Browsers without borders?
Summary: A DoubleClick executive landed in hot soup recently after suggesting browser makers should toe the line when it came to online advertising.
Chief privacy officer Bennie Smith told ZDNet Australia's Renai LeMay that browser manufacturers should not activate ad-blocking features by default. And if this became the norm, it would spell the end of free Web content, Smith warned.
He drew an analogy of the print medium, saying consumers would not stand for missing pages in newspapers if advertisements were omitted.
"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.
"You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," Smith said.
He believes if a vast majority of Web users started blocking ads, publishers would have to charge for content. In an offline world, this is akin to a 25 cent newspaper costing $5.
Smith raised some valid points. Online publishers have to ensure their business is viable, and since advertising is the main source of income, auto ad-blocking features would be detrimental as this would hamper its ability to deliver on campaigns.
I agree that seeing holes in a newspaper would leave me feeling cheated [it's a good thing I do all my reading online] but what draws the ire of Internet users is the intrusive nature of some advertisements.
Those that pop-up in your face are the main culprits. They're annoying to the highest degree and any Web publisher worth its salt would stay away from this pest.
With newer specifications and technology, some ads can monopolise your entire monitor. Although these last for a few seconds, many surfers take exception to having no control over what they can and don't want to read.
How do we reconcile this situation? What would ensure a win-win outcome for all?
For starters, publishers rely on a loyal readership base to keep their business alive. While the lure of increased revenue from more in-your-face type ad formats may be enticing, the risk of biting the hand that feeds them is higher.
Publishers will have to be more creative in the way they make money.
To Web users, if you encounter an unpleasant Web experience, report it. Most publishers are grateful for feedback and will act swiftly to rectify the situation.
As for browser makers such as Mozilla, Opera, Netscape or Microsoft, it'll be a cold day in hell before they take advice from an online ad-serving network.
DoubleClick has chosen to put browser makers in the spotlight over this issue. But since technology evolves so rapidly, if pop-ups are today's menace, what will tomorrow bring?
Are you an avid user of ad-blocking software? Would you pay for content in exchange for an ad-free experience? Please send your feedback to edit@zdnet.com.au or talk back below.
Fran Foo is ZDNet Australia managing editor.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
But many advertisers don't seem to "get" that us consumers don't deserve to be harrassed by their ad campaigns. They push way beyond the boundaries of what is socially acceptable behaviour and wonder why the community at large has grown to despise them.
It think advertisers should put alot more effort and thought into the "Feng Shui" of ad integration/placement on websites as they were often forced to do in printed newspapers.
Popups is the classic example of advertiser's going all stary eyed just because with next to no effort they get a whole window that they can jam as much of their campaign on as they want, without caring at all about the impact on the consumer.
We ARE going to use ad blockers as long as advertisers have no respect for consumer live's and stress levels.
Its not even just the visual annoyances, uncontrollable ads increase load times, slow your computer and use up internet quota which COSTS US time and money.
For example, they would create an acceptable harmony if on websites they offered
reader option to select between static pics (eg. jpg,gif) and dynamic (eg. flash, gif anims) ads for page/site. Yeah little more effort for them, but that's their job right ?!!
My personal gripe with advertisers is some of their web bad habits are popping up in real life. In Sydney at least, we get processions of trucks and scooter convoys towing giant ad poster trailers driving continuously around the city CBD, often during peak hours, doing nothing more than increasing traffic congestion and pollution. Again similar to the pop up window, out of order.
I subscribe to a couple of online magazines, which are delivered as PDF's, and have the same advertising as the print versions. The online versions cost either $0, or $25 PER YEAR.
Tell Bennie Smith to get lost.. he does not need to kill us with popups, or if he wants to be in the newspaper business, he could start by delivering me a broadsheet, 50 plus pages, adds that are not intrusive (i.e they don't take over the whole screen or that allow me to turn the page once I realise that's all they are**) and that I can take camping with me to use for starting my campfire or wrapping my rubbish for my 25c (well here in Aus, it's more like $1)
For that matter, I wouldn't mind if the newspaper had no adds and was in a smaller format so I don't hit the person next to me with my elbows when I'm turning pages.
Bennie? No I didn't think you'd like being told how to run your business...so get on with your own business and I'll get on with mine.
Or perhaps I should feel sorry that Bennie has made his money out of an opportunity he saw but has changed now.. nah, get on with life, things always change.
Some of the ads start off small then grow after 1 second or so, moving the entire page down. Then a couple of seconds later they shrink again. It makes clicking on things a bit difficult as the "content" moves up and down.
I'd rather they were small but if you want bigger ones how about keeping them big?
Would I pay for ad-free content? Probably not.
However, I do not have any problems using Google for all my searching, even though it presents well targetted ads on every page I view. I do not even try to block them because they are not intrusive. They also tend to be the only ones I really pay any attention to.
There are two advertising trends that I do not like, the intrusive (such as the inability to get to the next page if I don't view an advert for some time) and the large. Large in this context can also mean byte volume. As my volume each month is capped, excessively large ads (such as some really bad Flash content I have seen in some ads) are potentially costly to me.
When I encounter things like this, I tend to find out what domain they were delivered by and add this to my block list.
The simple conclusion is this: make your adverts simple and related and I will pay more attention to them. Make them intrusive or byte-hungry and I will block them.
Companies looking to fund your web experience pay attention - subtlety is far more effective with me.
There are many way to provide advertising to a site without using popup or foistware
technology.
Does a newspaper add jump up and demand attention? No, it sits there to be read or not, uncomplaining if it isn't read.
Frames, links, banners are all viable ways to present adds. Why do they NEED to have popups? A web page can cycle through advertising images without using java. People are sick of active x and java because it leaves them at the mercy of viruses and malware - if advertisers are legitimate, they should be prepared to use non-invasive technologies for displaying adds. (and microsoft should drop active-x, but that's another story)
Does anyone see TV advertisers asking manufacturers to not suply remotes because then people can easily avoid the adds? What a joke.
The Internet is not a medium to harrass people and create nuisance by unwelcomed ads. The privacy of the surfers is usually violated by the tracking cookies that ultimately results in spam mails and unsolicited advertisements. It would not be unreasonble to install ad-blocking mechanisms.
Now for every service a consumer is required to pay. It may be domain name, web site space, etc. It would be easy to argue that they must also be made free absolutely. Even when these services are provided partially free, some trade-off in the form of ads is there. A person can have a web site but it is accompanied with ads.
The argument against ad-blocking is not genuine and reasonable and the content provider must have means and options to remove the unnecesary and annoying ads.
The increase in cost is a misconception especially where the "content providers" are not commercial but for personal purposes.
Adertising should be relavent, when I need, where I need them the product I need. Advertisers and sponsers need to understand that. Advertisers think that flash will inspire us to buy a product or service just as spammers think that every email will be read.
In short an advertiser wishes to be a sponser of something, then they need to keep it very short IMHO. ie.
"This page is sponsored by and link" Thats it.
In any case the way I am reading this page right now is without advertising simply because of adblocker and greasemonkey in firefox.
What is left is the sponsered links, the search, the toolbar, and the seek job ads in the corner.
The only thin that I may kill is the seek ads in the corner. Why its not relavent and I already get daily emails from seek (Job placements). The only reason I haven't killed the add is I haven't figured out how to tell adblock not to block the site when I actually visit it. But I do have an algorithm in mind that will work.
The End of Free Content, So What!