Latest round of pop-up ads defeats all attempts to block it..

[SirFozzie]

Except for, apparently NoScript:

Geek tech: Why your pop-up blocker doesn't work as well as it used to - Den of Geek

New Breed of Pop-Ups | Affiliate Marketing Blog by Shawn Collins

From the 2nd link..

These days, there are products out there using DHTML to get the pop-ups to pop. The one that snuck past your pop-up blocker was from a service called adimpact.

Instant Attention works around Microsoft SP2 Update*, Google Toolbar Blocker, Symantec’s Pop-Up Blocker and more.

These pops are a great way to highlight a time sensitive promotion you are running through an affiliate link. You can also use them to get opt-ins to your newsletter, promote a sweepstakes, or for any number of other objectives.

One hitch with Instant Attention is that you have to pay an ongoing fee to use it. There is software called the Dynamic Popup Generator that you can pick up for about $50.

The Dynamic Popup Generator can create pressure pop-ups, unblockable DHTML pop-ups, PictoPop-ups, conditional popups, instant opt-in pop-ups, and rotating pop-ups.


I just don't get it. This has to have a negative rate amongst people.. if they've installed pop up blockers etcetera, isn't it quite obvious that no, they don't want to see your intrusive ads? That it's more likely to cause people to STOP doing business with you then it is for people to START doing business with you?

(note: The 2nd link is old, but apparently adimpact has recently picked up some new clients, including imdb, so if you get hit with popups you weren't expecting, you know who to blame)

[RendeR]

the majority of business owners who want to get "world wide web" atention don't have a fucking clue about the internet or how it works or how people use it. They just want their ads out there. The advertising limp-dicks who push this stuff know it won't help them but its a buzz word and sells ad space, money over ethics. WINNER.

[RendeR]

Umm, is there something we should know?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I just don't get it. This has to have a negative rate amongst people.. if they've installed pop up blockers etcetera, isn't it quite obvious that no, they don't want to see your intrusive ads? That it's more likely to cause people to STOP doing business with you then it is for people to START doing business with you?

Not necessarily.

I can see where someone who has no identity or brand awareness coming out with a net positive on this, especially on something that's largely a one-off purchase (can a snuggie unblockable pop-up be far away?) or where volume is paramount over anything else.

Meanwhile, you do realize that blog post you quoted was from 2005, right?

[Daimyo]

I didn't get any popups even going to the adimpact site demo. I'm running Firefox 3 with noscript and adblock FWIW.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not necessarily.

I can see where someone who has no identity or brand awareness coming out with a net positive on this, especially on something that's largely a one-off purchase (can a snuggie unblockable pop-up be far away?) or where volume is paramount over anything else.

Meanwhile, you do realize that blog post you quoted was from 2005, right?

Yep. If you see my edit note, the technology is old, but it's picked up some new clients.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Yep. If you see my edit note, the technology is old, but it's picked up some new clients.

Umm ... new clients are added pretty much every week for any of these companies, I'm not really getting how that's newsworthy but okay.

[Schmidty]

I use various pop-up deflection stuff in Firefox, and I still get them. Meh, it's just a minor inconvenience to me. It's not like I read them or keep sound on at work.

It kind of reminds me of the people that bitch about the StumbleUpon pages they don't like - Hit the "X", or the Stumble button. It take 1 fucking second. Stop whining. It's just life.

[RendeR]

Its not quite the same though schmidty, some of these popups are damned annoying and if your working on something and hit a hey or click the mouse as it pops up it loads new browsers and/or pages and really can be interfering with you.

I'm certainly not the right person to ask about it though, I think advertising should be banned, entirely. People with products should get a listing under that products name in a "yellow pages" type directory, nothing more. people can then search for themselves to find the best product and deal.

advertisers are scheming lying scum sucking leeches on the open sores of societies herpes.

[Logan]

Wow, I agree with Render

(for these types of advertising people...guys like JiMGA and my brother are ok)

edit: So I don't come across as batshit insane, I should add that this is really geared more towards the spyware-related popups that killed my parents' computer, than legit ads.

[DaddyTorgo]

butbut
butbut
butbut
butbut
butbut
butbut

the sky is falling!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RendeR

advertisers are scheming lying scum sucking leeches on the open sores of societies herpes.

You do realize that without them most of the content on the internet wouldn't exist at all, right? Unless of course you're satisifed with the blogosphere,some homemade digital photos, and online auctions. Somebody has to pay for both the content & the delivery of said content and users have proven extremely unwilling to do so in sufficient numbers for pretty much anything other than porn or dating services.

For the record, not only have I never worked with a client who did pop-ups, and have actually dissuaded several from doing so because of the negative image associated with them. I've also steered several clients away from anything other than opt-in email lists as well, although my success on that has been mixed, at least we've managed to avoid having to be directly involved with those aspects of their marketing. In other words, it's definitely not my ox being gored here.

