Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Mozilla The Internet Internet Explorer

Firefox Users Bad For Advertisers 900

rocketjam writes "According to CNET, German advertising technology company Adtech reports that during the months of October and November, Internet Explorer users were more than four times as likely to click on ads than Firefox users were. During the period 0.5 percent of IE users clicked on ads compared to 0.11 percent of Firefox users. Speculation on reasons for the difference in click rates range from Firefox's integrated pop-up blocking to seeing the average Firefox user as more tech-savvy the average Internet Explorer user."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Users Bad For Advertisers

Comments Filter:
  • The users... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by leonmergen ( 807379 ) * <lmergen&gmail,com> on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:07AM (#11016801) Homepage
    ... isn't it rather that the people who use Firefox generally are more 'technical' than the people who use IE, spend more time online, etc, and therefor simply are less likely to click on the advertisements, rather than it being due to Firefox' ad-blocking technology ?
  • by MMC Monster ( 602931 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:09AM (#11016826)
    All this means is that they don't click on ads. Most likely because the ads are blocked at some level. The solution is to use ads that cannot be blocked (ie: text-based ads that don't use iframes), like how google ads are made up. I *do* click on those on occassion. Not because I feel I should as courtesy to the site I am visiting. Instead, it's because those ads have something I genuinely need or find interesting.
  • Browser ID spoofing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Karrde712 ( 125745 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:10AM (#11016831)
    Aside from the obvious Adblock extension, there are also extensions available to spoof one's browser id. I usually set my ID to IE in order to avoid a lot of pages' JavaScript popups telling me that I need to use IE to view their page (which is no longer true).

    I'd be curious to see the figures on that.
  • Another reason (Score:1, Interesting)

    by T-Keith ( 782767 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:11AM (#11016849)
    Or they could have Adblock installed, and didn't see the add.

    I don't think that it's too devastating for the ad companies, but I think it will encourage them to change their ads to an acceptable format. Popup ads are not an acceptable form of advertisement. Google ads aren't blocked on my Firefox, but almost everything else is.
  • Re:AdBlock (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Proaxiom ( 544639 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:12AM (#11016857)
    I use Adblock also, and I love it.

    But I've been thinking lately -- is this going to change the Internet dramatically? How many web sites rely on advertising revenue, and won't get it anymore when everybody is filtering banners?

    For instance, I now read Slashdot with no ads, and I'm not a subscriber. Adblock decreases the value proposition of a Slashdot subscription.

  • Re:What next? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by plover ( 150551 ) * on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:14AM (#11016880) Homepage Journal
    I think the same argument can be made for Volvo drivers. Volvos are marketed as "safe" cars, which means they're more likely to be sold to "careful" drivers. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    I think what this really should do is tell advertisers that if they get a click-through from a Firefox user, then it's a lot more meaningful in terms of potential sale than a click-through from an IE user. A Firefox user is far more likely to "mean it" if they click on an ad. An IE user's click is probably statistically close to indistinguishable from a random click :-)

  • by kaleco ( 801384 ) <greig.marshall2@NOsPAm.btinternet.com> on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:16AM (#11016892)
    ...to consider. On Slashdot, I definitely click on ads on more than 0.5 percent of page loads. I do it moreso in Firefox since I can load the advertised page in another tab, but the most important reason for me making that click is that the adverts are relevant to me

    I think it's important to consider which pages are most popular for IE and Firefox users; it's not a matter of browser but more a matter of the interests of the user. This click-ratio metric would only be relevant if we compared visitors to the same website, and know that the users have the same interests and are just as likely to click. This would be more accurately done in a controlled environment than using pagelogs.

    That said, I do accept that Firefox and IE users have different attitudes towards internet use, but the point in TFA about IE users thinking the banner is a system notification made me laugh :)

  • I know there's got to be a better term for them than "inline popups", but I'm not sure what else to call them. I'm talking about pop-up ads that appear *in* the page, on a layer above the page itself, thanks to the wonders of DHTML/CSS/what-have-you.

    I've seen a few of these in Firefox. They were actually advertisements for big-name movie releases. They were pretty intrustive and were usually animated, sailing across the page I was trying to view. They were relatively well-behaved, at least, offering a tiny "Close [x]" button in some corner of the ad. Of course there's no guarantee that future ads will be so generous.

