Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Google The Internet Youtube

Dealing With 'Advertising Pollution' 418

Posted by Soulskill
from the can-we-please-come-up-with-a-new-funding-model dept.
theodp writes: "Everyone gets that advertising is what powers the internet, and that our favorite sites wouldn't exist without it," writes longtime ad guy Ken Segall in The Relentless (and annoying) Pursuit of Eyeballs. "Unfortunately, for some this is simply license to abuse. Let's call it what it is: advertising pollution." CNN's in-your-face, your-video-will-play-in-00:25-seconds approach, once unthinkable, has become the norm. "Google," Segall adds, "is a leader in advertising pollution, with YouTube being a showcase for intrusive advertising. Many YouTube videos start with a mandatory ad, others start with an ad that can be dismissed only after the first 10 seconds. Even more annoying are the ad overlays that actually appear on top of the video you're trying to watch. It won't go away until you click the X. If you want to see the entire video unobstructed, you must drag the playhead back to start over. Annoying. And disrespectful." Google proposed using cap and trade penalties to penalize traditional polluters — how about for those who pollute the Internet?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dealing With 'Advertising Pollution'

Comments Filter:
  • by alen (225700) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:00PM (#47490703)

    Most of Youtube is professionally produced videos where youtube shares the ad revenue with the creator. That's how people make money to be able to produce more videos.

    you either get rid of advertising and pay to watch each video, or you put up with advertising. My account is enabled for revenue sharing, but i rarely upload anything and don't rely on it. but if took and produced videos and relied on ad revenue, i would stop very fast if i didn't get paid.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:07PM (#47490739)

      Can we pay you to learn how to use the Shift key?

    • by Rising Ape (1620461) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:27PM (#47490885)

      you either get rid of advertising and pay to watch each video, or you put up with advertising.

      I have no objection to paying for ad-free stuff. Of course, to be fair, I'd then like a refund on the part of the price of the stuff I buy that goes to advertising it.

      That's the worst thing about advertising - it's surely more expensive than just paying directly, as you have to pay people to make the ad, plus various extra middlemen. And in return for that extra money you get to be assaulted by obnoxious audiovisual pollution.

    • by epyT-R (613989) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @08:32PM (#47491643)

      you either get rid of advertising and pay to watch each video, or you put up with advertising.

      False dilemma. We could watch the video with adblock plus installed and not let you waste our time with some ad selling bullshit we don't care about.

      i would stop very fast if i didn't get paid.

      Good. Take your ball and go home. The internet could use a few less for-profit entities twisting their content in order to maximize cashflow.

      • by znrt (2424692)

        Good. Take your ball and go home. The internet could use a few less for-profit entities twisting their content in order to maximize cashflow.

        it's called monetization, you insensitive clod!

      • by sudon't (580652) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @10:51AM (#47494515)

        Good. Take your ball and go home. The internet could use a few less for-profit entities twisting their content in order to maximize cashflow.

        Wish I had mod points, I couldn't agree more. I liked the web better before the commercial gold rush. Of course, I've been blocking ads since they began appearing, so that's not a big problem - but content was better before, IMO. And the whole spying game began with, and continues to be driven by, advertisers.

    • by Cito (1725214)

      Why I'm glad adblock exists.

      Course the automated adblock block listplugin on my router is heaven. Its nice to surf the internet free of ads everywhere like it was in 90s

      In 90s we put up websites cause we wanted a presence online and for fun and for yourself and to network. Not for ads and those that spammed were shunned or banned. The free website hosts used to ban spammers in the 90s that had ads.

      At least with adblocking and the daily updated block lists we can get back to a semi normal internet.

      • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @02:06AM (#47492719)

        They've invented adblock detectors.

        They don't show the video unless you allow the ad to show.

        So at the least, the game rachets up a notch.
        At the worst, adblock's days are numbered.

        ---

        TV used to have 52 minutes of content for 8 commercials.

        Now it has 42 minutes of content for 18 commercials.
        And in some cases 39 minutes of content for 23 minutes of content (by over laying the credits of the prior show with commercials).

        I mostly just don't watch it any more.

        But I've also gotten really good at not seeing the commercials. At first I had to try but now it's like I can sort of go blind and deaf to the commercials until the show comes back on.

        • > So at the least, the game rachets up a notch.
          At the worst, adblock's days are numbered.

