Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

6% of Web Users Generate 50% of Ad Clicks

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the born-to-click dept.

The Internet 341

pcause writes "A recent study finds that 6% of Web users generate 50% of the click-throughs. Worse news for advertisers: these clickers are not representative of the population as a whole, most have incomes under $40K, and their clicks are not related to any offline buying. (They are mostly males between 25 and 44 years of age.) The number of clicks on an ad campaign is also not strongly correlated with brand awareness for the ads' subject, according to the study. This is bad news for ad-supported Web sites and businesses, as rates should drop if the Net economy begins to take these findings seriously."

cancel ×

341 comments

The remaining 50% (5, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397396)

The remaining 50% are made up of people who just gotta punch that monkey!

Re:The remaining 50% (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397644)


They must see it as some sort of rival. "Hey, that monkey's lookin' at me funny!" Monkey see, monkey click.

Re:The remaining 50% (2, Interesting)

erick99 (743982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397988)

I click out of pure curiosity. But then, I also enjoy looking at junk mail :)

Re:The remaining 50% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22397666)

I prefer to tase the gnome [homestarrunner.com] (hint: click on work at the end).

Like thousands of other /.ers... (5, Funny)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397882)

The Flash-based "Talking Woman" has helped me.

When Mom calls long distance, Talking Woman is cheerful and polite in the background. Mom thinks I've finally found a nice girl and given up computers.

Re:The remaining 50% (5, Funny)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397902)

Punching? I find spanking it to be much more rewarding.

OT: I want to use your tag line (-1, Offtopic)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398156)

I would like to use your tag line. I can't find how to edit my tag on Slashdot anymore. I dug all around in preferences and could not find it. Where do I go to modify my tag line?

Re:OT: I want to use your tag line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22398392)

Preferences : User Info : Sig

It appears to have undergone a makeover recently.

Re:The remaining 50% (2, Funny)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398182)

I love the duck pond ones - if you have a pop-up blocker, you never get the reward. And you can keep clicking past the three and your 'hits remaining' counter starts going negative. As it gets lower, the ducks move faster, until eventually you can't even see the things - but if you keep clicking randomly, you'll still manage to hit a few.

Re:The remaining 50% (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398220)

I always play the ones that make me shoot 20 targets. I take a little FPS break from what I'm doing to shoot 19, then get back to whatever I was up to before.

Slogan (4, Funny)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398434)

"Dummies. We click, so you don't have to."

No Money (1)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397408)

No buyee.

Re:No Money (5, Insightful)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397674)

Wrong.

1. The impulsiveness of purchases is highest in low income categories. The middle class actually counts pennies much more and the rich have someone counting for them. Example, my wife nearly choked on her dinner watching BBC News awhile ago when they reported the failure of a pyramid "christmas present purchase" scheme predominantly used by the poor. She was very sympathetic until she heard the numbers lost by most families which were in the range of 400-800 pounds. We are reasonably well off and sorry, no way in hell for us to spend that for a Christmas budget. That is more like what we will spend in several years. So after that she immediately switched to a "well deserved, serves you right" mode.

2. The worst perception of his personal finance state in the developed world is ... Surprise... Surprise... Young males college to around 35. These are most likely to buy crazy stuff even if it will hurt their pocket. Next worst offenders as far "financial discipline" is concerned are women right before they hit a certain "golden" age.

Overall, the study matches very well the actual "buy based on advertisement" demographic. I do not see anything particularly detrimental to the online ad business coming out of it. It is business as usual. Move along.

Re:No Money (1, Redundant)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397814)

1. The impulsiveness of purchases is highest in low income categories. The middle class actually counts pennies much more and the rich have someone counting for them. Example, my wife nearly choked on her dinner watching BBC News awhile ago when they reported the failure of a pyramid "christmas present purchase" scheme predominantly used by the poor. She was very sympathetic until she heard the numbers lost by most families which were in the range of 400-800 pounds. We are reasonably well off and sorry, no way in hell for us to spend that for a Christmas budget. That is more like what we will spend in several years. So after that she immediately switched to a "well deserved, serves you right" mode.
I fully agree, ads work best on those with poor impulse control. Poor impulse control tends to correlate with lower incomes.