    Since they don't launch in separate windows, obviously current popup-blocking technology can't touch them. I wonder if this will be the next "big thing" since users and browsers are becoming more successful at blocking popups or tuning them out.

    I also wonder how easy they'll be to block. Sadly, I didn't bother to look at the source, but I have a hunch they're served up via a Javascript include file that's hosted on the ad company's servers. If that's how they were done, I guess they would be easy to block... just filter out .js includes from other domains, if that's not something that's already being blocked. If not, they could be really insidious and hard to get rid of.
  • by cjrichard ( 837078 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:18AM (#11016906)
    As a sidenote, I use Firefox, and have all the ad blocking stuff set up. But I still can't help but think that it is very unethical to do so. Websites cost money. The site owner may need advertising money for revenue; there is nothing wrong with this. If a browser actively encourages people to never click on adverts, and therefore never help out the sites they frequent, it is bound to have a negative effect on the internet. I just feel that, although annoying, adverts do serve a purpose.
  • Re:Ya' think? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:25AM (#11016968) Journal
    This is one of the things that seems really really hard for novice users : distinguising between email and browsing (many consider email as something not internet related), and understanding that the browser is not the internet, as much as MS word is not your text document.

    I've had several people ask my if I was sure it wasn't spelled 'Enternet', since its icon is a big blue E... sigh...
  • by Jim Hall ( 2985 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:31AM (#11017023) Homepage

    Probably many more IE users accidentily click on ads or click on them and lose interest than firefox users who are much more likely to only click through on an advert if they are interested in buying. (this is a guess we don't breakdown by browser type at the moment)

    Your guess holds true with me, at least. When I see an ad, I only click on it if I think it's something that interests me and that I stand a good (50%) chance of buying. Tech stuff appeals to me, as do some t-shirts. So ThinkGeek ads tend to get clickthroughs from me.

  • Re:AdBlock (Score:2, Interesting)

    by R.D.Olivaw ( 826349 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:31AM (#11017025)
    and trying to support a free website with advertisment is disrecpectful? Maybe you are refering to out-of context advertisments (mainly pr0n) and huge/invasive flash and pop-up ads. I like the ad supported model. I much prefer it to having to subscribe to sites to be able to see them. Maybe the solution is to have some etiquette. sites stick to relevant non-obtrusive ads (a bit like google) and users agree to see the banners/ads on the sites they visit. I can't see a way to enforce that though. Maybe someone smarter can come up with a solution.
  • by VendettaMF ( 629699 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:32AM (#11017034) Homepage
    Actually, my blocking all addverts is of benefit to the advertisers.

    When something is advertised by banner/popup/flash monstrosity/whatever is shoved in my face, at best its a waste of the advertisers paid for bandwidth. At worst, if its a product I'm interested in and they manage to get a brand name over to me then I'll check out their competitors first.

    Essentially banner adverts & popups tell me "Low grade company, low grade product, probably a scam", and I'll no more consider following such adverts than I'd consider clicking "unsubscribe" in a spam mail (even if I did allow my mail client render HTML).
  • Re:AdBlock (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Freexe ( 717562 ) <serrkr@tznvy.pbz> on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:36AM (#11017062) Homepage

    I quite like the idea of mirco payments, every page you hit gets a small amount of money (% of a penny) from that person (being slashdotted would be like pay day). So every 10 times you hit a site they get a penny...

    But it would be a nightmare to implement on a WWW scale

  • Re:AdBlock (Score:3, Interesting)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:36AM (#11017065) Journal
    Could it not be that clicks on links in Spam HTML mail, which gets displayed with an ActiveX IE control in Outlook, get registered as IE ad-clicks ?
  • by mks113 ( 208282 ) <(gro.ebajik) (ta) (skm)> on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:37AM (#11017074) Homepage Journal
    Do you sit in rapt attention during ad breaks on TV? Do you check other channels? Do you go get a drink? Do you fast forward through ads on recorded shows?

    Advertisers have to accept that only a small portion of their ads are seen. If that is channel surfers or ad-blockers, so be it.