That said, you sort of come across like one of those people who bitch about seeing commercials on broadcast TV, who are basically too fucking stupid to be worth the time it would take to kill them.

[Alan T]

There are many websites that plenty of users here enjoy going to which are either paid in full, or subsidized by some form of site advertisements. I could be wrong, but for some reason I thought the reason FOFC is hosted at operation sports is due to the amount of traffic this forum brings to their "advertisements".

A good correlation would be to commercials on tv. Most people get annoyed by them, but just like website popups people with DVRs now have the ability to skip them almost entirely.

That said, I rarely ever see any kind of advertisements on any website because of noscript. I don't use noscript to block ads however, I use it to protect against harmful scripting from exploited websites that I might encounter. I guess however I don't see the huge fuss about website ads. If you like that site and they use them to pay for their site, would you rather the site not exist? if so, why visit it in the first place?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You do realize that without them most of the content on the internet wouldn't exist at all, right? Unless of course you're satisifed with the blogosphere,some homemade digital photos, and online auctions. Somebody has to pay for both the content & the delivery of said content and users have proven extremely unwilling to do so in sufficient numbers for pretty much anything other than porn or dating services.

For the record, not only have I never worked with a client who did pop-ups, and have actually dissuaded several from doing so because of the negative image associated with them. I've also steered several clients away from anything other than opt-in email lists as well, although my success on that has been mixed, at least we've managed to avoid having to be directly involved with those aspects of their marketing. In other words, it's definitely not my ox being gored here.

That said, you sort of come across like one of those people who bitch about seeing commercials on broadcast TV, who are basically too fucking stupid to be worth the time it would take to kill them.

I am not ignorant of the ramifications of my dreams JiMG, its not as if I actively expect advertising to vanish altogether, but it should be severely curtailed and regulated. Any schmuck with a video camera can buy tv advertising right now and sell whatever widget he think he's discovered.

And I also understand there are some ethical advertisers and promoters out there, however the bad far outweigh the good in that industry.

As for having the opinion that I'm not worth the energy to kill, meh, you've held worse opinions of me before I'll survive the sentiment, but you can rest assured no matter how I sound, I am not one of those people. TV ads while pretty much useless and pedantic are a necessary evil.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Alan T

There are many websites that plenty of users here enjoy going to which are either paid in full, or subsidized by some form of site advertisements. I could be wrong, but for some reason I thought the reason FOFC is hosted at operation sports is due to the amount of traffic this forum brings to their "advertisements".

A good correlation would be to commercials on tv. Most people get annoyed by them, but just like website popups people with DVRs now have the ability to skip them almost entirely.

That said, I rarely ever see any kind of advertisements on any website because of noscript. I don't use noscript to block ads however, I use it to protect against harmful scripting from exploited websites that I might encounter. I guess however I don't see the huge fuss about website ads. If you like that site and they use them to pay for their site, would you rather the site not exist? if so, why visit it in the first place?

The simplest answer is there are far more ways to advertise on a website. Popups are not a requirement, and IMO are instrusive on the viewer. The person viewing a website should not be forced to kill a popup ad. If I as the user want to see a popup ad, I'll open it myself. The website shouldn't be allowed to make that decision for me. its a personal space/privacy issue in my view.

Please remember I'm only really talking about popup ads here as the initial post talks about. The rest of teh advertising commentary was very TinC.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That said, you sort of come across like one of those people who bitch about seeing commercials on broadcast TV, who are basically too fucking stupid to be worth the time it would take to kill them.

That's a slippery slope, given that I pay Time Warner for my access to these channels, and the broadcasters have been getting bitchy the last few years about getting more money from TWC so I can watch them, which means I am paying for those "free" broadcasters. Plus those broadcasters love to play ads inappropriate for the show that's on, meaning my kids don't watch much broadcast TV, meaning I don't watch much broadcast TV.

[SirFozzie]

I think GoogleAds are the limit of what are acceptable. Tied directly to the keyword I want, unobtrusive, etcetera

[JediKooter]

I'd be curious as to how much business those popup ads bring in compared to how many people have been needlessly annoyed and will never patronize that business.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I'd be curious as to how much business those popup ads bring in compared to how many people have been needlessly annoyed and will never patronize that business.

The problem here is that you will find your answer in the rapid spread of viruses and the success of the Nigerian e-mail scams.

[Icy]

I see mixed concepts here and that is why most of you do not understand the use of aggressive online marketing techniques. You are looking only at the surfer/advertiser, but the main factor is the site owner who generate and sells that advertisement space (popups, banners, etc).

