A New Idea, For People Who Want To See More Banner Ads 167
Jacob53 writes "Scott Kurnit is a very bright guy. He founded About.com, and has raised over $8,000,000 for his new business AdKeeper. So, who am I to judge? But his new start-up sounds more like a Saturday Night Live skit than an emerging marketplace." As someone who actually enjoys a lot of advertising, it sounds only mildly weird to me — the basic idea is to let people easily archive ads they think might be interesting for perusing later.
Forget the article, submitter is weird (Score:2, Insightful)
The submitter "actually enjoys a lot of advertising"? What's wrong with them?
I suppose this might mean that submitter finds adverts funny, but we have to wonder - doesn't (s)he find them distracting? Doesn't the underlying message "you have to buy stuff to be worthwhile" get old after awhile?
Most of the people I know took deliberate steps to cut advertising entirely out of their lives, and that's been essential to feeling more peace/quiet/sanity. The technologies are there. Why wouldn't someone want to use
Re: (Score:3)
>doesn't (s)he find them distracting? Doesn't the underlying message "you have to buy stuff to be worthwhile" get old after awhile?
I dunno. I've got NoScript installed, I paintball ads on bus stops, and I saw down billboards. Haven't had time to experiment with the above.
Re: (Score:3)
Being that you are likely a fan of scifi, why are you being judgemental of what other people enjoy?
Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (Score:4, Insightful)
Being that you are likely a fan of scifi, why are you being judgemental of what other people enjoy?
Some people are masochists and really enjoy physical pain. There's nothing "judgmental" or otherwise faulty about saying that this is pathological. Something is wrong with those people. I don't care if pointing that out offends you because it's the truth, not merely a matter of taste or opinion.
One can only be "judgmental" (a thoroughly overused word) when there is a prejudice against one of two equally viable options. You're not being "judgmental" when you say that having $1000 is better than having $10, merely realistic. Thus, to claim that GP is being "judgmental" is equivalent to claiming that banner ads have as much literary and artistic value as a well-written sci-fi novel. If you think you can prove that claim, I'm willing to entertain your evidence, but until then I remain fully skeptical.
Some guy is free to enjoy ads if that's really what he wants to do. Others are free to think that's pretty damned strange. I don't see anyone advocating that either freedom should be taken away, so really what's the problem here?
Re: (Score:2)
If someone says having $10 is better than having $1,000, and you think they are masochistic, you are being judgemental of them until the moment you ask them 'why'. 'Equally viable' is not a part of it for reasons way too obvious to list.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if pointing that out offends you because it's the truth, not merely a matter of taste or opinion.
Quid est veritas?
Re: (Score:2)
Regardles of whether I agree with you or not...
There's nothing "judgmental" or otherwise faulty about saying that this is pathological. Something is wrong with those people. I don't care if pointing that out offends you because it's the truth, not merely a matter of taste or opinion.
"Wrong" in this context is a subjective moral judgement. Technically, it's nothing more than something out of the norm.
Most things about most people are out of the norm; having ginger hair is out of the norm, preferring smaller breasts is out of the norm, being longer than 2m is out of the norm. Is any of these "wrong"?
The only thing wrong here, and it is a very significant and dangerous "wrong", is that you confuse your own moral values with objective fact.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pain is meant to be an indication of harm or danger, so if people enjoy it is isn't generally working as it should. Even then when people enjoy it in small does or in limited contexts, i.e. sex, that doesn't count as objectively 'wrong'.
Ads are quite a different thing, and many are funny or entertaining or memorable. Given that such shows exist such as worlds funniest commercials, I think it is fair to say that many people enjoy ads. You can certainly think it
Re: (Score:2)
I can call someone a pathalogical sports fan - they would call me a pathalogical couch potato - if they knew the word. Beither of us would feel we could change the other.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that I agree with your assessment of the connotations the word has, but I will concede that definitions are what we make of them. It is my experience that when someone says something is "pathological", they mean that it should be fixed, even if it cannot be (or perhaps if we do not have the right to attempt it). Not all, since apparently that is not how you use the word... but it is my experience that most people use it in the way I interpret it.