    The market will find a way. TV has survived years of channel flippers. The internet will find a way as well.
  • by guidryp ( 702488 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:39AM (#11017090)
    I realize that Ads are important revenue stream for sites that I visit. So I "generally" don't block ads. I occasionally see something legit I am interested in.

    But I do have pop-ups blocked and I have installed flashblock(great plugin), which stops all annoying flash from playing, and I have shut down animated gifs. So my screen doesn't look like the all singing all dancing crap of the universe.

    After the above settings I do use adblock plugin, to block something crappy that does sneak through. I have about 3 lines in my adblock file. One of them is *newegg* after some hideous unkillable flash they had annoyed me. Newegg doesn't sell to Canada anyway.

    Lately I see more Ads flowed in the middle of text I am trying to read. These I generally just use nuke anything to get out of my way. Bother me enough and I will adblock the server.

    Simple Rule guys: keep your ads from ruining my experience or I will. If you want me to even see your adverts, you better play nice.
  • by CdBee ( 742846 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:45AM (#11017148)
    It isn't our responsibility to fund the sites we visit. The web is essentially free, if people want to make a profit out of a site they ought to charge an entrance fee. There is no written contract between viewers and providers of the web that they are obliged to view adverts.

    Providing content funded by advertising revenue is a dying business, webmasters need to face that. When the web began there was little if any advertising, perhaps we're heading back that way.

    However, if you want to talk ethics, lets talk about advertising agencies that sell adverts for fraudulent products (iPod ponzi schemes, system tune-up software that doesn't work, adware removers that contain spyware, "your computer is proadcasting an IP address" popups). By blocking ads, FF users protect themselves from unscrupulous marketeers.

    I'll shed no tears for a bankrupted ad-server
  • by MichaelCrawford ( 610140 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:47AM (#11017168) Homepage Journal
    I've been running Google Adsense [google.com] ads on GoingWare's Bag of Programming Tricks [goingware.com] since september. Overall, it's paying really well, I have found hope that I could make a living someday writing full-time, earning my pay through ads on my articles. I'm so sick of programming, but I like to write...


    Nearly all of my pay comes from clicks on my article about legal music downloading [goingware.com]. The ads are almost always for p2p apps, and I'm dismayed they often claim what they do is legal. But there is a clickthrough rate of over 20%, which is quite unheard of in web advertising.

    Most of the site has more technical articles. My article on C++ style [goingware.com] is my second most popular (after the music downloading article), and gets ads for obviously useful and legitimate things like software development tools and training courses, but it has a clickthrough rate of just 0.1%. Rates for other technical articles are similar. In the three months I've published adsense ads, I've made only $10 from the ads in the C++ style article.

    My experience running ads on other sites is that a typical response rate is 0.5% - 1%, so it seems technically-inclined readers click ads far below the average.

    In between are some articles on marketing, web design and such, that get about a 1% response rate.

    Although the ads on my music article pay well, I don't like what they're advertising, and feel they call my credibility into question. I've started approaching the manufacturers of mp3 players directly, to offer them ad space on the page, but have had no takers yet.

    I don't think I could come up with another high-response article very easily, so my plan is actually to write more technical articles, with the hope that by posting new content regularly, I can encourage repeat visitors. It is very hard to get someone totally new to visit a website, but I don't think it's so hard to get a visitor to come back for a second time.

    Also I'm going to completely change the page design to use a very nice CSS/XHTML design my wife Bonita made for me. Right now my pages look very homemade, and I expect some visitors hit the back button because my pages look so poor. Here's a peek [goingware.com] at the new design, I think once I have it up all over my site I will get more repeat visitors.

  • Re:AdBlock-Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gadlaw ( 562280 ) <gilbert@gadlaw . c om> on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:49AM (#11017185) Homepage Journal
    I also don't go ballistic in turning off ads. Annoying flash ads are gone. I will not swat the fly and I will not try to shoot the duck and if it has any annoying epileptic inducing strobe it's gone. Click on the 'adblock' tab. Quiet static ads don't bother me so that little 'adblock' tab doesn't get pressed. Any popup that dares to find it's way on my screen get anything from that ad site banned from my computer. I mean you tribalfusion. Thank you Firefox.
  • Re:AdBlock (Score:3, Interesting)

    by David Horn ( 772985 ) <david@pocket[ ]er.org ['gam' in gap]> on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @09:51AM (#11017216) Homepage
    My website exists solely on the revenue from adverts. Being Pocket PC centric, readers are quite technology literate and hence a good number of them use FireFox.