Re:No Money (0, Flamebait)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398198)

"I fully agree, ads work best on those with poor impulse control. Poor impulse control tends to correlate with lower incomes."

No they don you fucvk!! *hits submit button*

"Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

It's been 17 seconds since you hit 'reply'.

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator."

Re:No Money (5, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398266)

I'm not sure about poor impulse control = low income.

I'd say poor impulse control = low money. ;)

Re:No Money (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398138)

Exactly! Originally the US gov. rebate checks were only supposed to go to people making much less than 75k (the final agreed upon amount). The politicians would like you to believe it's because they wanted to help the poor, but the real truth is that they know the lower income people were more likely to spend the money on something new rather than save it or apply it to an existing debt.

Phew... (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397418)

Now I don't feel at all guilty about ad-blocking.

Who's on patrol at Slashdot? (2, Interesting)

croddy (659025) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397420)

Maybe I am just evil, but I would not have posted this if I worked for a site that generated a lot of revenue through banner ads.

Re:Who's on patrol at Slashdot? (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397474)

Just as long as the people buying ad-space don't find out...

Re:Who's on patrol at Slashdot? (5, Informative)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397684)

Maybe I am just evil, but I would not have posted this if I worked for a site that generated a lot of revenue through banner ads.

Why not? The summary was, as usual, quite inaccurate: "This is bad news for ad-supported Web sites and businesses, as rates should drop if the Net economy begins to take these findings seriously." That's not what the article says.

The article says "While the click can continue to be a relevant metric for direct response advertising campaigns, this study demonstrates that click performance is the wrong measure for the effectiveness of brand-building campaigns." This is actually good news for sites like Slashdot and other technical sites that cater to a higher-end/less-clicky audience. It's essentially saying, "Don't assume the campaign isn't working just because you don't get click-throughs."

As such, I'd expect it to raise rates since it's basically eliminating the only "reliable" way of concluding that an ad is or isn't working. They're saying that that one metric that people thought they had is actually a poor indicator of success.

To me, this looks like something that will drive the industry back to pay-per-impression rather than pay-per-click--at least for branding campaigns. Which are really the most important for bigger advertising spenders anyway. If you put a banner up for a vacation to Hawaii, sure, a few people will already be planning a vacation to Hawaii and might click. And maybe a few will say "Hey, Hawaii, great idea, let's go." But for the vast majority, that's just one more thing that gets in their mind so when they do think of a vacation--perhaps months after the banner ad--well, they might just be a little more likely to go to Hawaii than some other destination.

The value of advertising is usually in targeting long-term spending habits, not getting a one-time sale. You think that when someone advertises for millions during the Superbowl that they actually get a million dollars of immediate business as a direct result of that ad? Nah... but over time it gets in their consciousness and leads to changes in long-term spending habits that do more than pay for themselves.

Re:Who's on patrol at Slashdot? (1)

croddy (659025) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397736)

Okay -- the inaccurate summary only makes the problem worse. Now it's Slashdot alone cocking the footgun.

Re:Who's on patrol at Slashdot? (1)

roblarky (1103715) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398116)

For what it's worth, I did click the ./ banner for the Clocky alarm clock at Thinkgeek. It was an effective banner that appealed to me and my curiosity.

HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHA (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22397436)

and with these statistics google is worth 100+ billion dollars???

hahahahaahahahahahahahahahaha

sell now suckerss!!!

Re:HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHA (4, Insightful)

Altus (1034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397716)


I wouldn't be surprised if googles text ads had a better rate than a lot of the banner ads I see.

Seriously, how many people are going to buy anything that was advertised with a "punch the monkey" style ad? How many people choose their mortgage company because they saw some flashing crap on the web. The people who are drawn in by these ads don't buy houses.

