Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Consumer Ad Blocking Doubles

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the swatting-gnats dept.

Media 379

Dotnaught writes to tell us about an InformationWeek article reporting that, according to a Forrester Research report, consumers are fed up with ads. From the article: "In the past two years, the number of consumers using pop-up blockers and spam filters has more than doubled.. More than half of all American households now report using these ad blocking technologies to block unwanted pitches... Today, 15% of consumers acknowledge using their digital video recorders to skip ads, more than three times as many as in 2004." The study would have been more meaningful if it hadn't conflated spam blocking with ad blocking.

cancel ×

379 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How is this a new thing? (5, Insightful)

plantman-the-womb-st (776722) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121412)

Consumers have been fed up with ads evr since Cable TV was promising to make television "ad free". What consumer cares at all about ads? We don't, it's the sellers that care about ads not the buyers.

Re:How is this a new thing? (5, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121678)

What consumer cares at all about ads? We don't, it's the sellers that care about ads not the buyers.

I care about ads. There's a reason they used to say (and sometimes still do), "and now an ad from our sponsor". The ads are SPONSORING the program! Somebody has to pay the bills. I'm not saying I never skip ads, but I definitely don't feel intruded upon.

And I thought... (2, Insightful)

Ahnteis (746045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121764)

And here I thought I was actually PAYING for cable. What WAS I thinking.
Oh -- not enough millions of dollars that way. I have to pay AND watch ads. I'm SOO sad for the Comcast &c CEOs.

Re:And I thought... (4, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122008)

And here I thought I was actually PAYING for cable. What WAS I thinking.

You're not thinking, that's the problem. Your cable bill is paying for ACCESS, not for the production of all the content. Do you think your ISP bill pays for production of all web sites on the Internet? Now, some channels can survive on the puny amount of money they're paid, but it certainly is not going to pay for everything.

Re:And I thought... (1)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122018)

Do you whine about advertising in the print magazines you purchase?

There is a difference between basic cable (sci-fi channel, the food network, comedy central, etc...) and premium cable (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc...). One is subsidized by advertising while the other is more expensive and is external ad (i.e. they still promote themselves) free.

Re:And I thought... (4, Interesting)

Darlantan (130471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122180)

No, I don't whine about the ads in print magazines I purchase.

I just don't re-sub to them. Recently subscribed to several National Geographic publications and found that they contained so much advertisement that they weren't worth even the deeply discounted rates they offered to resubscribe.

Re:How is this a new thing? (3, Interesting)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121790)

That's why friends episodes cost nearly $10 million each to make. 6 Actors each getting $1.5 million to produce 20 minutes of content.

Without these sponsors paying for garbage ads, maybe we get some decent content that doesn't cost 8-digts for 20 minutes.

Re:How is this a new thing? (2, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122038)

That's why friends episodes cost nearly $10 million each to make. 6 Actors each getting $1.5 million to produce 20 minutes of content. Without these sponsors paying for garbage ads, maybe we get some decent content that doesn't cost 8-digts for 20 minutes.

The program makes that much money because a LOT of people like the show. Who cares that you don't like it? The point is that money is there, so who should make it? The producers? Quite often it's the actors that people tune into see. Personally, I don't begrudge people making a lot of money. I've never quite understood the attitude of people like you.

If you don't like it, why are you worrying about how much money it makes? How does it affect your life at all?

Re:How is this a new thing? (2, Insightful)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122164)

"The program makes that much money because a LOT of people like the show."

Wrong. The program costs that much money to make so that a LOT of people WILL like the show. Advertising, hiring writers capable of keeping in line with heavily-researched viewer desires, and the competitive market for photogenic actors who can forge an illusory "connection" with the viewer make major television production an expensive business all around. Indeed, the costs are elevated by the need to recover money sunk into terrible flops. [wikipedia.org]

Re:How is this a new thing? (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122260)

Gee, and I thought it was just a funny show that people tuned in so they could laugh for half-an-hour. Little did I realize that all the viewers had been programmed into just thinking they were being entertained! Everyone were mere automatons, except for you who realized the insidious truth!

Re:How is this a new thing? (4, Insightful)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122134)

Likewise... I use the ads as an excuse to get a drink, check my e-mail, visit the loo, etc. Ads on TV are pretty harmless, really. Besides... I like some ads. Every now and then, they'll come up with a witty, intelligent ad that makes you laugh. I'll actually watch those ones...

As far as crap on the Internet... Firefox 2, Adblock Plus, the list found at http://pgl.yoyo.org/as/ [yoyo.org] , and on my mail server, milter-greylist, SpamHaus RBL, and SpamAssassin with a sensitivity threshhold of 1.0. (and a daily cron task that has SA learn my "Spam-Bin" folder on IMAP as spam). Oh, and ClamAV, too, to block viruses.

Re:How is this a new thing? (5, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122010)

The funny part is that when you significantly reduce advertisments in a persons world they becom hyper sensitive to it.

My daughter has lived pretty much AD free for a long time now. I use privoxy at home so no ad's come throughthe net, we only watch PVR Tv so ad's get skipped and she listens to only her ipod or sirius in the car. Our DVD player is a cheapo lite-on that is hackable to remove the must watch restrictions on DVD's. so she can press stop-stop-play to start the movie right away or simply press menu to skip the warnings and ad's.

when she goes to a friends or relatives house she cant stand how their TV has unskippable ad's or that they cant skip the junk at the beginning of the DVD, or that the internet is full of annoying ad's.

My wife and I also notice this in ourselves. Advertisments annoy us enough to swich off the cource the momen they start if we cant skip them.

Today advertising is getting even more annoying. we stopped PVR'ing anything on Spike-TV network as their damned blipverts in the show do nothing but ruin it. More networks are going to this and more shows are no longer watched because of it in our home. This is what people are seeing, Advertising is no longer an annoyance it's getting downright rude.