          Next up: adblockers which don't actually block the ad... they'll play it in a sandbox or some such... the user just won't see it.

    • by Jupix (916634) on Sunday July 20, 2014 @04:59AM (#47493067)

      you either get rid of advertising and pay to watch each video, or you put up with advertising.

      I choose the former. 100%. Now how do I do that on Youtube?

  • Good point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by desertrat_it (650209) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:01PM (#47490705) Homepage

    I sat down to watch Paddington Bear with my 19 month old son.

    The advert that I couldn't skip was for a horror movie.

    Thanks, youtube. That was *fantastic*.

    • Re:Good point (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:09PM (#47490753)

      Use adblock, it gets rid of ALL the adds on youtube. And if it's not your device, just hit F5 and you should get something else.

      • Re:Good point (Score:4, Insightful)

        by houstonbofh (602064) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:24PM (#47490871)

        Use adblock, it gets rid of ALL the adds on youtube. And if it's not your device, just hit F5 and you should get something else.

        The amusing part is that youtube know this and has not "fixed" it. I guess they realize we are not a receptive market for that crap.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          > The amusing part is that youtube know this and has not "fixed" it. I guess they realize we are not a receptive market for that crap.

          Fixing it would break other things like non-browser access. Attempting to fix it in a way that still let non-browsers work would just escalate the problem such that we'd see browser plugins that emulate such devices - even if youtube forced ads into the same video stream and then rate-limited the video stream to make you always wait the length of the ad, someone would wri

      • by erroneus (253617)

        Adblock doesn't block youtube videos. They are the ONE advertising seller that "gets it." All other ad sellers do not trust the content providers to host or to count the hits on the ads. So Adblock is effective. But then again, Youtube is an ad seller AND a content provider, so the trust is within itself. Heaven help us when content providers are trusted by ad sellers.

      • Unfortunately, adblock doesn't seem to work for Slashdot's corporate overlord.

        Make the mistake of posting your email address or phone number on dice.com, and even if you delete that information right away, you'll still be deluged six months down the road with recruitment spam and phone calls of third party recruiters who don't even bother to read your resume in the first place (yes, had I known this in advance, I would have just given a spamgourmet email address and a throwaway google voice phone number).

        di

    • by oobayly (1056050)

      I tend to reload the page until a 4 second advert pops up. The other think to do is click the "disable sound" button on some adverts - they should collect information that people don't want to listen to it.

  • Start small (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:02PM (#47490713)

    I never watch forced ads. I've yet to see content that's worth it. Pages get reloaded to pass the ads a couple times, failing that I'm off to something else. Oh, and adblockers and outright hostname and IP blocking still works. I'm sure they'll figure out a way to be even more abusive, they're google after all. But even they need to learn that trying too hard easily causes a loss of those precious "eyeballs".

  • by pubwvj (1045960) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:07PM (#47490741)

    No Advertising does not power the Internet. Bogus assertion to begin the article. The internet ran fine before the ads. It would run fine without them. Advertising is one aspect of the internet. It does not power the internet in any way, shape or form.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CRCulver (715279)
      When people say "internet", they mean content showing their favorite celebrities, mainstream news, and the same special-interest articles that used to appear in print manages. They don't mean a bunch of bearded, pasty-faced nerds discussing filk music and making obscure UNIX jokes on Usenet like the "internet that ran fine before the ads" that you are thinking of.
      • by CRCulver (715279)
        s/manages/magazines/.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The Internet was vastly better then by any measure. It wasn't used to commit financial crimes, to dupe people, to invade privacy, or to spy on whole populations. It especially didn't destroy more jobs than it's created and eliminate whole industries, and cause the vast amounts of unemployment and underemployment that have resulted from its going mainstream.

        What has made the Internet the cesspool it is today is advertising, corporatism, and the kind of control and attempted control that goes with the unde

        • by Applehu Akbar (2968043) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @07:54PM (#47491505)

          Advertising is also why the Internet has evolved far past Usenet discussions. Ads bring us current TV episodes and today's news. I'll take that over alt.whine.virginity any time.

        • by westlake (615356)

          The Internet was vastly better then by any measure. It wasn't used to commit financial crimes, to dupe people, to invade privacy, or to spy on whole populations. It especially didn't destroy more jobs than it's created and eliminate whole industries

          AOL introduced flat-rate monthly billing in the mid nineties - coincidental with flat-rate regional calling plans.

          Going on-line had become affordable.

