Google Unveils Flash Ads

Gailin writes "Google has announced and given some examples of their new Flash based ads. They seem to vary from average size to full screen-width Flash advertisements, with some interactive abilities. 'Gadget ads can incorporate real-time data feeds, images, video and much more in a single creative unit and can be developed using Flash, HTML or a combination of both. Designed to act more like content than a typical ad, they run on the Google(TM) content network, competing alongside text, image and video ads for placement. They support both cost-per-click and cost-per-impression pricing models, and offer a variety of contextual, site, geographic and demographic targeting options to ensure the ads reach relevant users with precision and scale.'"

Flashblock is great

[Anonymous Coward]

Get Flashblock here [mozilla.org]

Re:X86-64

[Nimey]

now all i need is a version of flash that works consistantly on 64 bit hardware.

nspluginwrapper, if you're talking about AMD64. See here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=476924 [ubuntuforums.org]

Re:Target Market

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out Noscript and/or FlashBlock for Firefox. I use both and wouldn't surf without them. It's a lot easier than renaming the DLL.

Re:Flashblock is great

[derrida]

Adblock plus [adblockplus.org] also lets you block any flash objects.

Open adblock, new filter, add *. gmodules.com....

[MikeyVB]

...and blocked.

Google, you probably have, sorry, had, one of the only set of ad servers I never blocked. Until now.

Sorry, but anything that moves without my propmpting it is a distraction and will be blocked.

Re:X86-64

[Dynedain]

Hmm.... Flash on OSX works consistently, even on 64bit hardware... same with Flash on WinXP 64bit...

Flash on 64bit hardware running Linux or FreeBSD would be something else entirely.

And SafariPlus

[kherr]

For those using Safari, SafariPlus [mac.com] is a brilliant way to block Flash (and control unwanted cookies). It shows the rectangle for the Flash content, but you must click inside it to actually start up that Flash dropping. So you can use Flash when you want to, but nobody can make you use it. In these days of those damned embedded YouTube videos stopping Flash is a godsend. Good luck with your new X10-type annoying ads, Google.

Re:Target Market

[Anonymous Coward]

The ads all seem to come from gmodules.com so blocking them is easy.

Re:Interactive?

[Brother Dysk]

"Punching the monkey" is probably already a euphemism for something, and while it does involve oneself, I probably wouldn't class it as "abuse"...

Konqueror...

[betterunixthanunix]

...will load plugins on demand anyway (if you select that option). It can also block plugins for certain domains.

Why both?

[Per Abrahamsen]

I installed Noscript on my new computer, and it seems to do everything FlashBlock did for me on my old computer. That is, replace any flash-animation with a button to start it.

Re:Bandwidth & The Beginning of the End

[emurphy42]

How will this affect people on slow connections like out in the boonies operating on a 56k phone line connection?

http://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=66136 [google.com]

Maximum of 50k per ad, at least until the user starts interacting with it. Some other things in there that, at the least, count as Don't Be Really Evil.

I haven't decided how I feel about this yet, but at least this quantifies things somewhat.

Not as bad as it looks

[Xentor]

I just read over the guidelines that an above poster linked ( http://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=66136 [google.com] ), and I don't think this will be as bad as everyone is saying...

First off, it looks like these will be ads on other peoples' sites, not on your search results. It can be used in addition to that "AdWords" thing, or "AdSense", whichever one it is... You decide to advertise on YOUR site, and you get banners from Google, the same way you would get embedded keyword links.

In addition, they're making some nice, strict rules. Here are some of their restrictions:

* No more than 50k in size unless the user interacts with it (Then it can load more)
* No more than 15 seconds of animation
* No popups or javascript alerts
* No cookie usage (Not even Flash's version of local storage)
* Must clearly show the company/product being advertised, not just some random crap
* No sound or fancy cursors unless the user interacts with it

(Hopefully that entails clicking on it, and not just accidentally moving your cursor over it on the way to the link you want)

I would hope they're enforcing these rules by requiring the source file instead of just the compiled SWF, or at least have some kind of checks for stuff like this... But I don't see how this is any worse than the banners we have now. Granted, I'd prefer less banners and more text ads, but if the market has determined that animated banners are necessary, then at least Google is keeping a close eye on theirs.

Re:If you allow with NoScript, you can block Flash

[Anonymous Coward]

In the options for NoScript, under the Plugins tab, check "Apply these restrictions to trusted sites too" and make sure the checkbox for flash is checked too. If you do this, then you can allow javascript for a site, but Flash content will be blocked and replaced with a box with the NoScript logo in it. You can click on the box with the NoScript logo to allow the Flash if you want to.

Re:nice fud buddy.

[rg3]

persistent data in flash is only available to the domain that stored it. In other words, if a flash app that you downloaded from www.yousuck.com saves data, it cannot be read by a flash app you download from www.noseriouslyyousuck.com. So the truth is, flash is better for you in terms of privacy than are standard browser cookies.

Browser cookies also work this way in most cases. Remember that option saying "Only accept cookies from originating server"? Flash "cookies" work like that. They are not better, as you suggest. They are the same.

But wait (you're probably thinking) if google is serving every ad, then the domain is always google and google can then track where you're going!!

Exactly. The URL for an ad depends on the ad. Google may be serving all the ads from its domain, yet the ad URL could let Google perfectly track the site you are visiting.

That's true, and also irrelevant. If google is serving every ad then guess what, google can just look in their webserver logs for your IP address. So flash does nothing for them.

Hahahaha! Don't make me laugh. Flash does nothing? Let's check what they can do that their webserver logs can't do... first, it lets them track you from sites you visit without accessing from their websearch. Second, they can know which sites you actually visit. Third, they don't have to depend on your IP address. They can know who you are by storing a unique identifier like they did with the infamouse Google cookie that lasted until year 2038. And that identifier crosses IP addresses. Better yet, when you clean your browser cookies, a potential flash cookie isn't deleted. Better yet, if you change browsers and the flash plugin is installed in all of them, the cookie crosses browsers.

This is not FUD. This is something that _may_ be done. I only wonder if they will start doing that. I hope not, but I'm not spreading FUD. This is a pure technical capability available _now_. They _can_ use it if they _want_.