On the other hand, every time I do a google search I check those ads out. When I'm emailing about something in gmail I will often see related ads and they are often very relevant. Several times I have written an email to someone with a line like "I wonder where I could buy something like X?" and as soon as I send I see an ad up top for a web site that sells just what I am looking for. Thats good advertising. I'm not clicking through because I felt like playing some stupid flash game in an ad, I'm clicking through because I wanted to buy the product being advertised.

I think its really more an issue of the approach the advertisements take to get those clicks that has been resulting in less sales per click.

Re:HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHA (1)

cmowire (254489) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397884)

Indeed, the only times that I've ever purchased something directly as the result of a banner advertisement is from a very well targeted search advertisement for search terms that didn't attract too many spammers

(purple LEDs, if I remember correctly)

Re:HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22397974)

Find purple LEDs on eBay! (note: Link does not take you to purple LEDs on eBay)

Correlation (1)

Electrawn (321224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398244)

The problem with the housing market may be a lot of people bought ARM mortgages from Punch-the-Monkey click ads. Stupid people buying from questionable mortgage companies.

Spam does sell. There must be some twit in the thousands of Mortgage spam out there for it to be effective. Flash ads like the dancing people/aliens. If they didn't work, we wouldn't see it.

And now the idiot that did that is going to get foreclosed on, dragging YOUR home value down. Or the government will bail him and the banks out, causing YOUR taxes to go up.

Wonderful.

Re:HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHA (1)

Zidane-The-Dom (905967) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398202)

i wouldnt say that, i always found googles ads unobtrusive and well targeted. i very rarely click on any ads online (mostly because konqueror is bloody good at blocking them), but i dont block the google ads because they are targeted towards things i am actually interested in, not just stupid "free ipod" pyramid schemes.

We must do something about this. (5, Funny)

whyde (123448) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397448)

I propose limiting their ad clicking on the ISP side with advertising traffic shaping. It is an unfortunate market reality, but these ad-clicking hogs are wasting valuable advertising bandwidth for the rest of the users, and it must be stopped.

Don't let 5% of the ad clickers ruin the internet "experience" for the rest of the users.

Re:We must do something about this. (4, Funny)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397972)

But what about those of us who are too lazy to even click on an ad, but still want this "experience" of which you speak!?

If only there were some way of putting the ads on the screen without even having to click on them. Perhaps the ads could even be in separate browser windows that are created and filled with ad content automatically--"popping up," if you will, onto the screen? That way, the user can take full advantage of valuable money-saving opportunities without having to complete the arduous task of clicking a mouse button!

Dare to dream, dare to dream.

Names? (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397450)

Ah, good old soviet union. Send these 6% to gulag and domain-squatter and probably spam problem solved.

Re:Names? (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398186)

Send these 6% to gulag and domain-squatter
That's the worst idea I've heard all day (and I've heard a few.) Those 6% are generating the ad revenue that pays for the pages that the rest of us AdBlock. I say keep 'em clicking! If they don't keep making the ads profitable, every site on the internet is either going to have to be subscription-based, blatantly commercial, or independently funded by somebody with enough $$ and motivation to keep it up.

These 6% are heroes - They're paying for a lot of our interweb.

Males 25-44 years old (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397464)

I don't even have to say it.

OMG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22397472)

Who keeps falling for the ads? [/insensitive clod]

Adverts? (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397480)

There are adverts on the internet? Why doesn't anyone tell me about these things!

I must have my proxy, hosts, and AdBlock set up wrong!

Re:Adverts? (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398258)

There are adverts on the internet? Why doesn't anyone tell me about these things!


Aww man! I wanted to be the one to say that!

But thanks for taking one (down-mod) for the team!

Not surprised at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22397530)

Most websites have click ads in exactly the same position every time you visit their site. I have trained my eyes to simply ignore them. Either that or I shrink the browser to move them out of sight.

Re:Not surprised at all (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397632)

You just said that to attract a swarm of "Get Adblock!" or "Get NoScript!" comments, didn't you?

In Comparison (1)

955301 (209856) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397540)


Is this really upsetting? It seems that in comparison to blasting the air waves with an untargeted advertisement or littering the countryside with billboards this is still a good idea.