          The typical Internet suite of that era had its arcane clients for e-mail, IRC chat, USENET, FTP, Gopher, Archie, Veronica, and maybe a primitive web browser, along with zip file compression and a graphics editor.

          The AOL client pushed all the geek's beloved tech far into the background, and put an easy to use GUI up-front.

          At that point, the only way the geek c

      • by Roger Wilcox (776904) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @11:35PM (#47492311)

        There were many people producing their own content on the Internet before big business saw a profit in it. To frame them all as pasty-faced nerds is disingenuous and obviously false. These were ordinary people exchanging ideas and sharing whatever they felt was worth sharing. This was, and still is, the crux of the Internet's greatness.

        The kind of content you mention is the kind of content that does not utilize the unique interpersonal capabilities of the Internet. That stuff is ordinary mass media content that has moved to the Internet only because the corporations producing it were losing their readership and revenue to the Internet (see previous paragraph.) They came here to fight for our eyeballs and our opinions because we chose to ignore them in favor of communicating with each other.

        Advertising, as irritating as it can be, can help us to distinguish between content motivated by money (probably distributed by a giant corporation with an ulterior motive of keeping you suckling at their teat while feeding you politically slanted pseudo-news) and content motivated by some other impetus. For me, content that is laden with irritating advertisements practically screams "don't listen to me! I'm a scumbag!"

        I'd much rather hear from ordinary people who have enough respect for me to tell their story without trying to monetize me. Lucky for us, plenty of those people still exist on the Internet.

        (properly formatted this time)

    • by houstonbofh (602064) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:28PM (#47490889)
      Do you remember the Internet before advertising? I do. It was mostly educational, and technical. It was also low bandwidth. The modern Internet is a lot of expensive to produce and deliver content. That money has to come from somewhere, and Universities are not financing it all like they used to.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        > It was also low bandwidth. The modern Internet is a lot of expensive to produce and deliver content.

        Bandwidth costs have dropped exponentially since then.
        We are looking at a 2000x drop in pricing from 1998 to the end of this year. [drpeering.net]
        In 1998 it was $1200.00/Mbps by 2015 it will be $0.63/Mbps

    • There is a fuckton more content on the internet today than in 1998, so what worked before doesn't necessarily work today and vice versa. To take the YouTube example of the story author, we have two sides to it - those who post the content without having to worry about being hit by a massive bandwidth bill, and those who view the content without having to whip out a credit card to pay for it. In between those sides, we have Google who is paying the infrastructure bill and funding the means to pay that bill

    • by jdavidb (449077) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @09:52PM (#47491901) Homepage Journal

      Notice that the guy who said it is an advertising guy. That's his whole worldview. That's the way he thinks it is and the way he thinks it should be. Meanwhile for the rest of us, we have lots of alternatives. Paid sites, community-supported sites, ad-blocked sites, sites run by people who love what they are running a site about.

      Basically this is a little advertiser wanting us to support clubbing a big advertiser, Google. He'd like us to get mad at his competition. What he wouldn't like is for us to start noticing just how much what he is advocating is in his self-interest.

      I recommend we all switch to ad-block and screw them all. If some sites die or have to switch funding models, works great for me.

  • I once was serenaded by infomercials (45 minutes long) when I tried to view some videos on their site. Yes, there's a skip buttion.

  • by Insomnium (1415023) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:07PM (#47490747)

    I installed addblock because videos and streams I watched had add volume loudness so loud that it was a real problem. I often watch videos during the night and when the loudness jumps up for the adds it becomes annoying really fast. And that was the only reason.

    I don't really mind adds and I know they run the content creators, but just that one small issue was enough for me.

    • by Dutch Gun (899105)

      Too bad adblock doesn't work on my Xbox 360. Microsoft has really gone over the edge with cramming advertising down its customers throats. At this point, quite literally, MOST of the screen now is taken up by advertisements of one form or another on the main navigation pages. What's really irksome is that this was a post-purchase change that we were required to get if we wanted to continue to play with friends online, not to mention I'm already paying them $60 a year for the privilege of watching their a

      • by BitZtream (692029)

        Unplug the network cable, poof, advertising gone.

        I didn't realize how bad it was until I had accidentally left the cable unplugged as I'd used that port for another non-Wifi equipped PC. When I started the Xbox 360 again I was blown away by how much more pleasant it was.