Re:How is this a new thing? (2, Interesting)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122200)

I agree, and its funny when people ask, "Sure, you avoid ads now that you can, but won't you wind up watching them again once this function gets circumvented by advertisers?" As though anything on television were so very compelling that the whole damned thing can't be avoided once its value is degraded through unavoidable advertising.

Always has been (5, Interesting)

RealSurreal (620564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121430)

Consumers have always been fed up with ads - they just never had a way to avoid them before.

Re:Always has been (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121740)

And with sponsored product integration into shows, you'll continue to have no way to avoid them. On the plus side, you might see 30-minute shows becomes 30 minutes long again (but don't count on it).

Of course, that only applies to TV right now, but expect it to creep into other forms of media.

adblocking ~= spam blocking (1, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121866)

I think the original poster is wrong about this study losing meaning because it conflates adblocking with spam blocking. Both online ads and spam are unwelcome intrusions into our daily lives, and both are delivered via the internet. Both can be blocked with readily available technology and both are widely ignored by users, even when they get through the protection.

I think you're making the mistake of granting online ads some special significance because they were paid for by mainstream operations, but really, when it comes right down to it, Microsoft Dynamics are not that different from the guy selling penis enlargement pills. An stupid flash commercial for Blackberry has much in common with the spam touting FREE PRON.

I happily deny both of them space in my head.

Re:adblocking ~= spam blocking (3, Funny)

Ididerus (898803) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122004)

Well, personally, I'd rather watch free porn over a blackberry, unless it was vine-ripe and full of juice.

Re:adblocking ~= spam blocking (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122096)

Of course they are similar, but I want to see the numbers separated. I want to know how many people are using are using ad blocking vs. spam blocking separately. They are different because consumers don't usually choose to block spam. Usually one's ISP or mail provider implements it globally. A consumer might appreciate the feature, but they didn't necessarily request it. So to say "consumers are blocking ads at a signficantly higher rate" because their email is filtered is misleading. It would be more accurate to say that ISPs are filtering spam at ahigher rate and some consumers are installing ad blocking software.

-matthew

spam or not, it's all bad (4, Insightful)

mkcmkc (197982) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121434)

The study would have been more meaningful if it hadn't conflated spam blocking with ad blocking.

I dunno. For me, and I suspect many people, there's very little difference between spam and non-spam advertising.

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (3, Insightful)

squidinkcalligraphy (558677) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121500)

Interesting, isn't it - I was thinking the same thing - both are unwanted intrusions into your day.

However, non-spam advertising tends to cover (or help cover) the costs of whatever it is you're consuming (website, TV program, train ride), while spam is completely unsolicited (email spam, junk postal mail).

I guess you'd have to put billboards into the category, though I (unfortunately) don't see legislation against those popping up in a hurry.

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121548)

However, non-spam advertising tends to cover (or help cover) the costs of whatever it is you're consuming (website, TV program, train ride), while spam is completely unsolicited (email spam, junk postal mail). - the cable TV advertising is completely unsolicited by most (I am sure,) since consumers are paying (mostly) for the cable.

Google ads on the other hand are just a trade-off, that the consumers are mostly willing to live with, since they are not paying for the service (even though I actually filter out those ads as well.)

More than that (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121626)

Movie theaters are just as guilty at pushing unsolicited ads onto the paying customers as cable TV providers, utilities such as gas/electrical/phone companies/ISPs etc.

Re:More than that (3, Insightful)

SnapperHead (178050) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121808)

Movie theaters piss me off, which is why I stopped going there more then once a year. I love paying $9 per ticket, $20 for a drink and popcorn, sit in a theater with some jackass laughing with his friends the entire time, some baby crying, the guy in front of me who takes his shoes off, getting my sit back kicked non-stop ... then to top it all off, seeing a totally crappy movie.

I have ranted about this many times. I will deal with ads on TV, websites, etc. But, I can not stand sitting through 5 car commericals, 4 perfume commericals and 6 soft drink commericals ... only to have more commericals come at me.

ok .... deep breath ...

Re:More than that (4, Insightful)

TekPolitik (147802) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121966)

I love paying $9 per ticket, $20 for a drink and popcorn, sit in a theater with some jackass laughing with his friends the entire time, some baby crying, the guy in front of me who takes his shoes off, getting my sit back kicked non-stop ...

This is why I only ever see movies in gold class unless I'm taking the kids. In gold class you don't get any kids because everybody has to be old enough to legally drink alcohol, you don't get noisy chatter among a group of friends since it's priced out of range for the sort of people that do that, you won't get the feet in the back of your seat unless the person behind you is at about 12 feet tall since the seats are spaced far enough apart that this can't happen.

Re:More than that (1, Informative)

Ididerus (898803) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122076)

Please explain, what is this gold class? Never seen that here in NY.

But in reality? You pay MORE for your movies? Save that money and buy yourself a decent home theater setup. I know its a little more outlay, but I can get smashed off cheap (but so much better) drinks and not have to drive anywhere except into the pillow.

Re:More than that (5, Interesting)

TekPolitik (147802) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122220)

Please explain, what is this gold class? Never seen that here in NY.

It's a smaller cinema with 4 rows each with 6 seats arranged in pairs. The seats are much larger, more comfortable, and include recliners, footrests and a small table in the middle of each pair. They are arranged such that your view of the screen cannot be blocked by a tall person with big hair in the front, and you still have a good view in the back. They serve food and drinks (including alcohol) inside the cinema (you order before you go in and they bring it to you), and there are foods they serve in gold class they don't serve in the candy bar.

But in reality? You pay MORE for your movies?

Yep. Like I said, it's priced out of range of the annoying younger people who like to spoil movies.

Save that money and buy yourself a decent home theater setup.

This is not so effective for things not yet on DVD.

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (2, Insightful)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121566)

I fail to see by which criteria TV ads are solicited.

Though I do welcome them every once in a while, when they enable me to take a leak without missing a bit of a lengthy movie.

Given a choice, I'd still get rid of them. Most of them are so annoying that they get on my "I won't buy this shit. Ever. Even if the competing product is cheaper." list.