However, since we can ultimately define the word
Re: (Score:2)
they would call me a pathalogical couch potato - if they knew the word
Yeah, they probably couldn't spell it if they heard it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is laughable. Not only is your position stupid, because I can just as easily challenge you to prove that advertisements do not carry literary and artistic value (hint: you can't prove this about anything, because those are subjective concepts), but you don't even remember what I said originally. I don't personally find any value in advertisements, and I have no desire to watch them. This has nothing to do with me trying to boost my ego by convincing someone else that my activities are OK; it is about me saying that you don't have the right to take a subjective thing you think, and declare that it is true for everyone.
It's really simple. Your premise is self-defeating. That's why you are not committed to your own premise.
If you were committed to your own premise, then when I say something is "pathological" then you would regard that as "my opinion, to which I am entitled" or "my equally valid perspective" or "my particular viewpoint". But no, there are opinions and perspectives and viewpoints you regard as valid and invalid. So you do adhere to an absolute reference. The problem is, that totally contradicts the p
Re: (Score:2)
No. You are applying the same reasoning to two entirely different concepts. My premise is that there is no objective truth for how someone should enjoy themselves. You are applying that reasoning to the area in which I am calling you out, which is different. What I'm calling you out for is how you treat others, not what you choose to find enjoyable.
Different facets of people interacting with each other can, and should, be judged by different standards. Some can (and should) be judged with a position that al
Re: (Score:2)
You still don't get it, do you? I haven't backpedaled at all, my position is the same as it always was: you, and they, are engaging in different kinds of speech which should be treated differently. It is that simple. You apparently don't agree with this, and I don't really have a problem with that... but the fact that you don't agree doesn't mean it hasn't been part of my premise the entire time.
At no point in this discussion have I contradicted myself. You may have perceived it that way, because you reject
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah? Well fuck both of you, Soul Caliber is better than Tekken any day of the week!
Wait, what are we talking about again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think your quoting Timothy, not the submitter.
Still....Ads are unquestionably distracting, but as a consumer, wanting to be exposed to them to find out about new products you find interesting seems perfectly reasonable. Personally I get my fill from billboards and tube trains, so am more than happy to entirely cut them out of the websites I browse using AdBlock. I don't think it's particularly weird to enjoy them though. Also, I've never thought the underlying message was about self worth (except in ads a
Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (Score:5, Interesting)
This dumb-seeming idea is potentially a great way of getting those people who are still susceptible to advertising to stick their hands up and shout 'hey, advertisers, over here'. That's it's actual value, it potentially allows targetting of ad spending on people who don't adblock.
Scott 'dilbert' Adams pointed out a while ago that the holy grail for advertisers is an accurate list of people who are gullible, rich and not resistant to ads. He uses the example of a absurdly expensive house-cozy (like a tea cozy, but for your house). It's so stupid and over-priced that only a handful of people in the whole would be rich and dumb enough to buy one, so it's an awful idea for a business... unless you know exactly who those handful people are. If you do then then you have a workable business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've got advertisement in youtube and other videosharing sites, but at least the cable channels don't buffer.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the context.
Online ads can be beneficial when related to your search terms.
Commercials on broadcast television can occasionally be informative (ie: finding out what new shows are coming out). To be fair though, I've got MythTV and have been routinely skipping commercials for years. Every now and then though, I do let the commercials play, or on occasion even repeat them. That's not to say I'm watching the commercials, just that repeating a commercial break can be productive background sound
Re: (Score:2)
> Online ads can be beneficial when related to your search terms.
Only if one is actively participating as a potential consumer. Consider the following search terms which I have recently entered:
"first airliner autolanding date"
"ubuntu slow throughput ath9k driver"
"why are submarines painted black"
"how heavy are clouds"
In none of those instances would advertisements be at all useful, desired or relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
The submitter "actually enjoys a lot of advertising"? What's wrong with them?