Perhaps is just that advertising on a whole is questionable.

Re:In Comparison (3, Insightful)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398158)

Perhaps is just that advertising on a whole is questionable.

Exactly. Advertising is one of those businesses that seem to make a ton of money and carry a lot of weight when the so-called "important messages" are spewed at us nonstop during events or shows both big and small. I too ignore almost all advertisements as a general rule. Who in their right mind would take some slick video advice from the assholes trying to sell you their widget rather than do the research on your own, or just make an impulse buy and be done with it? When I had pay-for TV I just mute the sound and do anything else when an ad comes on. I don't listen to commercial-filled radio and I run adblock plus like most savvy net users do. I can't remember the last advertisement I've seen, nor do I care to. I make purchasing decisions based on the reviews and product info directly or via peers. The advertising businesses are a waste of time and money and I feel sorry for the assholes who occupy the airspace wasted by this so-called "industry".

Rates or targets? (4, Interesting)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397550)

The only online advertising that this will hurt are the mass spam adds. Anything being targeted at a specific demographic can be easily and verifiably checked. As an example, anyone who runs adds on a site like Penny-Arcade can be quite sure that any click throughs are exactly the type of people they want to reach. Click throughs from adds run on Slashdot? They know the type of people doing the clicks. Random Click-here-for-hyped-product-of-the-moment? Not so much.

Personally, I think this is a good sign. Adds targeting specific audiences and communities tend to be more respectful and interesting. If these findings promote that kind of advertising instead of flashing spams adds designed to distract, then hooray!

Re:Rates or targets? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22397712)

>> anyone who runs adds on a site like Penny-Arcade can be quite sure that any click throughs are exactly the type of people they want to reach

Retards?

Re:Rates or targets? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398188)

Best kind of consumer.

Also (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398092)

While people may not be clicking, that doesn't mean the ads aren't getting them thinking. Google holds the record as only site where I've ever clicked on an ad and bought something. That is because their ads are extremely targeted and they've been linking to sites actually selling something I want when I'm ready to buy. However, other ads still make me consider products. I've never bought anything from Think Geek by clicking on an ad, but the ad has got me thinking about something I might want, which I may then later go to Think Geek and buy.

Just because you can click on ads, doesn't mean you will, but just because you don't doesn't mean you weren't influenced by it.

Low clickthrough is not necessarily a problem (5, Insightful)

superskippy (772852) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397570)

The thing to bear in mind here is that the ads that were about before the internet- TV spots, posters on the street, pages in magazines and newspapers, jingles on the radio and so on have a click-through of zero. Yet people still bother with them.

The real problem here is that the pay-per-click method doesn't charge advertisers fairly. A combination pay-per-view, and pay-per-click model might be better.

Sorry, had to (5, Funny)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397692)

- Didn't you have ads in the 20th century?

- Not in our dreams! Only on TV and radio. And in magazines. And movies. And at ballgames. And on buses. And milk cartons. And t-shirts. And bananas. And written on the sky. But not in dreams! No sirree!

Not surprising (5, Insightful)

elysiana (1152995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397572)

Hmmm people who actually click on ads rather than blocking them are actually likely to click on other ads also? Then when they realize that they did not, in fact, win a free iPod, they don't buy the product that is being sold?

I am less than shocked.

Re:Not surprising (1)

hobbitFeet (1127615) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397640)

But if I enter enough competitions to win a free iPod I'll eventually win. It's simple statistics. And I'm due my lottery win any day now ...

Re:Not surprising (1)

elysiana (1152995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397714)

This website was made possible by the annual financial support from clickers like you!

Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22397586)

Advertisers have just got to admit that, Click throughs are not the only use of ads. Just like in the real world, an ad does not need to result in an immediate sale for it to be useful.

6% (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397588)

6% of Web Users Generate 50% of Ad Clicks
And they would be the last 6% of people that would consciously adopt Firefox/Adblock Plus or Opera.

Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22397596)

It also wouldn't surprise me if 6% of advertisers were responsible for 50% of ads (not even counting spam campaigns). I surmise that the majority of people just aren't interested in the same useless crap being advertised on all the major sites. Looking over my open browser tabs right now, there's not a single ad representing anything I'd be remotely interested in buying (except for a ticket to the World Boardgaming Championships, but I don't think I'll be able to go).

Wait for it (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397604)

We do know that some ISP's redirect ad references and fill in pages in transit with different ads. How long before these same ISP's generate phantom client clicks for the ads the insert? Not really that hard to add on and they can even throw that traffic away at their incoming service boundary. This would provide the ISP with a higher value from the advertisers point of view.

Opps have we broken commercialization again.

Other thought,
What percentage use a hosts file and no-script to block out ads? These are likely to be in the mid to upper income set and high network usage.

Re:Wait for it (1)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398390)

What percentage use a hosts file and no-script to block out ads?
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] Host file FTW!!! I have LOVED the web ever since I found this little jewel.

I spend thousands online and never click ads (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397616)

I typically go directly to where I am making my purchase, Amazon, Newegg, etc.

On the rare occasion I do see an ad that I might be interested in, I still don't click it. I will just type in the URL of the company, because I want to get a feel for the site before I drill down to a particular product.

That said, I appreciate those 6% for "sponsoring" free content. Thanks!

Who's Advertising What? (1)

vajrabum (688509) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397676)

In discussing using click-through rates to measure the effectiveness of branding campaigns, Starcom USA Director of Connections Research and Analytics Grant Prentice says "Natural Born Clickers (the study) shows us that we can't count on click-through rate as our primary success metric for display ads; Starcom is more reliant on shifts in brand attitude metrics and analytics tying on-line exposure to sales as the true measures of online advertising efficacy." Who'd a thunk these guys were trying to sell something... BTW, the TFA also said that the study result doesn't apply to direct marketing campaigns.

This is good news (5, Funny)

oni (41625) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397690)

If true, this 6% figure is good news. If it's really this small number of people, then it should be possible to track them down and kill them.

Re:This is good news (1)

Caped Cod (633799) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397798)

Mrrph -- I LOLed. Bummer, I *just* spent my last mod point.

Re:This is good news (4, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398012)

NOOOOOOO!!!! We NEED these people! The WWW is supported by ads, so as long as these people do all the clicking, no one will mind if the rest of use use AdBlock, custom /etc/hosts files, etc.

Now, killing all the people who buy from spammers, I still support, though I'd rather kill the spammers themselves. Spammers are truly evil; the people who buy from them are merely stupid.

Why track them down? (2, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398058)

They're in Innsmouth, they look vaguely squid-like and they're totally insane. What more do you need to know?

Re:Why track them down? (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398396)

I thought the "Innsmouth look" was more "fishy-froggy" than "squidy". Ia-R'lyehl Cihuiha flgagnl id Ia...

Re:This is good news (1)

sskagent (1170913) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398456)

What this means is that ads need to only appear 6% of the time....every time.

Counter-argument... (4, Insightful)

cmowire (254489) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397698)

The problem is that advertisers want to pay per-click to get per-impression results.

There's no "click" on TV or radio or newspapers, just an impression. But when people realized that there *was* a click-through to be recorded on the web, they wanted to pay for that under the assumption that click-through and impression were correlated and therefore that they could gauge if their intended audience was getting the ads by the level of click-through.

This makes things easy. If the click-through on an advertisement is high, clearly you need to keep it there. If it's low, it's clearly not properly targeted. This can be automated to run without human intervention. The survey disproves this.

So, really, what it's showing is that the web advertising market needs to be structured more like a traditional media buy.

I suspect the biggest winners in this market will be large web companies with enough folks to have an advertisement team and captured demographics information to be able to say "Sure the click-throughs are all 35 year old virgins with a crap job, but the *viewers* are actually mostly upper management level people with a wife and a mistress"

And, since this is Slashdot, we can make the logical conclusion that the companies in the article were paid by one of the aforementioned large web companies with enough folks to have an advertisement team and captured demographics information.