If I want it, I'll look for it myself. See if I find any happy customers.

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (2, Interesting)

MollyB (162595) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121948)

Besides seconding your sentiments regarding the annoyance factor, I suggest, in addition, that there is a simple economic argument to make: the cost of the promotion must be tacked onto the thing being sold. I never buy stuff I see advertised on TV (e.g. John Deere) and always hunt down the low profile reliables (e.g. Kubota).

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (5, Funny)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121958)

"Though I do welcome them every once in a while, when they enable me to take a leak without missing a bit of a lengthy movie."

You need to upgrade to DVR, friend. It enables you to take a shit without missing any of the film.

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121978)

Given a choice, I'd still get rid of them. Most of them are so annoying that they get on my "I won't buy this shit. Ever. Even if the competing product is cheaper."
Funny, my list is like your's except that mine is the "I won't buy this shit. Ever. Even if the competing product is costlier."

Same goes for WalMart and such. I finally was fed up with the overall quality sucking, so I've quit shopping there. It's not some altruistic reason like wages, Chinese labor, etc. just tired of the crap quality.
-nB

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (2, Insightful)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121572)

However, non-spam advertising tends to cover (or help cover) the costs of whatever it is you're consuming (website, TV program, train ride)

Yes, because my $140 monthly cable/internet bill just doesn't seem to be enough...

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17121642)

And what portion of that goes to slashdot or any other site you visit? How do they get any piece of that money?

They don't, so why do you bring that up?

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121756)

None of that money goes to actually making that media.

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121822)

What in the world? First off who pays that much for broadband?! Secondly don't get me started with this crap about paying for access to Internet so therefore everything on it should be free. It's completely illogical. Hell you are on Slashdot which is advertiser supported and without that support this website would not exist.

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (2, Informative)

XMunkki (533952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122054)

Well I guess the actual point is that if you pay $140 a month, none of that goes to the content providers. As a web master, every hit I get costs me something. Of course it's not that much and I'm not that scared (and even want hits), but the cost is on the receiving end (of the query). If none of the pages you view were free, you'd soon stop using the internet or at the very least you'd contend that your $140 is not getting you enough.

And it is quite possible that you have your own website as well. Imagine it getting enough exposure. You surely would be got hit by a bill to pay for the traffic. So as you see, it's not enough if you personally pay for something. It's every deliverer, ISP and so on who need to fork up the cash to bring you the service you so enjoy.

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (2, Interesting)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121752)

"I guess you'd have to put billboards into the category, though I (unfortunately) don't see legislation against those popping up in a hurry."

Not anymore, at any rate. Vermont's banned them since 1968. [publicbroadcasting.net] They're apparently [wikipedia.org] illegal in three other states as well: Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii.

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121540)

Non-spam ads actually help pay for the media you are using. Spam ads do not.

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (1)

vimh42 (981236) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121706)

You hit the nail on the head. Spam is advertising I don't want to see. I don't care if it's "legitemate" advertising or not. If I was to see advertising, I'll opt in. Otherwise, I don't want to ever see it. Targeted advertising on sites I choose to see advertising from doesn't bother me. But like I said, I want to opt in, not have the advertising there by default.

Re:spam or not, it's all bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17121910)

You're not the only one! I'd actually "opt-in" for some advertising, if the ads were fun and didn't take away from my enjoyment of what I was watching or doing. MOST of the time, I'd opt-out. Think of the times you've gone to a website to view a good ad that others recommended.

At first I was about to say, "they are the same," but then read more of the comments.

I view ads like I view logos on clothing. If it's a small little tag that I think looks nice, fine. If it's a BOLD ADVERTISEMENT that covers most of it, even if it's "in," I'm not interested.

What really baffles me is (1, Funny)

Alphager (957739) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121460)

that someone actually _payed_ for the report. -- I am currently looking for fundings for a report on wether or not the percentage of people who think that water is wet increased last year or not. VISA, Mastercard virgin sacrifices accepted.

Re:What really baffles me is (1)

sfcfagwdse (805746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121506)

If I were an advertiser I'd be interested in how to get my ads to the consumer most effectively. Paying to know how often my ad is blocked seems reasonable.

Re:What really baffles me is (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17121864)

that someone doesn't know how to spell _paid_

Re:What really baffles me is (4, Funny)

teslar (706653) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121960)

I am currently looking for fundings for a report on wether or not the percentage of people who think that water is wet increased last year or not.
You clearly do not work in academia, so read and learn:

Your project will be called "Description of belief distribution dynamics over large time frames as a function of population dynamics: Is water wet?"

Your angle is the general question of how does the percentage of people holding a given general belief, obvious as it may seem, vary over time? Answering this very important question allows valuable insights both into likely distributions during significant historical events, for instance when Columbus set sail on the medium that some people may have believed to be wet and the likely distribution at any point in the future. In the specific case of "is water wet?", this information can be used comercially, for instance, by umbrella manufactures in order to better understand the dynamics of their market over time - if the percentage of people believing that water is wet is at a low point, this may reflect in a decline of umbrella sale.

The answer is to your question not obvious. At a minimum, to find it, you will need to:
1 Identify the number of people one year ago who did believe that water was wet
2 Identify how many of those have since died
3 Investigate whether babies are born with an innate belief about the state of water and if not, do they acquire this in their first year?
4 Identify the number of babies born in one year
5 Identify the number of people who have changed believe in the last year and optionally investigate why
6 Estimate the new number of people now believing water is wet based on 2-5 above
7 Calculate the percentage based on the current total world population

Once you have answered this basic question, you can go on to build a general predictive model of the evolution of this percentage over time, tie it in with commercial market research as described above and look for correlations with other trends in the population.

This is a significant workload - you will easily be able to argue for and get enough funding for yourself, 3 PhDs and a Post Doc if you spin this right. Remember, your project is interdisciplinary - it involves Sociology, Infant Psychology, Dynamical Systems and Marketing at a minimum. Interdisciplinary stuff is becoming quite trendy, so write Interdisciplinary Research Proposal in big letters onto your funding application - it can only help.