  • by Snufu (1049644) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:14PM (#47490793)

    No. The internet was implemented by the federal government, funded by citizen taxes, and later extended as part of the communications infrastructure. The internet was not invented to serve businesses, it was invented to serve the citizens.

    For those who voluntarily go to ad laden websites, you can't regulate self harm.

    • No. The internet was implemented by the federal government, funded by citizen taxes, and later extended as part of the communications infrastructure. The internet was not invented to serve businesses, it was invented to serve the citizens.

      And pre-1913 we had no income taxes. When you get to todays world, let us know.

    • by queazocotal (915608) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:39PM (#47490947)

      No, it really wasn't.
      The internet was invented to be an interesting communication protocol.
      Later on, commercial entities and the general public got connected to it.
      For a _long_ time, it was .edu (as latter became) only.

      Imagining that the internet was destined to win, and there were no alternatives is revisionist history.

      The internet very nearly didn't win, avoiding being relegated to a communications experiment that died likely sometime around 2000.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org] - as an example of a competing service that lasted a long time, in the face of growing internet.
      Aol, compuserv, and all of the other services didn't quite get joined up fast enough to make the internet irrelevant.

      It was quite possible that this could have happened.
      They decided that it was in their commercial interests to isolate their services, so that you couldn't email people on different networks.
      This (amongst other similar issues) ended up killing them as other than ISPs when the internet took over this function.

      If, for example, AOL, compuserv, Prodigy et al had gotten together and made it possible to email other services members, a prime reason for the explosion of the internet would have gone away.

      Similarly, minitel could be a model of what the 'internet' might have looked like if the internet had not won.
      It would be very, very different.

      Network effects are _powerful_.

      • No, it really wasn't. The internet was invented to be an interesting communication protocol. Later on, commercial entities and the general public got connected to it. For a _long_ time, it was .edu (as latter became) only.

        Bzzzt! Wrong. [wikipedia.org] Thanks for playing. [wikipedia.org]

  • by PapayaSF (721268) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:19PM (#47490827) Journal

    This is because most or all website revenue comes from advertising. CBS has ads, but Netflix doesn't. Books don't, and newspapers and magazines have a limited amount, because part of their revenue comes from selling their publications to consumers. (Without ads, a copy of something like National Geographic or Playboy would cost $20 or more.)

    The problem is that we don't have a good way of buying small amounts of content online. You can subscribe to some sites by the month or year, or perhaps buy limited access via PayPal, but the cost tends to be $ or $$ or $$$, and nobody wants to subscribe to CNN or YouTube. They want to see that video now, with no registration and commitment. The answer is the great lost Internet opportunity of 15 years ago: micropayments. If there was an easy and universal system for paying (say) a few cents to watch a video, why not? It'd be trivial for viewers, but could add up to real money for sites.

    If I were a huge content provider, I'd figure out a way to make it happen, perhaps through ISPs. Subsidize them to give every user maybe $10/month credit. Offer content providers a great deal to install a one-click "Read/Watch Now for 1 cent" buttons. Get people used to paying tiny amounts of money to view content. If something like this could get going, it'd benefit content providers of all sizes. E.g. a comedian who writes one joke a day could make a living with 10,000 readers paying 1 cent per day ($100/day = $36,500/year).

    • by ljw1004 (764174)

      This runs into the problem of cluck-bait... Stupid zero-content fluff pieces but with headlines that entice you in (e.g. Upworthy, HuffingtonPost) but then you discover that they're stupid. If I had to pay even 1c before seeing the content (and discovering that I'd been duped) then I'd start to get angry, and start to refuse to pay for more sites. Even on legit sites like BBC News, by "internet attention span" is satisfied by about half way through the article, so something long enough to be a good preview

      • by PapayaSF (721268)

        I'll admit micropayments don't remove the problem of click-bait, which already exists. And there could be fraud, e.g. claiming something is 1 cent to read, but charging $1. But I think a lot of that can be solved be reputation and common sense, i.e. you might not want to click on that .ru link that promises nude photos of Christina Hendricks. I think the negatives would be worth the positives of allowing content providers, large and small, to make money directly, without advertising.

      • by Rakarra (112805)

        There are a number of sites I'd like to blacklist which have "sponsored links" from my newspaper's website, from cracked, etc. Some are terribly written, some (like answers.com) have adopted an unbelievably annoying, advertising-heavy slide-show design. Click on something like "10 Actors who didn't deserve their Academy Award" and you'll find you have to click 30 times, because each topic gets three slides.. the first a picture and the next two with text (usually just a sentence or two) overlaid over that p

    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      netflix has subscriptions though, makes up for lack of advertisements.