Re:Counter-argument... (1)

ArikTheRed (865776) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398066)

So, really, what it's showing is that the web advertising market needs to be structured more like a traditional media buy.
As my econ professor once said: people blame capitalism for pollution, but the real problem is no one owns the rivers or the sky. The problem isn't too much capitalism, it's not enough.

The answer isn't less technology (moving back to the old pay-per-impression model), it's more. The market is moving away from pay-per-click, to pay-per-action. Rather than paying an advertisement agency to buy google ads for me at 10 cents per click, I much prefer to pay the agency $10 per sale that gets made through their ads. Then the onus is on them to ensure that the ads they create are optimal. Capitalism and technology at work!

Re:Counter-argument... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398344)

Or it means the people with the ability to track demographics (like Yahoo, Microsoft and Google) just became a lot more important because they are the ones that can really provide that information, not some advertising section of a retailer that bases their information on what people put in a web form.

Re:Counter-argument... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22398354)

So, really, what it's showing is that the web advertising market needs to be structured more like a traditional media buy
Well actually it is... Only mom-and-pop stores and the truly desperate buy pay per click advertising. All proper (ie not google/yahoo) online agencies buy and sell ads on a CPM basis. Click through rates are very much secondary and often not even looked at.

My 6 Cents worth (2 Cents adjusted for inlfation) (1)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397702)

Especially when 99% of the sites want to send you to:

1. Spamoulicious Media 2. Phishing in da lake.com 3. Passwords R us 4. Mafia Payday Loans 5. Communist United National Terroists (C.U.N.T.'s) etc.

Well Duuuh... (3, Insightful)

Boogaroo (604901) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397726)

Seriously, the ads I click on are 99.9% accidental. I think I've clicked on about five ads I actually WANTED in the last ten years.
Is it any wonder that the people who are clicking on ads constantly are not the "average joe?" Most people hate commercials and other junk that gets in the way of what they were looking at.

"Oh, another ad for the same BMW I switched away stations on the radio, muted on TV, and flipped past in the newspaper. I think I'll click on this one because it's in the middle of my news story about Britney Spears' latest breakdown."

I wonder what correlation there is between this 6% and the people who click on the "V1agr@" spams in their email.

Re:Well Duuuh... (2, Funny)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397970)

5 clicks=0.01 percent of your ad clicks
So you've had 5000 ad clicks in the past 10 years.
5000/(365*10)=1.37 clicks per day.
Why are you encouraging them (advertisers)? ;-}

Re:Well Duuuh... (3, Insightful)

anpe (217106) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398170)

Well, actually, I click on ads as a sort of reward on blogs I find interesting. I don't even look at the ad, just click a random google ad link. My reasoning is that if the blog post is interesting, I can add my 0.02€, literally.

Large issue (1)

geek (5680) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397740)

The same goes for offline advertisements. How many of the junk snail mail adverts do you read? I grab it all and toss it without a second look, most people do. I've recently gone over this issue with a modern art professor (many of todays ads get taught in art classes now believe it or not) and he talked at length about saturation. You can't do anything, go any where without being bombarded with this crap and it's gotten to the point that most people tune it out.

I myself make mental notes to never do business with certain advertisers I feel are shady (which is more than I like to admit). Most people however are oblivious to it and the information just hits the subliminal. I feel the bombardment is backfiring and the whole advertising industry is in a huge bubble that's about to burst. Companies wont be able to justify the extreme costs of advertisiments when most people just don't care anymore.

Re:Large issue (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398418)

I myself make mental notes to never do business with certain advertisers I feel are shady (which is more than I like to admit).
I do too, but unfortunately those shady tactics (I include inexcusably ugly/loud/hard to avoid) are effective on a lot of people. Which, of course, is why they're still around. I had give my step-mother a firm talking-to after noticing a stick of Head-On in her bathroom.

[As a side note, I would have tried it out, but I couldn't figure out how to apply it.]

Psychiatrists will have a field day (1)

angus_rg (1063280) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397754)

I can see it now, 30+ sessions to cure whatever the call this internet addiction.