Re:What really baffles me is (1)

Alphager (957739) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122206)

Wow. Looking at it from that angle, that research project would make sense. Thanks for that explanation.

However, this report about adblocking does not generate any useful info. It is clearly obvious and non-trivial to deduct from
-people normally don't like ads
-technology to block ads becomes easier to use and more effective
that more people are blocking ads.

This just in... (0, Offtopic)

Five Bucks! (769277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121520)

People also hate being shot!

Re:This just in... (1)

Saikik (1018772) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121780)

That's not completely true. If you're a rap artist, esp. "gangster rap". You look forward to being shot, as it could potentially help boost your record sales.

Re:This just in... (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122042)

"If you're a rap artist, esp. "gangster rap". You look forward to being shot, as it could potentially help boost your record sales."

Really, only gangsta rap...I don't think Will Smith will be selling any more family-friendly hip-pop if he gets involved in a gang-related shooting.

Re:This just in... (1)

deadb0lt (519221) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121794)

People also hate being shot!
I agree... I just wish there was some way I could avoid being shot on a daily basis, similar to how I can fast-forward through ads.

What? (5, Funny)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121524)

``according to a Forrester Research report, consumers are fed up with ads.''

And I'm fed up with hearing about it and not knowing what it means. What _are_ these "ads" people are talking about?

Re:What? (2, Funny)

sharkey (16670) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121600)

Perhaps you should try using advertising facilitation software [microsoft.com] and find out more.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17121622)

I think they're talking about those things that people used to have on websites... trying to convince people to buy a product. I can understand how you wouldn't know... I haven't seen such a thing since I downloaded adblock and a filter set. It also could refer to the short nonsense segments of programs you skip with your mythTV or tivo box. But seriously, the adblock extension alone is a reason to switch from IE to firefox. That's how I got *my* family to switch... the internet in general looks *so* much better when you remove all advertising. Oh, and when I say I've seen no ads I mean no ads except the slashdot ones of course. I could have this site whitelisted, you know...

Re:What? (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122196)

Yeah, but then you run th erisk of "accidentally" viewing the web without filters. I once did it on a friend's computer and I thought that the whole internet had been hijacked by spammers. I was horrified.

-matthew

Re:What? (3, Informative)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121798)

>What _are_ these "ads" people are talking about?

Edit your hosts file. [everythingisnt.com] The "ads" are the empty boxes you used to see blinky annoying things in.

Study on effectiveness over time (5, Insightful)

Rayin (901745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121536)

What I'd really be interested in is a study on how effective advertising is, and the trends over time, on several types of advertisements. I can't remember ever buying a product based on an advertisement. At the same time, I can recall many times when I've promised myself NOT to buy a product as a result of a terrible, or invasive/unwanted advertisement. As ads permeate our lives more and more, I imagine I'm not alone. Personally, when I'm looking for a product, I pointedly search for reviews on it, and descriptions of features. Generally I look at the company website and, if available, third-party ratings and tests. With the Internet coming into more and more prevalent use in our daily lives, perhaps the old paradigm of "push it till they are sick of it, and will remember it" should trend towards "give them a place to find it, and information on it, if they want it."

Re:Study on effectiveness over time (1)

LokiSnake (795582) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121650)

What you say about an information source and its effectiveness is true, but the "push it till they remember it" approach also works. I've seen some ads that are very "nontraditional" and would catch the viewer's attention, as a result, would cause the viewer to associate that weird ad style to that company or product. That works, as long as it doesn't annoy or sicken the viewer. Having the product out in the hands of reviewers also works off this path, since reviewers may use that product in comparison to others, and saying so in the reviews, hence giving the reader a certain familiarity with the product. I'd say this is somewhat similar to what the "push it till they remember" approach, just another way of getting exposure, and a bit more passive.

Re:Study on effectiveness over time (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121786)

"the "push it till they remember it" approach also works."

Apply directly to the forehead!

Re:Study on effectiveness over time (2, Insightful)

Ezzaral (1035922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121824)

You definitely are not alone in your aversion. The frequency with which I see an ad for a product varies inversely with my likelihood to purchase it. My wife finds it pretty amusing how irritated I get over some ads and often asks me if talking back to the TV has made me feel better (yeah, it does). She on the other hand just tunes them out and says they don't bother her. I've often wondered how many others share my extreme aversion to all forms of advertising. Obviously it has not reached a sufficiently critical mass, as the ads show no sign of retreat.

Re:Study on effectiveness over time (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121940)

More than most people are willing to guess. ads in my home get muted, or the channel changed or blocked by some other means. i can tune out most of them, but some I just can't stand. But ads work like spam. you send out a hundred million identical copies to 30 million people and chances are 5-10 will buy the product. it's profitable I guess. that or a bunch of people are really good at lying.

commercial spam (1)

Beek Dog (610072) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121568)

Sure comparing spam and ads is a little dumb (We are talking about Forrester here...), and skews any numbers, but I'm sure everyone has one of those A-holes in your town who is constantly screaming specials at you because he is liquidating his warehouse for the umpteenth time. If that ain't spam, I don't know what is.

-Offtopic-
On a related note, the guy in my town (Stereo City, PDX) is so obnoxious I vowed to punch him in the nose if I ever saw him. Turns out he needed a website and someone recommended me. I declined, because I just couldn't bring myself to help him. And I was afraid I might punch him in a meeting.
-/Offtopic-

DVR FF animation in future? (4, Interesting)

Aaarrrggghhh (987643) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121582)

It probably won't be long before some clever ad makers create a secondary level ad within an ad that seems static at normal speeds and becomes a more active/interesting animation as people fast forward with their DVRs.

Re:DVR FF animation in future? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17121624)

I've thought about this ever since the DVR came out. Why not just make a static or near static ad with a voiceover?

Even if the CONSUMER FF'ed, they'd still see the ad.

