Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish

The New York Times reports that web surfers hate pop-up and pop-under ads, so much so that Google, Yahoo!, AOL and Microsoft have released (or will soon) blocking software. This, understandably, has pissed off companies that advertise through these ads, and owners of websites who derive substantial income therefrom:

"I haven't spoken to any people who say I love pop-ups, send me more of them," said David J. Moore, the chief executive of 24/7 Real Media, an online advertising firm. "But they are part of a quid pro quo. If you want to enjoy the content of a Web site that is free, the pop-ups come with it."

24/7 Real Media hasn't grasped how the market works. The argument that the quid pro quo is free website in exchange for irritating pop-up ad is spurious. Pop-up and pop-under ads are not the only way to advertise on a site. There is, for example, the much less intrusive banner ad (which is like the difference between a regular television commercial and those commercials where they scream at you). At any rate, the quid pro quo is between the advertiser and the website, just like the quid pro quo is between a tv station and the advertiser. The website promises that so many visitors will see the pop-up, and the advertiser figures that x% of those visitors will click the ad, and y% of those will buy what their selling, and pay the site accordingly. Now, let's say visitors to the site hate pop-up ads so much that they go somewhere else for the same content? No hits, so no income for anybody. It's not my responsibility to keep a website afloat when it bombards me with pop-up ads. If the advertiser and website want to make money, they need to find a way to reach me in a way that will make me more favorable to whatever they're selling, not less. And, of course, they have to sell something I want.

These companies get it:

The larger Web publishers, by contrast, have reduced use of pop-up and pop-under ads. At Sportsline, pop-ups represented 5 to 10 percent of its ad revenue a few years ago, but now account for less than 1 percent. "We are totally ready for the day when you can't have any pop-ups," said Mark J. Mariani, Sportsline's president for advertising.

"Clients have started to shy away from pop-ups and pop-unders," he said. Sportsline now sets a quota of no more than one pop-up ad for each user in any 12-hour period. Instead, Sportsline, like many other publishers, is emphasizing larger advertisements woven into their main sites.

The Interactive Advertising Bureau, the major trade group representing both advertisers and Web publishers, has decided not to fight the pop-up blockers.

"If consumers tell us that pop-ups are a bad idea and they don't really like them, then it's time to stop doing them," said Greg Stuart, the group's chief executive.

Then there's this company:

Yet that is not a universal view even among major companies. DoubleClick, the big advertising software company, is developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software.

"There are advertisers who want pop-up ads and publishers that want to serve them," said Douglas Knopper, general manager for online advertising at DoubleClick. "Our role is to help them do that."

DoubleClick thinks its good business to hitch its wagon to businesses so out of touch with the market that they wish to invest more money in advertising that's quickly losing favor with the majority of consumers. Savvy.

Comments

[celestial blue]

And this is why I have a pop-up stopper and why I love it. And I have to hope that as those marketing-hack rat bastards develop means of getting around the stoppers, the fine folks who MAKE the stoppers will be working equally as hard to find new ways to stop them.
Annoyance is the mother of all invention. Or at least, the best motivator.