The only ads that bug me are:
1. oversize ads that temporarily obliterate what I am trying to interact with or otherwise annoy with obtrusive sounds or attention grabbing optical effects.
2. ads that load first and prevent the rest of the page loading in parallel.
Other than that, who cares? I have a highly developed ability to ignore the stuff I don't care about.
OTOH, there have been many times that I have seen an ad that I was interested in and I wish I could have bookmarked it quickly for later examination
Re: (Score:2)
That said, the commercials that amuse me have a much better chance of not getting skipped than those that don't. Not necessarily a better chance of selling me anything (I'll not get Geico no matter how entertaining I find their commercials -- they can't beat my current rate -- but the first tim
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, what?
What about the other message that advertising sometimes sends, "Here's something you may not know about that might be useful to you."
Stuff like that exists.
How to find out about new products? (Score:2)
What about the other message that advertising sometimes sends, "Here's something you may not know about that might be useful to you."
Isn't a less intrusive, better filtered, and more trustworthy way of learning about new things through editorial content rather than ads?
There are ways to fund publishers of helpful product-related information such as reviews and "what's new" lists other than via up-front charges or advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. you know what ads are. You might accidentally trust editorial content.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. you know what ads are. You might accidentally trust editorial content.
Yes, editorial can be corrupted. At the moment one of the most common ways this happens is through the favouring of advertisers, which makes advertising doubly corrupt.
That's why you have to find a trusted source, based on their reputation, their policies, or your experience.
Re: (Score:2)
> "Here's something you may not know about that might be useful to you"
I refer you to the old adage "no corporation is your friend".
No one is going to spend money to tell you, zippthorne, about something that might be useful to you unless they will benefit from your purchase of the item, either directly ( as the retailer or producer ) or indirectly ( magazines ).
Re: (Score:2)
No one is going to spend money to tell you, zippthorne, about something that might be useful to you unless they will benefit from your purchase of the item, either directly ( as the retailer or producer ) or indirectly ( magazines ).
True, with two exceptions: When the full cost of a publication or service is borne by the users; and when people take the time (= money) to give word-of-mouth advice for nice reasons.
However the first usually means a prohibitive paywall, while the second usually delivers information that is either highly-subjective or has been derived from the very same professionals.
Re: (Score:2)
I refer you to the old adage "no corporation is your friend".
That is an old adage. So old, in fact, that it's been made obsolete by facebook: now corporations can be your friends&ominousellipsis;
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually good ads do ads value.
I get a magazine called motorcycle classics. There are a ton of really good ads for all sorts of stuff that I want and care about. Same is true for say CycleWorld, Motorcyclists, and Rider. CircuitCellar has really good ads as does Sports Aviation.
Why are those ads good? Well they are not intrusive and they are well targeted.
I would even allow the ads on Slashdot except for one thing. Some of them are animated! I hate animated ads on webpages. I find any animation distracting
Re: (Score:2)
I hate advertising far more than most people. But one of the very few places I find ads to be acceptable is in niche magazines, like the type you mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
But why shouldn't the internet be one niche magazine?
Many of the ads on Slashdot are actually well targeted to what I want.
The problem on Slashdot IMHO is that some of them have animation.
I can not stand animated ads. End of story.
I want Slashdot to make as much money as they can while providing me a website that I like.
I have no problem with them getting ad money as long as they are not animated.
Maybe I am the odd one out but I hate then with a passion.
Re: (Score:2)
Ads have a lot of useful information. If you want to keep up on trends, prices, what is going on in any industry, the ads in the suitable media will tell you a lot quicker and more completely than any articles that get written. Catalogs, movie listings, concert and theater listings, are all just ads. You need them if you intend to know what it going on in the world. Commercials on TV do have an entertainment value a good amount of
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the guy probably has a black turtleneck fetish. And Steve Jobs likes 'em tight.
Re: (Score:3)
Watch This Space. [google.com]
"The Walk" [youtube.com]
To me, advertising is an art, and if done well it can become a piece of culture, like the old Coca Cola commercials. The problem is that there are too many low quality LOUD adverts. I guess advertisers feel shouting at the American public is the best way to get them to buy something. In any case, some advertising is masterful. Being able to economize and tell a story in 30-60 seconds is not an easy thing to do
Re: (Score:3)
Some ads are fun.
ONCE!
The main problem with ads isn't that they must be boring. The main problem is that even your favorite show would get boring if you get the same episode slapped in your face over and over and over and...
Re: (Score:2)
Tracking? Why would i care about that? Maybe i want to have an image of my personality created since i don't care for golf, i don't want to buy Shitney Spears new album, nor do i care much for the latest and greatest sports cars. I actually want ads to be tailored for me. Any sites where i sign up to, i instantly check settings for things that the site will show me based on my interests.
When is the last time they gave you the choice of whether or not to be tracked or by whom? Which is the problem, you have these people tracking people without permission or any sort of notification. You've got no way of knowing who they are or what they're doing and with the number of security breeches involving supposedly confidential data by corporations too lazy and incompetent to properly secure it.
Yeah, it's your right to not care about that, but you're a dumb ass for suggesting that it isn't any so
Re: (Score:2)
You'd seriously rather live in a city with billboards?
Right-click, save as. (Score:3)
CTRL-D, tag on del.icio.us.
Uh, ... how hard is it now? What big headache does this new pill solve???
Re: (Score:2)
CTRL-D, tag on del.icio.us.
Uh, ... how hard is it now? What big headache does this new pill solve???
Makes it easier to tag and review? Especially for the average user? I've seen ads that I was interested in, but not right away. Of course, they go away so I never click through. This make sit more magazine like; which is good, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Flash banner ads are a little more difficult, especially if they are delivered via a javascript tag that randomly returns one of several ads, and the one you want is actually in the form of a second javascript tag that returns the flash banner you need. I've never tried to save one of these ads before, but I work for a company that has a website, and sometimes, both we and our advertisers will use javascript-based invocation code, so that we can each do our own ad tracking and verify that the other party is
Ads that work like that are annoying anyway (Score:2)
If you want me to be able to save your ad for later, you need to display it in a format that's transparent, standards-based, and not annoying. (They also have to get past NoScript and AdBlock, so maybe I'm not your target customer - I don't mind static banner ads from legitimate advertisers supporting web pages I'm looking at for free, but they get trashed as collateral damage because I really don't want animated scripted spyware-laden bloatware ads slowing down my browser.
This guy seems to have raised $8
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Is the impending shutdown of del.icio.us a feature or a flaw?
Re: (Score:2)
Keep up. There is no impending shut-down. And it's not a social bookmarking service.
Re: (Score:2)
So how do you explain this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicious_(website) [wikipedia.org]
Delicious (formerly del.icio.us, pronounced "delicious") is a social bookmarking web service for storing, sharing, and discovering web bookmarks
Or this.
http://www.delicious.com/help/learn [delicious.com]
"...Delicious is a Social Bookmarking service..."
Re: (Score:2)
False consciousness?
More likely the the Delicious boys got it past the boys in marketing by appending "social" to "bookmarking." Delicious is a great bookmarking service; what's social about it, is another question (you need Diigo for that).
Re: (Score:2)
Adkeeper (Score:2)
I hate to say it, but I've actually wished in the past I could save an ad for later. But then I realized I could just click the ad and use the "bookmark this page" in my browser. Derp.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to say it, but I've actually wished in the past I could save an ad for later. But then I realized I could just click the ad and use the "bookmark this page" in my browser. Derp.
So you keep clicking the bookmark until the ad cycles around again.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the ad you're bookmarking.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. You're trying to save face.
Re: (Score:2)
He is fine, the problem seems to be that you are missing his point. He is not interested in saving ads for later so he can appreciate their creative merit. He is interested in the ad because of the product it is advertising. Therefore saving the link to the product itself does everything he needs.
My assumption is that this ad saver service is also for people who are interested in products and not the ads themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the term they use the entite time is 'banner-ads", which makes sense coinsidering that approach doesn't give the false impression of ad-clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, they save the banner ads for you so that you can view them later, but still the point of viewing them later is to see the product, not the ad itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The banner ad is your index for browsing them. Instead of going page by page, have just one page showing a bunch of banners. THEN you decide whether or not the product is worth taking a closer look at.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. Instead of showing a concise list of small graphical banner ads already designed to inform you enough to grab your interest, the far less efficient method that was suggested is so much more sensible that Im stupid for challenging it. Thanks to you I am deservedy humbled.
Great Idea (Score:1)
A New Idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Disable your ad blocker. Ding, instant shitload of ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. Crap, shit. Why didn't I think of that?
*slaps head*
Can we turn that into a product? Something that disables people's adblocker for them? Randy, can you get that Russian programmer of yours on the line??
Wait-- I got it-- we turn your adblocker off, and replace the ads you've been blocking with.... OUR ADS!
Re: (Score:2)
As batshit crazy as the online advertising world is you can bet someone has already been looking into that.
No - this is a great idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
Convince advertisers that you'll look at their ads later if they don't bug you with them right now. That'll be the compromise. Get your lousy popups and spam off of the pages I'm interested in and you betcha I'll read them later.
Then set up a cron job to wipe the folder every so often.
xjlm (Score:4, Insightful)
Who remembers AllAdvantage? (Score:4, Informative)
I use a 16,000 line /etc/hosts file to keep from seeing crap like that.
And a decade ago, people signed up for a toolbar that showed a banner ad every minute, just for an extra 50 cents per hour of surfing the web. Some people even memorized the best startup sequence so that they could get GetPaid4, Spedia, and AllAdvantage running all at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
I use a 16,000 line /etc/hosts file to keep from seeing crap like that.
And a decade ago, people signed up for a toolbar that showed a banner ad every minute, just for an extra 50 cents per hour of surfing the web. Some people even memorized the best startup sequence so that they could get GetPaid4, Spedia, and AllAdvantage running all at the same time.
There are still ventures like that. There was one that would give you free net access, another gave you a free pc, and there are still a ton of sites where you can fill in surveys and crap for coupons or even money.
There seems to be a whole industry oriented around people not doing any work and not getting paid for it.
Re: (Score:2)
There seems to be a whole industry oriented around people not doing any work and not getting paid for it.
Well, that seems the logical outcome of not doing any work.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, you still advocate hosts file nonsense despite having a variety of much better solutions. Odd
Re: (Score:2)
What "better solutions" are those, metrix007?
APK
P.S.=> Go ahead, as it's going to be a pleasure humiliating you again - or rather quite possibly watching YOU humiliate yourself (as you did in the URL above, right off the bat)... apk
Better solutions, does not belong in quotes, kiddo.
Advertisements for the poor (Score:3)
If you're not all out altruistic, you could say 1/2 the money goes to the poor.
All you would need to do is throw in occasional captcha like mechanisms to make sure they're still watching behind their computer.
People would get a running tally of how much money they earned for the poor.
Re:Advertisements for the poor (Score:4, Funny)
"Three poor children for sale. Make good workers, or if you can't afford to feed them, may be fricaseed to make a great meal!"
Re:Advertisements for the poor (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.freerice.com/index.php [freerice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Great wording (Score:2)
Unique (Score:3)
"As someone who actually enjoys a lot of advertising..."
Only on Slashdot.
Not a bad idea (Score:2)
People click on ads. I don't and you probably don't but some people do, otherwise companies wouldn't spend money on them. I presume this is more geared towards special offers, kinda like collecting coupons that you don't want to use right now but you might later. Not sure if it's worth $8 mil. but I can see people using it and having a button on every ad on every site that takes them to your site is a valuable thing.
not what you might think... (Score:2)
The first thing that came to mind is, "People are gonna use this and love it and I'll get richer!" but "Companies are stupid and think that people want to see MORE ads - they'll love this and will give me lots of money do to this and I'll get richer!"
Might not be the business model you THINK (or that it claims). Kinda like all that Starbucks-branded junk in Starbucks is mainly sold to Starbucks employees...
There are ads I would like to see again, such as.. (Score:2)
CueCat (Score:3)
And here I was just reading Joel Spolsky's 10-year-old article "Wasting Money on Cats" earlier today:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000037.html [joelonsoftware.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I hate to admit it, that really solves the main market problem that the
BABES (Score:2)
The only time I wanted to archive an ad (Score:4, Interesting)
The only time I wanted to archive an ad was when I was complaining to the company that booked my flight about their shady behind-the-scenes sale of my credit card number. I got this ad in my itinerary promising me 20% cash back from my purchase if I signed onto a trial for this "Great Fun Site" (run by Trilegiant). Thing is, I'm pretty detail oriented (what most people call "weird") and I actually read the terms of use. Sure enough, although they ask for only my e-mail address, the terms of use said Priceline already handed them my credit card information before I even entered anything. The idea behind this company is that after the 1-month free trial (where I hear you don't really get any of the coupons they promise), they start billing you monthly and you have to call their customer service line to cancel (entering your e-mail address is formal agreement to their billing terms). Naturally, I didn't enter anything.
At the time, I had more important/productive things to do than complain about it. A few months later, I wound up with around $700 of international charges for Cyprus-based adult websites on that same credit card. It was a new card, and in protest to bad practices of banks I always pay with cash when possible, so Priceline was the only company I gave the information to. So, when I went to complain and show them the link, the ad was conveniently gone so I had no evidence. Priceline insisted they did not send anything to Trilegiant (even though the terms from the ad said they already had it) because I didn't enter my e-mail address nothing was sent, and their systems were "unbreakable" and had "never been hacked as long as Priceline existed".
I guess in summary, the only reason I would want to save an ad is for legal documentation when the advertiser oversteps his/her bounds.
To be fair, in this case it could go either way. The issuing bank, 5/3 Bank, has been careless and tried to pass the cost of fraud onto me several times in the past (this time by refusing to dispute the international transaction fees). I can narrow it down between 5/3 Bank or Priceline & Friends, but in my opinion they're both equally shady and equally likely to have had a data breach somewhere they're not telling anyone about.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, I'm pretty detail oriented (what most people call "weird") and I actually read the terms of use.
That's not weird just pointless. Unless you're an attorney it's not realistic to expect to understand the ToS to the extent necessary to consent. The language will frequently include a phrase acknowledging that some or all of it isn't binding if you're jurisdiction doesn't allow it. But there's no indication as to what it is and without a good resource for case law and the knowledge to interpret it properly you're never going to understand what you're being asked to agree to.
Honestly... (Score:2)
Seems to be a lot of traction with embeddable javascript buttons these days, and this concept is simple enough to work.
Good ads aren't that bad (Score:2)
Lately I've been pleased by the ads I get on most sites. After having recently shopped for a luxury car I got almost nothing but BMW, Infinti, Acura, etc. ads for months. None of which were intrusive. This Christmas I did some online shopping for some pajamas for the GF at Victoria's Secret and lo and behold now I'm greeted with Victoria's Secret models on a number of sites. Not only can I live with that, I can proclaim complete innocence when she's looking over my shoulder.
I even clicked through on a coupl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good question.
No, it is not my preference that companies can do this. But at the same time I recognize that many of the web sites I visit on a regular basis need to make money somehow, even if they're only trying to cover the cost of their bandwidth.
Also, like I said, I'd rather see these kinds of ads than the horrible flashy blinky mortgage and weight loss scams and whatever else I seem to initially encounter on a "clean" machine.
so that's $8,000,000+ (Score:2)
that investors will never, ever see again.
Middleman attack? (Score:2)
Going too easy on them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about savings ads for a long time, but I would love a queue of the last 100 ads that I've seen pass my screen
that would be 99 ads of "you are the lucky 1,000,000 visitor to our sie and have won a sony PS3/Ipod/some of piece of junk"