Pop-up ads on photo.net?

[billy_sprague]

Maybe Brian will get rich enough off this new advertising that he will one-up Oprah and buy us all a Ferrari. :-)

[mottershead]

If there is ever any spare cash from photo.net, you can be sure that it won't be going into my pocket or for anything like Ferrarris. There are several people who loaned the site a lot of money between 1999 and 2001, and they are waiting very patiently and reasonably to be repaid. They already aren't too happy about Bob Atkins' Lear Jet, or the floozies.

[bobatkins]

Floozies? Where have you been hiding them. They weren't on the jet last time I looked.

 

Nobody understands the need for advertising more than I do (well, maybe Brian does..). My own site is cram full of ads. It's worse then Popular Photography (which is the gold standard for ad to content ratio!). The lower the clickthrough rate, the more ads you're tempted to try to cram in there to generate some revenue.

 

I think the annoying things are (a) Interstitial or popup ads which require action to close them (b) Animated ads in general and © Ads which obscure or displace content.

 

Static ads are pretty well tolerated by most people. Unfortunately the market researchers have found that the more annoying an ad is (up to a point of course), the more effective it is, so the more they will pay to have one displayed.

 

I guess you could almost certainly increase the clickthough rate on Google ads by moving them from the header into the body of the content. Whether or not people would find that more or less annoying than interstitials and popups/dropdowns I don't know. I suspect it would be less annoying. Whether the net revenue would go up I don't know. Assuming payment is for clickthough rather than just display, I suspect it would.

 

Advertising is a complex business. Most people don't want it, but it's a necessary evil. Sometimes though, if well targeted, it can actually be seen by users as something which is useful but useful ads don't typically pay as well as ads for mortgages, cell phones, Viagra and penis enlargement pills.

 

Maybe someone needs to come up with a lens enlargement cream which when rubbed on a 70-300/5.6 zoom turns it into a 600/4. That would sell pretty well on this site...

[dean_williams]

Brian, subscribers do see the skyscraper and block ad at the bottom of the thread. At least I do. This thread shows an Adobe PS skyscraper and a Nikon S1 block at the bottom. My sub is current, what gives?

[mottershead]

Dean, are you sure you are logged in? I definitely am not seeing them when I am logged in normally. In fact, the code reads "if not logged in , or not a subscriber, or user id 357714 (that's me), then display the ad". This is so I will see what ads are being displayed in the forums; otherwise, since I'm in the system as a subscriber, I don't see them.

 

Bob, the problem is that once you get away from the Google, Amazon, etc type programs, and one competes against other web sites for advertising business, being willing to do the interstitials is important in getting the campaigns. The Nokia campaign is 9 million impressions total, out of which the interstitial is 1.2 million. But you can't just say "we'll take the 7.8 million banners, but no thanks on the interstitials". That means not getting the campaign at all. So, the interstitial is exposure-limited so people only see it very infrequently. The quality advertisers know that these formats are intrusive and they don't want to annoy people with them excessively, so they specify exposure-limiting. You don't have convince them on that. I guess they don't count on people flipping out because they saw one interstitial and had to click once.

[dean_williams]

Brian; Yes, I was logged in. I just logged out and logged in again, and the ads are gone. Thank you.

[phule]

<< I guess they don't count on people flipping out because they saw one interstitial and had to click once. >>

 

Unless you're willing to state that photo.net will never run an interrupt ad again, Brian, I question the worth of that comment.

 

I'd be willing to bet that most those against the interrupt are against it because they know this won't be one click. There will be other interrupts and there will be more of them.

 

People do not like interrupt-ads. Period. They are intrusive, they are ugly and they do not sell products. Subscribers should certainly never see them. You may not think stick+carrot approach works, but subscribers seeing interrupts provides zero motivation for people to renew or subscribe for the first time.

 

Far too many features are given to non-subscribers in my opinion and far to little given back to those that do subscribe.

[mottershead]

Rob, no I am not going to commit never to display an interstitial ad again. I think people ought to be able bear one extra click a week, or even one extra click a day, in order to have access to photo.net, and I'll probably continue to seek advertising business that includes interstitials as part of a total campaign from quality advertisers like Nokia. I intend to limit the number of interstitials that people look at to one per day or less. If I do this, photo.net will be om good company. The New York Times, Salon, and many other highly regarded web sites show interstitial ads that are exposure-limited in this way.

[bobatkins]

Brian - I think the reason for complaints about interstitials is not that just one appears, but that that as soon as you see one, you assume you'll see more. There's no reason at all to assume that will be the one and only interstital ad that you'll see on the whole site for the next two weeks. That would be something out of the experience of the typical user. Normally if you see one interstital on a site, it's just a sign of more to come. In this case it may not be, but that's going to be the assumption that people make.

 

These things can drive people away. I no longer view a number of news sites that though it was a good idea to popup interstitial ads or to run video ads before they'd show me content. I just took them off my favorites list and I haven't been back since.