    The ads are small, suit the page style, and are 100% connected to the site's content. (Pocket PC games). Why do poeople block them? It's OK in my book to block pop-ups, but I think reading a website and deliberately blocking its adverts is akin to going into a shop, reading their newspaper, and putting it back on the shelf.

    We've gone from having a 2% CTR to less than 0.25. The site costs $168/month to run, and my student loan, and not the advertising revenue, covers the bills.
  • Re:AdBlock (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Politburo ( 640618 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @10:04AM (#11017328)
    I'm against having people forced to view ads, it's their right to block them should they wish

    Is it? The content provider is providing free content with a catch: you will view some ads. By removing the ads, you aren't holding up your end of this implicit contract. Don't like ads? Don't view the content.
  • by pandrijeczko ( 588093 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @10:07AM (#11017366)
    Okay, call me an old duffer but wasn't there a time prior to the commercialisation (Ugh! I hate that word, too much like "commercials"!) of the Internet when military/academic people just used the ARPAnet for the communication of important information? I don't ever recall any business being given the right to make money on the Internet...

    The attitude of big business today seems to be that every human must be forced to stare at billboards, glossy pages in magazines, TV ads and Internet banners displaying product after product after product - even to the point where the 3" diameter circle on the top of a petrol pump at a petrol station has to display an ad for a bar of chocolate...

    So, just as much as big business seems to be given the right to try to force-feed me endless advertising, I reserve the right to read a book on a tube train so I never have to stare up at the ads over the windows, the right to use my remote control to switch to another channel during the ad breaks and the right to use any goddamn browser and asblock program I want to keep this constant assault of visual garbage away from my eyes.

  • we need pay per view (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cliffski ( 65094 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @10:19AM (#11017489) Homepage
    seriously. I don't 'subscribe' to slashdot. and to be homnest the ads here aren't too bad. but the main reason I don't is the cost. i don't even KNOW the cost, but im guessing its at least $10 a year?
    To be honest if I could pay $1 a year to make slashdot ad free I'd do it, but we still don't have micropayment services that are ubiquitous. And it would also have to be a roaming service so it block s at home and work.
    Im not sure what the eocnomics of this all are, but if the subscription cost is VERY low, there are maybe 3 or 4 sites I'd happily pay to be ad free (bluesnews is another).
  • Re:AdBlock (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @10:20AM (#11017499) Journal
    >To think that the Internet today can continue without ads based on some magical elf business model is simply absurd.

    Its not a for-profit business model you need to consider. Its the model where a bunch of people want to communicate with each other.

    There is a lot of good information/advice in the slashdot comments and no one is paying posters anything.

    There are gigs and gigs of stuff on p2p and binary newsgroups and, again, no commerical benefit to those that post them.

    The Internet will change, but it doens't have to be a for-profit model.
  • Re:AdBlock (Score:1, Interesting)

    by marafa ( 745042 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @10:28AM (#11017625) Homepage Journal
    ads on slashdot? since whe.. oh look adblock on my firefox. its nice to forget that u were once pestered with ads that jumped at u everywhere.

    argh: mod me as a troll

  • Re:AdBlock (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mr Z ( 6791 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @10:29AM (#11017636) Homepage Journal

    What if I can't pay attention to the content because the ads are screaming for my attention? I get easily distracted by stuff moving in my peripheral vision, such that I can't concentrate on an article or whatever. It's not like magazines, where the ads just sit there, waiting patiently for your attention.

    I personally like the Firefox/Mozilla extention "Click to Play" for Flash movies (though I'd like it to have a whitelist option). Also, the semi-hidden "image.animation_mode once" [google.com] configuration tweak's useful. Actually, it appears [ESC] will also stop animations (at least under Firefox on my Mac), which is also very useful. I need to try it under Moz, and on my Linux and Windows boxen.