There are two sides in the business, the advertisers, who obviously want sales and happy customers and the guys who own the sites and generate/sell the add space, who are paid per volume. While the advertisers would agree that pissing over the surfer damages them, the site owners just care about generating the max amount of exposure (that includes popups) as they are paid for that volume. It might hurt them in the long term if the advertisers notice a low ratio of sales/exposure, but most of internet kids are there for the easy and quick money, not caring about the surfer and also damaging both the advertisers and the professional webmasters image in their way to get that quick money.

Is not that simple as there are a lot of ways to generate/sell/buy add space online, but you get the general idea of why some adds are pushed to you not caring if you get pissed or not.

Also even sounding sometimes incredible, aggressive popups generate sales, spammers are the huge money makers, people insert their account data in phishing emails, and even people contact the "Nigerian general's wife" to help her. There are millions of internet surfers, and no matter how smart/cautious some are, there are always as many if not more stupids/incautious.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

That's a slippery slope, given that I pay Time Warner for my access to these channels, and the broadcasters have been getting bitchy the last few years about getting more money from TWC so I can watch them, which means I am paying for those "free" broadcasters.

Nope.

Those free broadcasters are available to you through other means, you're paying for the convenience of having them along with the non-broadcast cable channels you want.

The problem here sounds more like one of thinking you're somehow entitled to that convenience.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The problem here is that you will find your answer in the rapid spread of viruses and the success of the Nigerian e-mail scams.

You mean I am NOT the beneficiary of 10.000.000 million US dollars????

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

You mean I am NOT the beneficiary of 10.000.000 million US dollars????

Do not yet despair.

I understand there may be a Nigerian E-Mail bailout package in the works, all may not yet be lost.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Nope.

Those free broadcasters are available to you through other means, you're paying for the convenience of having them along with the non-broadcast cable channels you want.

The problem here sounds more like one of thinking you're somehow entitled to that convenience.

Name that other means. For the record, I put an antenna on my house roof when I had DirecTV for HD locals, and never got reliable signal strength due to being in a low point with trees nearby.

And of course I have the option of not watching them at all, and I watch far less of them than I might otherwise because of the commercial issue I just mentioned, which means they are shooting themselves in the foot with their ad choices.

But feel free to skirt around the fact that many people "pay" to get their locals, and that these locals demand a piece of that pie.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Name that other means. For the record, I put an antenna on my house roof when I had DirecTV for HD locals, and never got reliable signal strength due to being in a low point with trees nearby.

But there's no divine right to access those signals, you are not magically entitled to "reliable signal strength" due to the location you chose for your home. You pay because you choose to improve that access.

The broadcast stations and the cable operators negotiate their agreement, either under the retransmission fee basis you mention or if they fail to reach an agreement then the stations can exercise their right to be added to the cable lineup without compensation under federal guidelines, usually referred to as "must carry". There's technically nothing requiring the cable companies to pay, or pass those charges along to the customer. It's a high stakes game of chicken as the broadcast outlets gamble on finding the largest number of potential viewers while maximizing revenue and the cable systems gamble on not losing subscribers if they opt not to carry. And as long as customers are willing to pay, both sides would be foolish not to exercise that option.

And of course I have the option of not watching them at all, and I watch far less of them than I might otherwise because of the commercial issue I just mentioned, which means they are shooting themselves in the foot with their ad choices.

Although I couldn't have recalled who mentioned this, I seem to recall a conversation about this subject in the past. But wasn't your primary concern (or at least the main concern I recall from that discussion, assuming you were part of it) more about content in network promos than in actual paid advertising? There's definitely some that still give me pause even as my son gets older, so I'm not unsympathetic to that issue, but honestly most of the ones I find concerning seem to be on cable not broadcast, with the exception of some of the 900 ads on late night TV.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Icy

there are always as many if not more stupids/incautious.

I learned something today- I didn't realize incautious was a word

SI

[Icy]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I learned something today- I didn't realize incautious was a word

SI

I just looked and yes it is:
incautious - definition of incautious by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

But I must admit that probably when i wrote it i was more thinking on the Spanish word (incauto) that is the opposite to (cauto). Pretty similar to cautious/incautious in English, so probably that is who i built the word.

Pretty weird, an Spanish guy teaching English words to an N.American

[MJ4H]

I was definitely admiring your usage of the plural noun "stupids," too.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Icy

I just looked and yes it is:
incautious - definition of incautious by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

But I must admit that probably when i wrote it i was more thinking on the Spanish word (incauto) that is the opposite to (cauto). Pretty similar to cautious/incautious in English, so probably that is who i built the word.

Pretty weird, an Spanish guy teaching English words to an N.American

Yeah- I had to look it up on dictionary.com and there it was, hence why I gave you credit

SI