browser window...it is not the way the code was intended to be used...it is a form of hacking...the user send a http request for !ONE! page ...if you deliver 3,4 or 5 it costs some online time/bandwidth and is a form of stealing, like ad blockers are....

Just my humble opinion :angel: