Does Irritating Readers Really Pay?
Just saw a post at Techdirt, “Advertisers Thrilled About New Ways To Irritate Readers”
Though the rise of pop-up blockers is a clear indication that users don’t like intrusive advertising, publishers haven’t stopped looking for ways to annoy their readers. The trade magazines tend to be chief offenders as they often employ the dreaded dog-ear pullback and other intrusive flash-based ads that take over the screen. Then of course there are the embedded text ads delivered by Intellitxt and others. When you scroll your mouse over certain words, a small ad pops up on the screen. Because these ads look like hyperlinks, they amount to advertising by trickery. But apparently those ads aren’t irritating enough as the latest generation brings up an ad with a small video right on top of the text as your mouse runs over the text — something that Ad Age apparently thinks is a brilliant idea, rather than just incredibly intrusive and annoying. Also, you can add a point for the always-irritating unexpected sound. Seeing as broadcast TV ads are losing their effectiveness on TV, what makes publishers think it’s a good idea to embed them into text? Though it may seem smart, in the short run, to chase the highest possible CPM, sites running these ads will ultimately pay for it by degrading the user’s experience and eroding the value they offer readers.
I understand the guy’s frustration … nobody likes annoying ads (yet — go figure – nobody wants to PAY for good content). I doubt any publisher is actually looking for a way to annoy a reader although I can bet that EVERY publisher is always looking for ways to make money from their content. But maybe we’re not thinking this through enough. It’s not as black and white and this guy makes it out to be, but let’s take a look at some of the ad types he mentions:
Dog-ear — This is not that intrusive. If implemented well, it sits in the upper-right corner of the page, doesn’t cover content, and doesn’t do anything unless the reader initiates it.
Pop-ups (including DHTML overlays) and floating ads — I agree with him completely. those are bad user experiences because they cover content and totally disrupt the user experience. (In other words, they are VERY annoying). Are they effective? Perhaps, but at what price? Is it worth the bad user experience for your brand or for your advertiser’s brand?
Roadblock ads (ads that take over the home page and that you have to click to skip) — Marginal. They don’t open a new window like pop-ups nor do they actually cover content and you can skip it easily. Smart publishers also make them only show up once daily to any given person. Effective ads and not as disruptive.
Expanding ads (ads that expand down or out when a reader moves the mouse over them) – More intrusive that a plain web ad that stays within the boundaries of the ads, but still not too intrusive because the READER initiates the expansion over any content. Otherwise, if implemented properly, it should stay quietly within the bounds of the ad position on the page.
Embedded text ads (like IntelliTXT) – Marginal. If you’re using a differentiated link style (underline and color), it can be easily determined what is an editorial link and what is a contextual advertising link without even clicking. The first time someone rolls over the embedded text ad, they know. Now if you as a publisher make both links look alike, that is terrible user experience and will come back to bite you.
Video ads – Again depends on how you implement. Autostart audio is bad in a work or personal environment … it impacts others around the person and disrupts the reader environment. Autostart video only (separate from audio) on the other hand isn’t as bad and can actually be well received by readers. BTW, this is exactly what is prescribed by the IAB Rich Media standards. Audio must be initiated by the reader.
Bottom line, we need to be smart about our ads and know where the line is to becoming too intrusive. General rules of thumb: don’t cover content (unless the reader initiates it), don’t autostart audio (let the reader initiate it), don’t open new windows, and don’t mislead readers. Do this and you’ll be OK.
7 Responses to “ “Does Irritating Readers Really Pay?”
Leave a Reply
About Me
Follow / Connect
I thought Geoff Ramsey’s MBA matrix approach to answering this question said it best- “The more relevant the ad is, the more intrusive it can be…”.
A dog-ear waving slowly in the corner without obstructing content (be careful of screen resolutions), does not have to be extrememly relevant. In-content text ads (such as Vibrant Media)- pretty intrusive. When you are reading about programming languages and the tags keep pushing Universities down your throat- not good. Perhaps a link to definitions and other research would be good, but we all know the URL for Wikipedia and they are not an advertising prospect.
Take care of the reader. Reasonable readers understand that the content they enjoy has get paid for somehow. Take advantage of the reader, and they will go elsewhere. As a user, and we all are, that is what I would do.
Very well said, Tom. Relevancy is key and is especially hard to attain in many B2B markets. I would very much like to see IntelliTXT as well as Google / Yahoo and other “syndicated” ad networks allow publisher more control over the ads they accept simply to help improve relevancy. It can only help the advertiser, the publisher, and the reputation of the ad networks themselves.
If IntelliTXT were a (licensed or ASP) technology instead of an ad network, I would be all over it.
I’ve thought about that too. Gives me a good idea for my next blog entry!
If you are looking for readership and long-term loyalty, “challenging” readers with thought provoking content has shown itself to be a meaningful strategy… but “irritating” readers (whether with naive B2B journalism, sponsor pandering or just plain bad content design) never pays off.
On the other hand, if you are an advertiser looking for brand awareness, there are some longstanding studies (e.g. the original research showing that the “hammer pounding” images in 70s TV ads), while always rating high on “viewer irritation,” also rated high on viewer awareness. These ads were also supported by channel penetration and frequency strateiges, but in their era were compared with award winning “creative” ads by Alka Seltzer as being far more effective. So it is not as simple a question as posed.
Consumers relationships with their media (just like their relationships with other human beings) are a complex love-hate relationship. You’ve got to keep them coming back with content loyalty, but ad messages have to make a solid impression, often within a very short awareness window. Sometimes, especially for the latter challenge, “irritation” can be a strategy.
If I were an editor, and you put IntelliTXT on my copy, I’d feel that you definitely damaged my editorial reputation. I don’t feel that those embedded ads are intrusive, I think they’re confusing. As a reader, I’d prefer to see editorial links that help me than ads that distract me. For a more polarizing view, check out Paul Conley’s post on the subject: http://paulconley.blogspot.com/2006/11/they-think-youre-whore.html
Good points, Prescott, I’ve read Paul’s blog about IntelliTXT and am also familiar with the ASBPE guidelines on links. While I have the utmost respect for Paul, I think he’s a bit too absolutist in that post. The key in my opinion is in HOW the links are presented. Any site using them must very clearly differentiate between editorial links (which should be a normal link style) and embedded ad links which should be significantly different. Readers are not dumb and after the first time they see the difference between the links, they know what is what. We’ve implemented IntelliTXT on a couple Penton sites and out of a few million visitors each month, have only received three complaints that I am aware of — and that was only in the first month or two. But we insisted on the links being significantly different from editorial links.