Re:DVR FF animation in future? (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121692)

30 second skip, baby!

Re:DVR FF animation in future? (4, Informative)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121742)

TV ad producers have been doing this for a while - advert spots that only look right when you fast-forward past them. They were fairly common on ITV and Channel 4 in the UK for a while in the 80s, but seem to have fallen out of fashion.

Re:DVR FF animation in future? (2, Informative)

Surt (22457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121926)

This is already being done. Some of the lesser cable channels are starting to do this to try to cross advertise their shows. The problem is, I can't imagine how painful it must be for someone without a DVR.

81% of broadband users... (4, Insightful)

cswiger2005 (905744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121590)

A better quote from the article would have been:

"Broadband households have become even harder to reach: some 81% of those with high-speed Internet access employ pop-up blockers and spam filters."

It's not surprising, either. At one point, it was commonly recognized that computers belonged to the people that owned them, and that it was the responsibility of people writing software to make sure that the software was well-behaved and did what the user told the software to do-- except for deliberately malicious software. While I do not claim that all forms of advertising are malicious, it's becoming the case that websites using lots of pop-up or pop-under ads, or software like games using Massive's technology or other in-game ad-delivery mechanisms operate under the assumption that they are free to do things with the user's computer and consume networking resources to fetch and display content that the user didn't ask for and does not want.

I can tolerate ad-bars appearing on the right-hand side of a page, so long as most of the screen real-estate shows the actual content I want, but some sites do obnoxious and deceptive things like displaying an interstital ad first. My response to that is to copy the ad link into an email, and send a complaint off to both the webmaster of the site I was on, and the site holding the advertising, indicating that their ad was so annoying that I won't be returning to the offending site for at least one week, and that obviously they will be losing my eyeballs and ad impression revenue for that period of time.

It seems to have an effect, too. At least two of the newspapers I visit (the Boston Globe & the LA Times) have toyed with interstitial ads and have dropped them soon afterwards....

Re:81% of broadband users... (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121946)

Actually, many advertisers have stopped using pop-up windows because most of the newer web browsers have built-in pop-up/pop-nder blocking (Internet Explorer 6.01 SP1 with third-party toolbars, Internet Explorer 7.0, the original Mozilla web browser and its SeaMonkey successor, Firefox, Opera and Safari). They now use ads that are part of the web page instead.

This goes back and forth (5, Interesting)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121640)

Advertisers and networks are getting clever at sneaking ads past us DVR users. So far, I've seen:

1. Ads styled to resemble the program they interrupt: this is common during the Daily Show, especially during the last commercial break.

2. Experienced DVR users note that the blank-screen pause length between shows and commercials is generally longer than that between two commercials. I've observed other people responding both consciously and unconsciously to this, unpausing shows quickly during that period of blackness. Who doesn't like being precise with the remote and avoiding the post-commercial rewind? I've noticed that some networks, for the greater part of this past year, put a longer pause between the second-to-last and last commercial. Usually, some of the ad's audio is played before the FF function is rapidly restored; sometimes, people will just sit through the ad. The fact that I've only seen this with this particular timing (it wouldn't make sense to do this between two early commercials, because the viewer's brain isn't cued up to unpause the DVR) is what leads me to suspect it as a deliberate ploy; perhaps some /.er in the broadcast industry knows more?

Anyone noticed any more of these little tricks? If I was an advertiser in a market with a high proportion of people likely to use DVR, I'd try a 15-second, unchanging, large-text ad with voice-over to at least propagate the brand and slogan for a few seconds of FF time.

Re:This goes back and forth (1)

lou2ser (458778) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121818)

You mean like HeadOn?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeadOn [wikipedia.org]

Re:This goes back and forth (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121996)

Apply direc...oh, I just can't bear to repeat [slashdot.org] that horrid ad for homeopathic nonsense.

Firefox Adblock (1)

AusIV (950840) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121736)

I use Adblock with Firefox, but I only use it to block particular annoying ads. The ads on slashdot, for instance, are relatively unobtrusive, and don't flash or anything that would drive me to block it. When I do block an ad, I'll generally put a * somewhere pretty early in the string (such as http://ad.doubleclick.net/* [doubleclick.net] ), so anything from the obnoxious advertiser gets blocked. As soon as the advertiser puts up one obnoxious ad, I'm done with them.

Spam is another thing entirely. Some spam is advertisements, but when I look in my GMail spam folder half the crap I get doesn't make any sense at all. Looking at some of this, I don't even know what it's trying to tell me or advertise for.

Lumping advertisements (TV, Web, Radio, billboards, etc) with spam (e-mail) is silly. If you're blocking advertisements that come with a service you're using, you're affecting the income generated by the service your using. If you're blocking spam, you're avoiding completely senseless, unsolicited, unwanted junk that you have not done anything to receive.

Re:Firefox Adblock (1)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122006)

The article linked had approximately 35 items blocked in my current adblock configuration.

I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17122234)

show me an animated ad, or an ad in the body of the text im trying to read - its adblocked to hell. static banner ads at the top/bottom of articles or skyscrapers in the left/right borders are fine. And yes i do the same thing, blank out the whole site serving the ads.

Mind you, how many people who do block ads are happy enough to watch talk shows with 'stars' flogging their latest film or read papers with their 'independent' reviews?

DVR numbers (1)

jakoz (696484) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121748)

The study would have been more meaningful if it hadn't conflated spam blocking with ad blocking.

Wow... I wonder whether there happens to be three times more DVRs now? Weren't these people just using the fast forward button on their VCR before?

Re:DVR numbers (2, Interesting)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121876)

"Weren't these people just using the fast forward button on their VCR before?"

I don't know what the data would suggest, but my anecdotal experience indicates otherwise. Everyone I hang out with uses DVR to avoid ads; none of these people were previously using their VCR for the same function. It probably is a matter of convenience; although I don't know anyone (I hope) who is befuddled by VCR programming, it is undeniably easier to use a DVR, connected as it is to the technology which lets the viewer find shows in the first place.