    I personally nearly never click on ads, because I'm just plain not interested in what they offer. I have, however, clicked on Google's text ads several times--they were actually relevant! Anyone who feels their product or service is more important than the reason I visited the site doesn't deserve my attention.

  • Bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @10:34AM (#11017691) Journal
    IE is a good stabiliser if nothing else, because they (or at least they used to) have a pretty much total share of the browser market, they controlled the basic default browser configuration. They kept the entire net advertising industry stable for years because most people are too lazy to install ad-blockers or change their settings. But a mass migration to firefox will change all that, Mozilla will then control the default configuration and pretty much have the power to shut down the entire net advertising industry overnight. Of course an industry like that wont go down easily: they will adapt and find new ways to push adverts, you would probably have to answer a specific question about an advert to get into a site or maybe something even more obtrusive than even the worst pop ups. Which is why we should probably bite the bullet and keep the market stable - obviously we don't have to look at adverts, but for the sake of making some advertisers happy, we might have to make sure everyone else does?
  • Re:AdBlock (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nordicfrost ( 118437 ) * on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @10:37AM (#11017730)
    I work for a very successful Internet news site. We rely almost 100% on the ad revenue generated and have large serious customers.

    We do know that some of the people are annoyed of the ads, but for the most part they are OK.

    In case he ad revenue is gone, well, people have to pay. Simple enough. Our newspaper is the most successful in the country so we will survive even if people have to pay for net access.

    But we don't want to chardge. We love to provide a really good newssite for free and the ads let us do that. It is the same principle as the local city papers that survive on ads. Remove ads, they will be gone and the selection will be severely reduced.

    This is even more cruical on the net. Small sites can maintain the budget by adding some spare revenues and this lowers the publishing threshold for most people.
  • by White Roses ( 211207 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @10:49AM (#11017865)
    This is probably redundant, but 0.5% of 90% of the browser share so far outwieghs 0.11% of 5% of the browser share that advertisers, who ought to interested in the actual absolute numbers of people who click on the ads, probably don't give a crap whether or not Firefox users click on anything. I'm using Firefox now, and have done for a while. I know I am in the minority. It's nice. I click on ads once in a while. But I also block pop-ups.

    Advertisers should concentrate on what they are doing that only gets 0.5% of the most used broswer out there to click on their ads. Make the ads better (from the point of view of the *consumer*) and more people will click, regardless of the browser.

  • Re:AdBlock (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Politburo ( 640618 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @10:54AM (#11017914)
    There are gigs and gigs of stuff on p2p and binary newsgroups and, again, no commerical benefit to those that post them.

    There sure as hell is a commercial benefit, just not a direct one. By posting items to p2p/ng, one encourages others to post items to p2p/ng. The more items on p2p/ng, the less one has to pay (music, movies, tv, apps, games, etc.). So, yes, no one is making money by p2p/ng, but they are, theoretically, "saving money".
  • by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @10:59AM (#11017986)
    Over the last four years I've been converting IE users to Mozilla/Firefox. The single feature that gets their attention is built-in popup/banner blocking. Like me, they are tired of popup/banner ads.

    I also refuse to install Flash, it is a tool that has been abused by marketers. Transparent animation over page text was the last straw, that went WAY over the line for intrusion. Whenever I visit a Flash-only website, I complain to the webmaster for a non-Flash page. It usually gets results.

  • by goatpunch ( 668594 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @11:17AM (#11018289)
    There is certainly nothing illegal about and no realistic way to stop them.
    No way to stop them? AdBlock currently uses a very simple wildcard to filter out Ads. If it's use becomes widespread, you can be sure that sites will become smarter about strucuring their pages so that it is difficult or impossible to block Ads without blocking text and/or image content.

    e.g.: Take a page at url mysite.com/index.html . This page just consists of a bunch of iframes, which contain the page content, and the ads. The source of those iframes are from apparently random URLs that all look like mysite.com/?2pg904a82n84 . These content/ad URLs also change with each page reload. How do block the ads next time?

    The only reason that a small 'elite' percentage of net users are able to surf Ad-free is that they're not yet a statistically significant group. Whey they become signficant, things will change. Enjoy the Ad-free content while you can!