I'd like to suggest Adclickophilia and Obsesive Compulsive Clickorder.

Yeah, it's called Get Paid To-- (1)

Eevee1 (1147279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397800)

Well, I find it hard to be surprised. I mean, in the world of Get Paid to Click Ads. Some of those sites generate a very nice amount of traffic. It's pretty close to the ol' Slashdot effect in those regards.

http://getpaidforum.com/forums/index.php?act=idx [getpaidforum.com] -- One of the larger forums for the GPT industry.

Myself, I just class them as really really small loans. Say, under $5, but at 50% interest per month.

Clickthrough isn't all it's about (3, Insightful)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397812)

Ever heard of Brand Awareness? Getting a banner ad out there and seen by hundreds of thousands of people three or four times a day is worth it if you have a product to sell that already has good distribution. Even if these ads never generate clickthrough, they are still worth it.

Furthermore there are only two ads I click on and it NEVER leads to my buying things. The first are informational ads. Like I clicked on that Chevron Ad on Slashdot recently. I was interested in all the various energy distribution and generation methods they were persuing. The Second are Text ads for companies I really dislike. I will click the advertised link because I know it is costing them money. Ya it may only be one cent but it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

Re:Clickthrough isn't all it's about (1)

ArikTheRed (865776) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398160)

Ya it may only be one cent but it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.
Well, if you really want to feel warm and fuzzy, know that the more general the search term, the more it is likely costing the advertiser. Some google keywords actually run up to $30 PER CLICK. No, I'm not joking.

Not that I recommend it - click fraud is probably illegal where you live.

Oh, I'm aware of the X10 brand. (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398318)

Ever heard of Brand Awareness? Getting a banner ad out there and seen by hundreds of thousands of people three or four times a day is worth it if you have a product to sell that already has good distribution. Even if these ads never generate clickthrough, they are still worth it.
I've heard of Brand Awareness. In fact, the brands I'm most aware of are the brands on my "don't do business with these assholes" list. X10 (the camera people) is on that list.

FTA: (2, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397872)

Heavy clickers are also relatively more likely to visit auctions, gambling, and career services sites

So basically they're unemployable opportunists with no ability to assess risks.

The surprise here is that it took three companies working together to figure this out.

As an advertiser... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22397916)

I know that 50% of the money spent on advertising is down the drain. The problem is, I don't know which 50%.

How many DON'T?! (1)

phobos13013 (813040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397920)

I would think a more interesting figure, and perhaps not even able to be inferred from this research, would be to determine how many users don't even click-through at all. If it's greater than half... I would say the adserve business is pretty useless. But hey, dont they pay people to click-through anyway? Maybe, we found the 6%! Oh, the irony if so!!

Time for a meetup! (1)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397948)


  Wow - I wanna see the meetup of that 6% of tiny-penis, high-quality-meds-taking, fake-watch-wearing, lottery-ticket-holding, nigerian-bank-account-holders who are all chatting about the sexy-bored-housewife they met via their inbox.

  i'll being my perpetual motion machine and some investment stock certs.

What they didn't mention... (1)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397952)

...is that CowboyNeal is in that 6%.

The principle of factor sparsity ? [pareto] (3, Interesting)

janeeja (1238160) | more than 6 years ago | (#22397954)

This story made me think of two things: quote from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle [wikipedia.org]

The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, 80% of the effects comes from 20% of the causes.
And: I also remember research being done regarding p2p networks and social behavior. I think it was preformed by at&t or something in that direction. 90% of the total amount of p2p clients were up/downloading only 10% of the total available content. Not very efficient..... for ISP's etc. jnj.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22398018)

I use Adblock, I hardly ever buy stuff, and when I do, it's approximately never because of advertising.

I feel like maybe I'm not supposed to be using the Internet. I might be hurting the economy.

duh? (2, Insightful)

moracity (925736) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398044)

It doesn't take a "study" to realize that only imbeciles (or people new to the internet) actually click through internet ads. These are probably the same people that buy infomercial and home shopping channel garbage.

