Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue

It's no secret that online advertising revenue has declined over the course of the past several months, several websites have gone out of business, and most of the rest of us continue to scramble to recoup lost income. It's also probably pretty obvious that we have always tried to be as unobtrusive with ads as possible to date, and those two situations ran into a headlong collision last night. This happened when we started running some ad script for a DVD offer that was one of those Flash dealies that I assumed would "just" be one of those noisy, animated embedded ads you see more of these days. As it turns out, it was a bit more: A semi-transparent overlay that sat atop the news page until dismissed, which, in a further twist, had a confusing enough label on the close button that some folks were having trouble getting rid of it at all. When I saw the ad, I thought that people would understand its intrusiveness--after all, as stated above, these are tough times for websites, and we've often had responses from readers about the state of the web saying if more ads were required, so be it. Well, we quickly were flooded with complaints about the situation, obviously fuelled by the multimedia-ness of the ad, but also probably partly my fault, since I was so quick to quash the couple of previous times pop-up ads occurred here (since they were without our knowledge).

I am concerned with the nature of some of the complaints about the ad. There were a couple of themes that came up repeatedly in the feedback: there were comments that expressed the hope that this isn't a new trend, and others saying how long the complainant had been a reader of the site, but if the intrusive ad went on much longer this would change. Now, the close button problem is a different issue, but aside from that, I just want to make the case for being more tolerant of occasions like this in the future... we are not looking at adding more conspicuous advertising out of greed, or we could have done so during the heyday of dot-commery and cleaned up... we are looking at making the site viable to continue to survive. If it really is just a die hard (no pun intended) fact that such ads are going to drive readers away, we are in a real bind, but I guess the reason I'm rambling on here is the hope that explaining all this will make any inconvenience from intrusive ads (whether we start running this one again, or others in the future, or if we just plaster the site with banners and buttons) more palatable by pointing out that they may well be necessary to keep bringing you all the carnage that's fit to post.

If we get a version of the ad with a fixed button, I'll put it online so people who missed it last night can see what I'm talking about, and see where this goes from there. However that turns out, in any event, the ad was not permanent, so if it comes back online, even if you hate it perhaps you can show it a little patience for the time it's here... it should be a great help to us, and any patience and understanding you can spare are greatly appreciated. By the way (sorry for going on so long here), not all the responses were negative, and so I want to also express appreciation to those who expressed understanding about the situation, as well as those who have always tried to support our advertisers by checking out their ads.

Link of the Day: 2fort5 Recreational Project Version 2.0.
Play of the Day: The Seinfeld LAST Episode Generator. Thanks SecretAgentMan.
Story of the Day: Faxed Ads Cost Hooters $12 Million (ABC). Thanks Jamie Fullerton.
Weird Science: Experimental U.S. Pigs Turned Into Sausages (Reuters). Thanks [MP] Wolverine [MP].

Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at the bottom of the form.

24. Re: Blocking Ads Jul 26, 2001, 10:28 [KDS]Djembe
 
Here Here!

I love Bluesnews.com.
I despise bloated ads that intrude onto the sites that I'm trying to view.

I'd very willingly pay a yearly subscription rate to avoid these ads. I agree with Mohss that two variants of the site would do the trick. I for one never click on these ads. In fact, the more "in your face" an ad is the more negative I feel about the product or service.


Perhaps Bluesnews.com should consider polling its visitors regarding their feelings about a premium, no-ad subscription site in addition to the standard ad-heavy "free" site?

I'll continue to support Bluesnews in any event.
Thanks.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
Subject
Comment
     
 
      ;)   ;)   :(   :(   :o   :o   %)   %)   :)   :)   :|   :|   ;P   ;P   X|   X|   :D   :D   More
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you have a signature set up, it will be automatically appended to your comment.
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 
          Email me when this topic is updated.
 

Special Codes

  • b[bold text]b
  • i[italic text]i
  • u[underline text]u
  • -[strikethrough text]-
  • c[code text]c
  • +[bullet point]+
  • q[quote text (indented)]q
  • [quote="Author"]quote text (indented)[/quote]
  • [url=Link]text[/url]
  • r{red text}r
  • g{green text}g
  • b{blue text}b
  • m{maroon text}m
  • s{secret text (shows in the background colour)}s

Forum Rules

  1. Disagree all you want but attacks of a personal nature will not be tolerated.
  2. Ethnic slurs and homophobic language will not be tolerated.
  3. Do not post spam, links to warez sites, or instructions on how to obtain pirated software.
  4. Abusing the forums in any manner that could be construed as 'griefing' will not be tolerated.


footer

Blue's News logo