 

If subscribers make up a small fraction of total users, and the ads run for a fixed number of impressions rather than for a fixed time period, it certainly might be worth considering not showing them to subscribers. The revenue then wouldn't be affected but subscribers might be happier. On the other hand, I realize that this may be technically difficult to do.

 

I don't think subscribers need (or want) to be isolated from every ad. I don't many people strongly object to the Google or most of the other (static) banner ads that show up in the header. It's ads that are distracting or that interfere with content that people tend to get upset about. In other words, the ads that get noticed - and that's the dilema of course. Advertisers want their ads to be noticed.

 

I can certainly imagine some people might take the position that if they have to see intrusive ads, they won't subscribe. It may not be a very reasonable position to take given that subscription doesn't cover operating costs, but that won't stop some people from taking it. Hopefully not many though.

[sabrina_h.]

To not show ads to subscribers is to presume that subscribers don't buy things. My

husband (who is also a subscriber/we have separate accounts) just bought another cell

phone about one month ago; it was a T-Mobile Sidekick. He also bought another camera

this week. I'm looking to buy another camera within the next few weeks. He doesn't need

the Viagra or penis enlargements though :), but I'm sure there is a market for it. I'm just

not sure if photo.net is the place (I could be wrong).

 

Alternatively, I dont know anyone who would go into a business without a profit in mind

(except for a non-profit organization). If you have people that invested money into this,

frankly, its time to get rolling.

 

Photography is an expensive hobby and I dont think people would mind having to fork

over a few dollars to subscribe, but there is no incentive to do so. As mentioned earlier,

non-subscribers have just as much freedom as subscribers, even the freedom to complain

on this forum about advertising ads. They can upload photos and even rate them without

hassle.

 

Having more subscribers may not be enough to eat the cost of running this site and

anyone with any tact would not freeload if they can help it (maybe they are in a financial

bind, a student perhaps). But it may be a step in the right direction. I wouldn?t even mind

small text link ads in the emails (at the bottom) like you see on hotmail or msn accounts

when you watch a topic.

[bobatkins]

<em>To not show ads to subscribers is to presume that subscribers don't buy things</em>

<p>

Not at all. The presumption would be not that subscribers don't buy things, but that subscribers don't want to see ads. I guess that could be a false assumption in some cases. To accomodate this, you could (with some programming effort) put a checkbox in the subscribers workplace that says "please show me all the ads". This would have to change the cookie sent to subscribers in such a way as to preserve all other subscriber benefits, not turn off the one that applies to advertising. Obviously, this can get complicated.

<p>

If photo.net plans on making a practice of regularly showing interstitial ads when available, something like this might be worth it. If it only happened a couple of times a year, it's probably a more efficient use of resources to show then to everyone and just to respond to the inevitable complaints!

[sabrina_h.]

That sounds like a good idea Bob, but it may have some potential pitfalls. I'm not

particularly interested in gadgets (my husband is) but I like to stay in the loop of new

technology. Although I must admit, I'm a dinosaur at heart :)

 

If every subscriber turns off the - display ads - the ads would have to run longer to meet

the number of impressions (quota) that could result in a backlash. I wonder what is the

census/remedy for this?

[kai_griffin]

There seems to be an attitude that "pervasive in-your-face advertising is a fact of life, so just bear with it". I disagree. Advertising is only a fact of life because (a) advertisers say it is, and (b) people who agree to become a platform for advertisers to support their quest for money say it is.

<p>

For everyone else outside these categories, advertising should not be a fact of life - it is an unwanted irritation at best, or an unholy eyesore blotting the landscape at worst. The view that people ought to just mindlessly accept advertising because, well, that's just the way it is - is plain wrong. With each passing year more and more of our environment is plastered with advertising. Every nook and crevice, from the stairs leading up from the railway platform to the windows of your bus (using those microdots that obscure the view of passengers sitting inside) is covered in an unwanted blurb. Advertisers <b>go out of their way</b> to place ads where they are unexpected and irritating, because they know that's how to get attention. That now includes placing irritating so-called "interstitial" ads into webpages. Clearly, advertisers know that a static ad on a homepage is likely to be ignored by the zillions of people who could care less about their product - so they intentionally interrupt us to cram their message down our throats. That, in my opinion, is crossing a line, and I'll be damned if I'll quietly accept that it is "necessary" for the well-being of the website. Horse Hockey! It just happens to be an easy, unimaginative way of generating revenue, which carries with it an F-you attitude towards the visitors of the website. IMHO.

[cenelsonfoto]

Photo.net needs to make a decision: Either photo.net exists for the photographers who use it, or photo.net exists as a platform for advertisement.

 

I WILL NOT re-new my membership if this advertising continues to get out of control. Even with a full suite of anti-ad tool at my disposal, I am finding my browsing experience here to be severely affected by the invasion of Nokia ads, the sidebar BS that has recently appeared, the "must view this ad before continuing to the thread" bullshit that I began to encounter this afternoon.