Re:DVR numbers (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122068)

As the other reply said, using a VCR is IMO not worth the effort just to avoid the ads; obviously if it were a show I taped anyway then I would fast-forward through them, but since I got a DVR I'll just hit pause at the beginning of a show I am watching at that moment, or at the beginning of the first ad break, do something else for 10 or 15 minutes and then have an hour's worth of TV show with ads I can skip. Combined with the fact that series linking and having a single button to go from "hmm, that might be worth seeing" in the onscreen TV guide to actually recording something means that more shows get recorded and almost all live shows get shifted specifically for ad avoidance. I'd call that significant in comparison to VCRs.

Why I was forced to use AdBlock+ (4, Insightful)

MonkeyBoyo (630427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121806)

I used to think that if I visited sites with advertising then I shouldn't interfere with the ads. After all I didn't have to look at them.

Then fancier moving ads came out (maybe some with bugs) and I found some used up most of my CPU cycles in firefox.

Eventually I had to install AdBlock+ so I could be sure that I could have 40 tabs open without cripling the browser.

Sure a fancy ad may only add a little overhead, but when you multiply that by 40 it adds up.

Case and point - slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17122020)

/. is very guilty of this. The last ad I saw was some MS video flash ad. (Thank god AdBlock freed me from that.)

I'm sure a lot of /.ers have their own sites, like me, and reluctant to block ads, as they know first hand that they are what keeps the site running. But we also have enough class and respect of our users to not subject them to the insane things that they have tried to shove down our throats here. I'd be happy to view normal text-ads and even banners, but video? Show some respect.

When you push your luck, you end up losing everything. I'll stop blocking ads on /. the day they are not intrusive. Until then, I'm happy to not view them at all.

Re:Why I was forced to use AdBlock+ (1)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122092)

So true, so true...

I installed Firefox with Adblock and the Filterset G updater on my girlfriend's aging Mac laptop. Because without the adblocking, she couldn't even edit her MySpace page due to the overbearing animated advertising that appears all over that site. Her computer would just lock up from the load.

Re:Why I was forced to use AdBlock+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17122226)

What is this "advertising" you speak of?

...

The above message brought to you by Firefox + Adblock + Filterset.G.

Why? (2, Insightful)

leeosenton (764295) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121812)

"The study would have been more meaningful if it hadn't conflated spam blocking with ad blocking."

Then why post this here?

Only half of all households? (1)

dfm3 (830843) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121836)

The fact that the use of ad blocking software has doubled over the last few years really doesn't surprise me. In fact, as much as advertising has inundated the online world, I'm surprised that the use of blocking software hasn't grown faster than that. I've been using a combination of tools such as Adblock and Privoxy [privoxy.org] for years now, to the point that I'm pretty spoiled and can't imagine browsing any site "unprotected". Every so often I find myself at a public computer, say in a computer lab or library, and I can't imagine how people get anything done with all the obnoxious distractions from flashy animations to those floating windows that cover the small paragraph of meaningful text I'm trying to pick out of that sea of ads. Then again, I guess your average Joe User doesn't mind seeing all that advertising, or doesn't always know how to block it. That 81% mentioned in the article includes people who use spam filters (and probably their browsers' bulit-in popup blockers, too), so I imagine that the number of people who go farther to block ads on web pages is actually much lower.

It's not just online, either. Our society has become a culture saturated with advertising at every turn. You can hardly even use a gas pump or cook an egg [eggfusion.com] anymore without marketers seeing another opportunity to make an "impression". Thankfully, there are some aspects of our lives where we can do something to help filter out some of that crap, and the internet is still one of them- at least until the marketers get creative and figure out new ways to bypass filtering software.

My real mailbox is stuffed with junk mail (1)

toy4two (655025) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121922)

Any ideas on how to stop this crap? I've so far written to those ValuPak people, all the credit buerus (that actually worked), but I still get so much garbage in my mailbox, and the ValuPaks keep coming. Is there any law like the "Do Not Call List" for snail mail. Its infuriating.

Re:My real mailbox is stuffed with junk mail (1)

Your Pal Dave (33229) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122252)

The Direct Mail Association has an opt-out list at https://www.dmaconsumers.org/cgi/offmailing/ [dmaconsumers.org] . It'll cost you a buck and only goes out to DMA members, so I don't know how effective it is.

People don't buy DVRs just to skip ads (4, Interesting)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121954)

It isn't like people just get DVRs just to skip ads. And people don't download the Google toolbar just because it blocks popups (actually, I bet more do this than buy DVRs to skip ads--before switching to Opera, I used to use the Google toolbar to block popups, but I would not actually show the toolbar, so I was actually only using it for its popup blocking ability, not for its search features. But I bet the majority of users download it for the search function).

The article could more correctly say that "people are fed up with ads" if it were showing that people are going out of their way to block them. Instead they're showing that a lot of people downloaded the Google toolbar and discovered that it also blocks ads, and a lot of people bought DVRs so they could watch shows whenever they want, and discovered they can also fast forward through commercials.

A better measure of people's "fed-upness" with ads would be keeping track of the increase in use of products like ad-block in Firefox, or see if there's a major increase in the use of products that block ads that cost money (far fewer people would use such a product, but a dramatic increase in usership could likely be extrapolated to the general attitude of a population).

Re:People don't buy DVRs just to skip ads (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122222)

The article could more correctly say that "people are fed up with ads" if it were showing that people are going out of their way to block them.

In my case it is a case of RSI agrivated by yet more click X to close advertisement. When the ads became a contributing health issue and delayed or blocked content, I then blocked the ads with a good hosts file.

Gain Up To 3+ Full Inches In Length 3 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17121980)

Fed up? This stuff is great!
--

Jake Chaney Stanley_romano@wsaccess.com

show details
          2:59 pm (3 hours ago)

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A//kohlrabi.kewl e.com [google.com]
enlarge easily

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A//kohlrabi.bruh a.net [google.com]
softtabs

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A//kohlrabi.jrre n.com [google.com]
500% more sperm

on sick leave
or in coming back
The letter was reluctantly produced and as I handed it to the old lady

File this in the DUH department (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17121990)

Advertising by its very nature is parasitic, especially in the modern age where anything has the potential to serve a marketing function.