I'm most of that 5%!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22398050)

I am botnet that does nothing but virtually click on ads all day stopping only occasionally to brag about it.

BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This just in... (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398060)

"DUH"

And yes, this is a meager attempt at being humorous. Not a serious reply at all. Please go back to sleep. :P

In Other News: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22398102)

6% of Web Users are Botnets

Previous studies! (1)

CmdrRickHunter (1142731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398120)

I forget where, but I remember seeing an article that the click-throughs actually made up a small portion of the advertising effect. It was more important to integrate well with a website and get brand recognition through that.

In other news... (1)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398122)

0.00666% of all users are responsible for ordering viagra, funding the Nigerian Embassy and in general keeping spam afloat. Remember, if he hunts long enough even a blind squirrel can find his nuts.

Clicks not related to buying . This is a surprise? (1)

daveo0331 (469843) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398214)

I wonder what percent of ad clicks are either (a) misclicks or (b) stuff like punch the monkey or "do you like George Bush" or "Take the gay quiz and find out if you're gay" and other things that people click on for reasons having nothing to do with actually wanting to buy anything.

It works the other way around too -- people may not click on that Budweiser/Coke/Southwest Airlines ad, but it increases brand awareness so next time they're booking a flight or ordering at a restaurant or whatever they think of those brands.

What I want to know... (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398242)

is what about GOOD advertisements. Slashdot sometimes have interesting ads that are decently targeted (especially if you consider that the people who are NOT targeted by these ads are using AdBlock or something). The better gaming web sites often have decent game adverts. Google ads (on the actual search pages), depending on the search, often comes up with decent links (especially the big sponsored ones at the top. Not the cheapo ones on the right).

If you take out the "2174071401 free smilies!!" and the "MEET HOT SINGLES WHO WANT TO HAVE SEX NOW!" ads, and redo the statistics, I'm curious about the results (which we'll never have, that would be too hard to test im guessing).

I often click meaningful, well targeted ads, and I know many who do, and we're all around the 6 digit salary mark with a lot of money to spare... So it can't be all that bad...

It all depends (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398322)

If I am on a site such as purepwnage.com, an internet radio station, or something else that I enjoy a lot (gametrailers.com is another), I will click the ads just to help the people that run the site. Unless the ad is EXTREMELY interesting, or it is for a company that I would have gone to buy something from anyway, I will just close the window once it loads.

The same goes for folks with small websites or blogs... like my own. ::wink wink::

Maybe it's just me... (1)

JamieBedford (1238192) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398348)

...but I almost never click ads. I do this because they're ads, and when I'm surfing around I'm generally looking for information, not services. If I'm going to click through to some other page than what I'm looking at right now, it's going to be because there's a link within the content that I'm looking at to some other page with content that I'm interested in, and the content that I'm looking at has to tell me what to expect in the other page. For instance, a blog with a link to information sources. As long as ads continue to look like ads and not like related, verifiable content, I'm going to continue to not click on them. Once advertisers focus on embedded word of mouth marketing rather than sensing what I might be looking for a putting in a bar on the side of the screen or some flashing picture, then I'll start clicking through.

Sex Panther (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22398370)

Brian: "6% of the time, it works 50% of the time."

Ron: "That doesn't even make any sense."

Let's hope... (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398382)

... they don't realize that we all mute or FF TV commercials as well!

And believe it or not, they GOT THE ANSWER! (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398448)

YES, salvation is here, not only do these three companies tell you that you have a problem, they also tell you that they can FIX it for YOU!

Ain't they nice.

Never trust advertising and this is never more true then when advertisers sell their own product.

Basically the entire "article" goes, "the way you are doing it now is wrong, we sell another way and it is better according to our figures".

Statistics used by marketing, even Satan himself would balk at such devilry.

They are Adsense publishers (1)

Newton IV (666922) | more than 6 years ago | (#22398462)

"not representative of the population as a whole, most have incomes under $40K, and their clicks are not related to any offline buying. (They are mostly males between 25 and 44 years of age.) " I think these 6% are Adsense publishers who click on their own ads.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...