 

Photo.net CAN be run effectively, efficiently without all of this pandering. Will that mean that photo.net is the BIGGEST site of its kind in the end, if proper controls are put in place? No.

 

Severely limit the amount of access non-subscribers can have. Take measures to limit the amount of bandwidth consumed by search-engines/spiders, etc. Keep the subscription prices at a reasonable level. Add more features, meet-and-greets, photo.net sponsered trips, etc; Any of the other ways to earn a LEGITIMATE INCOME from us, rather than forcing Nokia ads down our throats. I could easily pay $35 to $50 a yr for a great site, but I won't ante-up another thin dime for this sort of carnival crap.

 

Photo.net admin is placing the noose around its own neck, IMHO.

[cenelsonfoto]

BTW - a 2MP camera phone is nothing to hoot and holler about. The bastards could have given us 2MP phones by now, but it was not in their interest as nobody would pay what they wanted for one. I still won't pay for one, wouldn't have one if it was FREE. Damned sure don't want to stare at their ads.

[terry_rory]

My internet security package contains ad/pop up blocking. Should I start switching off parts of my PC security program to enjoy such distractions? (Only when on photo.net of course.)

 

I prefer to leave that switched on. However I also believe everyone should pay if they want to contribute/post pics/keep a gallery/do anymore than just view. It is very inexpensive. My $45 a year is less than a dollar a week. (Equivalent to the cost of a pint and a half of milk a week where I live.)

[cenelsonfoto]

I have been "surfing" since 1994. There are days I wish the net was still image-less, save for the L33t ASCII "pictures" we used to use in our sigs.

 

I have NEVER, EVER purchased anything through a web ad and I never will.

[bobatkins]

If everyone blocked all ads then you wouldn't have a web for long except for some hobby sites and a few expensive pay sites.

 

It's a bit like wanting a magazine with no ads. Sure, they exist, but you don't get them cheap. You can have Pop Photog for $10/yr and get 12 issues, but it's full of ads - even though you pay for it. If you wanted and ad free version it would cost you maybe $60/yr or even more.

 

On the other hand you can get lenswork for $35/6 issues. It carries only in-house ads (though quite a few of them).

 

Of hand I can't think of any magazines that have ZERO ads in them, not even self promotion ads.

 

If people start blocking ads two things will happen. A bunch of sites will just close up shop as their revenues drop. Some sites will try to charge a subscription large enough to cover all operating costs and pay a decent wage to those doing the work to run them. Most of those sites won't get enough subscriptions so they will close up shop too.

 

One way or another someone has to pay. Nobody gives away quality content for free for long.

[constance_cook]

But with Pop Photog, I stop when I get to the ads so they never bother me. They don't jump up at me from the back of the magazine.

 

Conni

 

I, too, won't buy a Nokia.

[jnicholson]

So, Constance, you open the cover of Popular Photography and then throw it away? Seems expensive. Do you turn the TV off when the commercials come on too?

 

Brian, sorry if you've already answered this but is the featured photographer/portfolio a thing of the past on the home page now?

[jeremy_tok]

Ads relevant to the content on display would mostly be considered acceptable. How about automatically turning every mention of B&H, Adorama, Tony Rose and ebay in the comments sections into a link to the respective sites?

 

I see people write things like "I bought my B&W filter from Adorama for $30" or somesuch all the time. Usually, this is in response to someone asking "What filters do you recommend?" meaning at least one person is in the market for one. By turning "Adorama" into a link, the chances of a click-through and a purchase ought to be significantly higher.

[mottershead]

Jamie, no the Featured Portfolio will be back in two weeks.

[constance_cook]

Jamie:

I paay $9.67 a year for it. That's hardly expensive in anybody's book. When I'm done with it I take it to the university library for the photography students, if they want to look at it since the state has no money to purchase subscritions except the scolarly journals.

 

So, no, I don't consider not looking at the ads in the mag a loss or costly. And after this subscription to the mag is up, I won't likely be willing to pay the paltry $9.67 again because I find it to be of less and less interest for me.

 

Conni

[constance_cook]

Jamie:

 

I forgot to add that I don't watch live tv. I tape everything and zap the ads.

 

I'm capable of finding things I want without constant advertising.

 

I sat at my computer on the night they opened the "Do Not Call " list and signed up right at midnight. I've done the same with my cell phone even though I never have it on. If I do decide to have it on, I don't want an advertising call. I have it only for safety in my car.

 

Conni

[jnicholson]

Conni (hope that's okay), my point is that on the inside cover of every photography periodical I've ever looked in is advertising. To get to that advertising in the back of the magazine you've already ignored hundreds of advertisements. We just turn the page, and turn the page, and turn the page, and turn the page... until we get to something worth reading. Or, we look at an add and drool over the latest Canon offering devising our plan to acquire the newly much needed device. Why is clicking past one, granted obnoxious, advertisement on this site any more annoying than turning the page a few times past equally obnoxious ads? The magazine is less than $10 per year because of those advertisements and the same is basically true here. The difference here is that it's much easier to complain about which is one of the things that makes this site great.