In the last century, ads became increasingly ubiquitous and intrusive. Businesses struggled to guage how effective their advertising budgets were because there was simply no reliable way to track conversions.

But with the rise of the Internet, there finally came a medium that could be measured. A banner ad is successful if it has a 1% click through rate, and generally only 1% of those result in a sale (doesn't that sound pathetic?). A lot of times, a banner isn't even intended to get you to buy anything, but rather to entice the user to submit their personal info, which can then be sold to a third party. Depending on the site, such a lead can be worth $1 to $50 each, and can be resold as many times as the seller can find a buyer for their list (which then gets assembled into another saleable list, and so on, and so on). It's not about selling things to the user, it's about perpetuting the cycle of invasiveness.

With the ability to track comes the ability to block. I have an 18,000 line HOSTS file on my machine specifically for this purpose, but most people don't realize they have this abliity and pony up for the crapware that claims to block ads for them (but may or may not block the tracking cookies served with the ads). I laugh every time I see an Earthlink or AOL commercial that offers free crap blockers with their service. And everyone claims to have the best one. Anyone who is annoyed enough by something will take steps to end the annoyance. Apparently this sector of the population is growing fast. DUH.

People don't like ads, they know they are parasitic. People put up with ads that are benign and unobtrusive. If print magazines were capable of including animated ads, their circulation would take a hard hit, and the editors wouldn't understand why. "We have this cool new ad technology, people must want to see it!" No, we don't, we want to see your content without being distracted. This is what marketing people don't understand about the Web. Bright, flashing animated repetitive ads are actually taking away from the user experience of the site, regardless of whether that site would even exist without the ads.

The internet should be a lesson to all the ad pushers out there on how not to run their business. Instead, they don't see the effects of the ads for what they are and make them more obnoxious. It's a viscious cycle, and the marketing people seem to be immune to any "put yourself in the user's shoes" exercise. To them, advertising is a must have for everybody.

Minority Report came up in another story discussion recently. The scariest part of that premise isn't the Pre-Crime, it's the retina-scan-driven billboards everywhere. I hope before that point the public gets outraged and puts a limit on how much the corporations can saturate our existence.

FWIW, I used to work with the guy who came up with the X-10 camera ad campaign. The man was a consummate dork (literally could not comprehend anything except advertising) and was known as "King Dumb Shit" (or simply KDS) around the office.

When you use Wired you really have to block ads (4, Interesting)

darrenadelaide (860548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122002)

What can you expect when ads are intrusive and frequently block themselves over using Javascript over the text you are trying to read.

I got so fed up after yet another wired blog was covered over by their own paid advertising I started to block them, if they would have be un-obtrusive (for example google who I think do a good job in balancing the ads to be there but not in your face!) I wouldnt have bothered.

Until companies like Wired stomp on this practice rather than encouraging it they are going to be seen as just as much as (well not quite this bad) a pariah as companies such as zango.

Darren

Re:When you use Wired you really have to block ads (2, Interesting)

^_^x (178540) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122114)

I agree... I cut my visits to Wired to a minimum when I noticed they started using Javascript to reload their pages every 30 seconds. I would assume it's for some kind of tracker to see how long each page is being read - but it feels like someone's reading over my shoulder, and I don't really want to leave my browser open to any of their pages now, or manually disable Javascript to read their site, so they're history to me.

Re:When you use Wired you really have to block ads (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17122158)

++Agree. If an ad doesn't flash, hover over what I'm trying to read, pretend to be a widget, shake around like mad or anything else that is designed to distract from the content then they can get stuffed and I'll block the whole lot.

Be sensible, honest don't get in my way and I'm happy enough to have them around. I might even click one now and then.

It's like the fable about the wind and the sun having a wager as to who can make a man remove his coat - the harder the wind tries to blow the man's coat off the tighter he pulls it around him ...

HOST file ad blocking (1)

netsfr (839855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122078)

I got fed up with ad's using up my hard earned bandwidth (highspeed cable is not enough as it is!) I just changed my host file to send all anoying ad sites to 127.0.0.1 ala Mike's Ad Blocking host file I found on google... (I use his because I got tired of editing my host file every time a new ad came up).

This cuts down on a lot of ads, even in things link MSN IM.

Count loyalty in (3, Insightful)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122144)

I too am disturbed with websites that produce too little content and too many ads, but there's a conundrum attached right next to it.

Most webbies of today are free of charge, whereas the visitor has the right to objectively decide whether he or she wants to read it for free or not. I feel that if I browse a site and return to it as well, I also need to give the author something in return. It's all about loyalty and morale. You get something for free and should therefore give something back.

Some can argue that there are too many ads on the sites they visit. If this is true, there is likely a good alternative to that site, too. What better way to show that you're displeased than stop visiting the site?

Beating around the bush. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17122152)

Slashdot is partly ad-supported. Slashdot knows people hate ads (fuck Flash).

Look, it's no secret that a lot of people here block ads, including those on Slashdot. So to me it doesn't really make a lot of sense to rely on advertising for part of your income when you know damn well your readers hate it, and in a lot of instances actively block it.

Oh noes, Slashdot business model is dieing! I thought Slashdot was supposed to be ahead of the times.

Mostly porn (1)

thegsusfreek (769912) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122170)

I basically only block website adverts if they are (softcore or hardcore) porn. I don't want to look at porn, and if an advertiser is going to throw it in my face (a la facebook, myspace, fileplanet/ign with their "Girls of Gaming") then I am gonna lay the smack-down on 'em and block 'em to kingdom come.


I understand that ads bring in revenue and help keep sites alive but I'm not going to be subject to the filth that advertisers sometimes feel it necessary to use to get people to click to their website.