  • why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cascadingstylesheet (140919) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:20PM (#47490835)

    CNN's in-your-face, your-video-will-play-in-00:25-seconds approach, once unthinkable, has become the norm.

    Why unthinkable? Why should free video be so very different from free TV?

    • Why unthinkable? Why should free video be so very different from free TV?

      Who sits through TV commercials?

  • I used the Internet, quite happily and successfully, for more than a decade, before HTTP (curse you, Tim Berners-Lee) began to intrude on the experience. I would be very happy to go back to those days. Throw in an IRC/FTP/RTP+RTSP "subscription" for content, and there's nothing I would miss.

    The old adage about TV ("99 channels and nothing on") applies to the web, but with several orders more magnitude of noise to signal.

    • I used the Internet, quite happily and successfully, for more than a decade, before HTTP (curse you, Tim Berners-Lee) began to intrude on the experience. I would be very happy to go back to those days. Throw in an IRC/FTP/RTP+RTSP "subscription" for content, and there's nothing I would miss.

      Yet... here you are. And looking at your posting history, pretty regularly too.

      The old adage about TV ("99 channels and nothing on") applies to the web, but with several orders more magnitude of noise to signal.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:21PM (#47490843)

    Ads are spam. Does spam power email? Do pirates power seafaring?

  • use your tabs (Score:5, Informative)

    by Todd Palin (1402501) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:24PM (#47490861)

    Mute the sound and go to another tab for however many seconds. You don't have to watch it or listen to it. Use ad blocker for the rest. You don't have to be bothered with ads if you don't choose to be bothered. There are some serious annoyances in this world, but internet ads aren't a big deal.

  • I just repeat "fuck you, fuck you, fuck you", while the ad plays. If it is especially annoying, I make a note to never buy from the cretins responsible.

  • by david.emery (127135) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:42PM (#47490967)

    I've noticed a really annoying trend, where you're on a site for a 10-20 seconds reading their content, when this (presumably JavaScript) box pops in front of the content soliciting for your email address. This is really annoying, since it totally breaks the concentration on what you're reading. Since this apparently done with JavaScript provided by the hosting site, pop-up window blockers and cross-script blockers don't prevent it.

    So here's a hint for web designers: THIS IS F***KING ANNOYING! STOP IT!

    Thank you.

  • by AndyCanfield (700565) <<moc.xednay> <ta> <dleifnacydna>> on Saturday July 19, 2014 @05:48PM (#47491003) Homepage

    The ones that get me are where you go to an ordinary (text) web page, probably news, and there is a flash add on the right side that starts playing instantly, video and sound. OK, bad enough. But to trying to turn it off I move my mouse over it, and the D*** thing expands to half the screen, blocking what I went there to read. And it won't go back to being small!

    It is for this reason that I do not have Flash installed on my new notebook computer. Adobe Flash should give the user more power. How about a global option that says "Don't run anything until I click on it." That would be decent. Even door-to-door salesmen are required to knock on your door; they can't use bullhorns from out on the sidewalk, which is what Flash is used for.

    • Use Quick JavaScript Switcher. When you see that a blank box is probably offering you a video you can choose to switch JavaScript on if you think you want to watch the video, or you can leave it off if you suspect it is an ad, or if you just don't want to be bothered by a video. Much of the time the video is just BS anyway, so read the text and move on.

    • by oobayly (1056050)

      I'm a big fan of FlashBlock for this reason.

  • FTFA :- "Everyone gets that advertising is what powers the internet, and that our favorite sites wouldn't exist without it"

    Wrong. My favourite web sites are my own ones, and they have no advertising.
  • Case in point, from a customer last week. Legit local radio, click steaming button. Stream controls in pop up from 3rd party. Stream is broken, stars then stops. Ad in same window, from ad choices, plain white misleading ad, "you need to update your windows media player 11". What do people do? Oh I need to update. Boom adware or worse. There need to be laws and real penalties for this, it does real damag.
  • Why I use... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Karmashock (2415832) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @06:04PM (#47491087)

    Adblock
    NoScript
    CookieMonster
    And Flashstop

    Adblock removes most of the ads. I turn off for sites I want to support or that don't annoy me with obnoxious ads.