  • Why clicks? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @11:21AM (#11018337)
    Why is clickthrough seen as such an important measure of the effective of an ad? TV advertisers don't expect me to immediatly run out to buy a coke. Why do web advertisers expect me to immediatly stop what I'm doing to jump over to ThinkGeek (to go by the ad currently on my screen)? In any other medium ads are about getting you to recognize brands so that when you want a drink or to buy some nerdy stuff you think of their product instead of a competitor.
  • by badmammajamma ( 171260 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @12:27PM (#11019294)
    Too bad brand recognition is becoming less and less important. To be sure, there are many people who will make choices based on brand names but research has shown that this is changing. People are willing to give no-name brands a shot. The more the economy keels, the more people are willing to try less expensive alternatives. Anyway, there was a large article about this in last month's issue. I believe it was called, "The Death of Brands".

    If brands do become completely irrelevant, then what?
  • Re:AdBlock (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nolife ( 233813 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @12:53PM (#11019738) Homepage Journal
    What about sites you are already familiar with or did some research after finding the deal? Example, I have bought from Newegg before. If I search for something and an adword with Newegg comes up. I am familiar with Newegg so I click on the link and buy the product. Almost cut and dry but I was already a Newegg customer and I checked other sites for the same product also. I may have also NOT chose another site because of being familiar with Newegg but I clicked and checked anyway. What about clicking an adword, going to a retailer, reading about product and the retailer. Now you go to resaller ratings and examine and go back to the original retailer. Who should get the credit? The adword or the reseller rating site? What if I go back to the site directly from another computer or the next day to finally buy the product? Neither the adword or the reseller rating site gets credit. I'd be willing to bet at least 75% of people do not complete a purchase the first time visiting a site which makes the whole referer concept a little complex for stat purposes. It appears to me that advertisers and marketering people are very good at not only manipulating the consumers but also manipulating their bosses with statistics. It looks like smoke and mirrors to me with so many unknowns.
  • by Crayon Kid ( 700279 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @01:10PM (#11020042)

    There was a recent AlertBox article [useit.com] in which Nielsen described the most hated forms of Web advertising and how much they hurt users and, in turn, the aggressive advertisers and the sites that use them. It's a small article and quite worth a read.

  • by SpecBear ( 769433 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @01:52PM (#11020591)
    I am Jack's disposable income.
    I am what's left over after Jack spends money on things like food, shelter, taxes, and broadband.
    You get to see me when you make Jack happy by giving him things like computer games, whisky, and lap dances.
    When Jack gets pissed off, he hides me and you don't get to see me.

    The (DHTML/CSS?) pops that flow over text perplex me. Do advertisers think that we're blocking popups accidentally?

    As Tyler might say: "We've created generation of web users annoyed by popups. I'm wondering if another popup is the answer we really need."
  • Re:AdBlock (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Asphalt ( 529464 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @02:05PM (#11020766)
    I use flashblock as well as adblock. I'm not big on having talking flash advertisements sneaking up on me and when I want to view a flash I'll click on the flashplay button.

    I agree, I don't know how many times I surf while listening to MP3's in my headphones, when all of a sudden BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH comes through at maximum volume and almost temporarily defens me.

    It's hard to find the perfect balance of audio between music files and Flash files, and it can not only be annoying, but can cause physical distress or damage.

    I have little sympathy for the "surprise" ads anymore. If I am interested in something, a simple targeted ad from a search will get me to click it.

  • by sootman ( 158191 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @02:24PM (#11021063) Homepage Journal
    "The purpose of marketing is to create confusion. The purpose of sales is to convince the costomer that spending money will end the confusion."

    Don't know where I heard that, or if I'm quoting it correctly, but that's the gist of it. :-)
  • by kublikhan ( 838265 ) on Tuesday December 07, 2004 @06:22PM (#11024772)
    Just because a "arms race" may be brewing, don't jump the gun and assume the content providers will win. Already there have been many skirmishes in the coming battle. As popup blockers have grown to become a significant threat, some sites starting putting anti-popup blocker software on their websites. In response, I modified my proxomitron filters to get around the anti-popup blocker. Now currently am I still part of the "elite minority", but I have no doubt similar skirmishes will happen as add blockers and ant-add blockers go mainstream.

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."