The lack of interesting content is a problem too! (4, Interesting)

JoeSchmoe007 (1036128) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122178)

The lack of interesting content on TV is a related problem that is just as important. I, for once, just stopped watching TV altogether 7 years ago and haven't had any kind of service since. My decision was 70% motivated by luck of content I was interested in and 30% by annoyance of commercials.

And the war goes on.... (1)

Hap76 (995519) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122190)

People are fed up with ads, but making good ads is unpredictable and is likely more costly for advertisers; since the viewers aren't paying for it anyway, the advertisers don't care how annoying their ads are if they increase their profits. Now people can actually skip the ads via TiVo and its internet analogs. Advertisers will respond by either:

1) making better ads...oh, wait, they could have done this before, but it would cost more money and is hard to do consistently. Guess not.

2) integrating ads with content (sports events on TV have lots of "X scoreboard" and "Y events of the game") so that people can skip them only with difficulty - this works until the ads become annoying enough that people stop watching. Radio also uses the same announcers to deliver ad spots and the events/shows so that content and ads are hard to distinguish quickly, which works subject to the same caveats.

3) throwing money at Congress until it bans/neuters methods of avoiding ads. Nah, this would never happen.

I would have liked to think that if we were paying directly for programming, ads wouldn't exist, but their proliferation in user-paid media such as cable and video games suggests otherwise. Unless the viewers (and/or the customers of the advertised products) of content go away, the annoyance of ads is going to escalate. I don't think I'll be spending big bucks on a TV anytime soon.

or maybe the ads just got worse??? (1)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122210)

I don't think advertisers, with their own heads so far up their own smelly asses, even consider that the consumer has a choice whether or not to watch advertisements. Instead, they treat us like we're bound and gagged with our eyes propped open. Then, they feed us complete bullshit with zero entertainment value at a volume level that is three times that of whatever show we were watching. With HDTV, it's even worse than before! How the fuck do they not have the volume problem fixed by now?

Not only have I been skipping shows automatically (with my Replay TV 4500), or fast-forwarding them (with my HDTV PVR from the cable company), I've also been hitting the mute button and getting up to walk around for 5-7 minutes during commercials when I'm watching live sports or don't have a PVR on the tv I'm using.. I hate TV commercials. I hate them with a passion. If I could, I'd pay for the shows I wanted to watch.. and the sporting events.

If a person has the Internet, he or she knows 100% of EVERYTHING in TV commercials already. There is no point for any smart person to watch TV commercials anymore. Hell.. the 1% of entertaining commercials get played over and over on the Internet anyway.. by people that actually want to see them!

Also, commercials have ZERO entertainment value. In fact, they're repulsive. For 99% of commercials, there is no humor, there is no attempt at being realistic (cars flying.. I mean come on!), there is no concern over the viewer's well-being. Commercials tell us to buy cars we cannot afford - to get 30 fucking thousand dollar cars as gifts even! They tell us we're depressed and need pills for $100/month. They tell us we need help breathing, sleeping, and even having sex! They tell us fast-food is healthy. They tell us processed food is healthy and wonderful to give our kids. They tell us not to smoke and to use condoms - stuff that the dumbest of idiots have already heard. They tell us about politicians... in only a negative or untruthful manner. They tell us to 'panic like hell' until we can watch the cliffhanger of a news hour about something that ends up being lame and overplayed. They tell us to buy diamonds for every occassion. It's raining.. BUY DIAMONDS YOU IDIOT!!!

Commercials represent the worst of mankind. If a person had to learn about humans simply through watching commercials, he or she would hate everything about us.

The entire advertising industry has fucked everything up. They have the consumer hating them so much that many consumers make it a point NOT to buy products from companies with horrible ad campaigns.

Who makes money? Well.. the advertisers. They make money off companies too outdated to make a good product who require quick mass-marketing to idiots to sell a product. And, the companies that actually make good products..

Let's take an example.. the IPOD. Did it take off because of the commercials or did it take off BEFORE the commercials? The answer is BEFORE. Smart people bought them, used them, liked them, and told other people about them. Only after they sell tons and make $tons, marketing assholes at Apple say 'hey.. let's throw money at advertising' and they make a bunch of lame commercials.. Then it sells more because it was already selling. And the marketers take credit.

There's a reason many of the best-selling money-making products aren't even shown in commercials.. they're just good products.

Time is too valuable a commodity now in our insanely fast-paced world. The consumer no longer has time to be repulsed by 30 second ad spot after ad spot. The consumer can turn his or her eyes and ears off now. Seriously.. we can.

Sadly, though, in a way we ARE forced to deal with them. We cannot simply 'buy' most shows and play them on our living-room TV's.. at least not yet. So, we skip them, mute them, or get up and shit during them.

BTW, Internet advertising is ALSO not the solution. Don't even think about acting like it is. The advertising money will simply GO AWAY to companies that know how to make something value-added. Advertising has been a waste for years now.

TBS is unwatchable because of the ads (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17122256)

The other day I noticed Family Guy was on TBS, a channel I don't normally watch, but I needed something to tide me over for 10 minutes. Anyway, during the 2 minutes I could stand watching it, they showed ad after ad DURING THE SHOW for other shows. First they had a little popup in the bottom right corner, then some large text scrolled by, then a larger popup taking the entire bottom half of the screen, then more scrolling text, ad nauseum. One after another. Why in the hell would anyone want to watch anything at all on that channel?

Maybe it's time for a new business model? (1)

JoeSchmoe007 (1036128) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122264)

Does anyone know what % of money that cable/satellite TV providers charge subscribers goes back to content providers? From what I gather - very little but I failed to find any specific information so far. Anyway, I am thinking about the business model where content providers generate 100% of their income from the subscription fees. No ads at all. Or an option to pay and be rid of 100% of the ads. This of course would drastically change the foundation of broadcast industry and would most likely be blocked by largest advertisers. At this time it just seems that TV content is nothing but a filler between the commercials. Wasn't it supposed to be the other way around?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?