    NoScript is on for any site I can use without javascript. Java slows a lot of sites down without providing me any useful functionality in most cases. Also most of the annoying things a site can do like throw pop ups at you is done in javascript. So I just keep it off for most things.

    CookieMonster blocks cookies which I do anywhere the site I'm interacting with doesn't need me to have a cookie. If I'm not doing anything complicated on a site and there are no logins then there's no need for cookies.

    Flashstop stops all those annoying flash animations and videos and audio files that otherwise would auto play when you load a site. Its even good with youtube because you can load up five or six different pages at once without them all auto playing.

    This is how I interact with the web now. Come at me.

  • by Tom (822) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @06:10PM (#47491127) Homepage Journal

    ...except, of course, for the ad companies selling it to companies who try to get sales. I'm not in marketing, but I got some insider information from people who are, and they all say that about 50% of all the money put into advertisement has basically the same effect on sales as burning it would have. The only reason it is wasted this way is that a) many customers don't know it and - more importantly - b) they don't know which 50%.

    But, as in so many things, when something stops being effective, the first answer to the problem is to do more of it. The enemy has built bunkers against our bombs? Drop more bombs! The virus is becoming immune to our medicine? Raise the dosage. People have begun to ignore or block advertisement? Throw more ads their way.

    Yes, it is pollution, the term is spot on.

  • What's even worse is when some insurance company publishes a scare article to Forbes' advertisement program, which publishes stories under the Forbes umbrella while vaguely disassociating themselves from the content. The content looks like it's Forbes. It's really sick. Here's an example [forbes.com].

  • by UltraZelda64 (2309504) on Saturday July 19, 2014 @07:44PM (#47491469)

    Really, I don't know what I'd do without them. Probably stop using the Internet as much as I do now, find some alternatives, or do a hell of a lot more bitching.

    When running a fresh new installation of a web browser, the first ad I see immediately causes me to halt everything I'm doing and install those three plugins. Annoyingly, I usually don't even hit two consecutive websites before that happens--the wretched fucking things are literally everywhere. Video ads really fucking piss me off, and even more on Android, because the god damn things are *designed* to reduce your access to the system, which effectively prevents installing ad blocking software without gaining root.

    I have actually in the past, when confronted with an ad while trying to watch a video, cranked the volume all the way down and turned the phone upside down. If I did happen to see what brand was advertising, I add them to my mental blacklist of products and services to AVOID. Yes, I am so against advertising, it has the exact *opposite* effect on me when it comes to buying things. I'm sorry, but I can think for myself, I can do my own research and come up with an educated conclusion as to what I want or need. I don't fucking need someone spewing bullshit, trying to force me to buy their junk.

    These days? When I even come across ONE ad when attempting to watch YouTube, I have zero tolerance. I close it. It is not worth the hassle. If I want to watch something bad enough, it will be on a proper computer with the necessary extensions. Android is one of the worst platforms to visit web pages or watch videos on.

  • by jd (1658) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <kapimi>> on Saturday July 19, 2014 @07:54PM (#47491507) Homepage Journal

    Not everyone "gets" that advertising is needed. In fact, click-through revenue is so miniscule that it would be more cost-effective to not saturate the Internet with ads, or indeed have ads on the Internet at all. The Internet had no advertising at all until two Utah lawyers invented spam and made a fortune promoting their book on Internet advertising. That was around 5 years after the Internet was privatized.

    Almost no site I give a damn about relies on advertising. As advertising on a site goes up, the time I spend there goes down. When in England, I watch BBC almost exclusively, ITV stuff is relegated to whenever it comes out on DVD. That has been the case for much of my life. When moving to the US, I abandoned television entirely simply because of the adverts.

    Linux is one of the top Operating Systems and gained almost all of that reputation and awesomeness before IBM started their TV ads.

    So if products don't need advertising, the Internet doesn't need advertising and users hate advertising, then who the hell is this "everyone" who "understands" the need?

  • If these annoying ads did not work better than alternatives, they would not exist. "Working" means they have an effect on some portion of the target audience. Everyone does not hate and ignore ads (although I do not understand this mentality personally).

    But, what you are seeing is desperation. Advertising rates are still too high. It is not nearly as effective as advertisers once thought, which is why you have seen rates plummet. And that's why you have seen ads become increasing annoying and obtrusive. The

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Working...