Flash ads killing the internet?

[beorhthelm]

Are flash ads killing the internet? I have had enough of the tedious waiting for ads to load up and especially flash based ones, not to mention how on many sites they've gone for these full screen background ones now. half a dozen sites ive been to today and each time my processor groans under 40-60 load. i've stopped flash and sitting at 10-15%. so now im looking at going the whole hog and installing ad-blockers.

which means sites wont get anything for me visiting. im not going to go to the trouble of allowing ads on sites having just blocked them (one or two esteemed sites aside of course). as more people seem to be taking this route, we will eventually reach a point where the ads don't pay for the internet any more, and they either close or go subscription, killing the internet* as we know it?


*i know its the world wide web, not the internet.

 

[Easy 10]

The Argus site is all but unusable now, I rarely visit it. Once you've got the page to load its half impossible to scroll with all the videos ads playing in the background, and then it'll start chucking banners up in the middle of the screen. Lifes too short.

The Daily Mail sports pages are similar (I like Martin Samuels columns there), but again, with the huge ads on the borders and all the videos it takes an absolute age. Even YouTube is getting to be a pain, with videos actually pausing now to be interrupted by a 10-15 second ad, as well as the (sometimes unavoidable) 20 second ones you cannot skip but have to sit through before it'll even start.

Do advertisers actually get any RETURN on this muck ? Surely 99.999999999% of people completely ignore it or consciously avoid it for the pain in the ARSE that it is.

 

[TomandJerry]

Ad block, the way forward

 

[Easy 10]

Ad block, the way forward

Not an option at work.

 

[Perry's Tracksuit Bottoms]

The Argus site is all but unusable now, I rarely visit it. Once you've got the page to load its half impossible to scroll with all the videos ads playing in the background, and then it'll start chucking banners up in the middle of the screen. Lifes too short.

Agree with that - I've given up with it but popped over there just now after reading your post. There's an autoplay video featuring some kind of European football news, but it's halfway down the page so you have to scroll down to see it. Unless you already know what's going on you're just left wondering where the noise is coming from. Also before you even get to the video which you didn't want to watch in the first place there are two 30 second ads. And this is on the homepage - their shop window. It just makes no sense at all.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Do advertisers actually get any RETURN on this muck ? Surely 99.999999999% of people completely ignore it or consciously avoid it for the pain in the ARSE that it is.

Similarly TV advertising has no guaranteed sales and many people have always consciously avoided the advert break.
However the constant reinforcement of the brand gets into the collective consciousness. The sheer scale of people reached by broadcast adverts leads to a return on the investment for teh company.

I have always assumed internet ads are an incredibly cheap option in comparison to tv.
I suspect they have similarly wide reach, with people subconsciously absorbing the brand/product.
Can anyone confirm what the likely cost is for internet ads in comparison to tv?

 

[KVLT]

Article on this from the BBC last month:

Does ad blocking herald the end of the free internet?

 

[Perry's Tracksuit Bottoms]

Agree with that - I've given up with it but popped over there just now after reading your post. There's an autoplay video featuring some kind of European football news, but it's halfway down the page so you have to scroll down to see it. Unless you already know what's going on you're just left wondering where the noise is coming from. Also before you even get to the video which you didn't want to watch in the first place there are two 30 second ads. And this is on the homepage - their shop window. It just makes no sense at all.

...but my interested was piqued by the Calde article. However, I never got to read it because there were TWO video ads playing AT THE SAME TIME *window closed*

 

[Pavilionaire]

For every minute you save by fast forwarding the ads on Skyplus you probably lose 30 seconds somewhere else in your day waiting for ads to load. I agree that some of the worst offenders are regional newpapers like the Argus. I occasionally link to other papers like the South Wales Echo and it's just as bad there.

 

[8ace]

Maybe things will improve as flash content gets replaced with HTML5

 

[beorhthelm]

oh dear good yes, the Argus is a perfect example. i have long since stopped using that. one of the other local papers is actually unusable on my computer, wont load. i wonder what sort of machines the editors and staff of such sites test them on.

theres always been a few annoying ads, but its crept in over this year to a wider range, nearly all the mainstream press now (Guardian a notable exception), IT sites like Toms Hardware, or magazine related sites are appalling. if i need to view i use a tablet where they seem to cut all the ads to a single banner type that can be closed.

 

[Bozza]

NSC gets 1 click for every 25,000 banner ads displayed. That's probably quite typical.

With web users so used to barely registering banner ads on pages they view, advertisers have gone to more extreme lengths to capture attention: video/flash, sound, expandable ads and page takeovers.

Each week I probably turn down 5-10 approaches for ads like these. They may be (more) lucrative but they are a pain in the arse so I always reject them.

Last week Google and others announced AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages) with the aim of resolving some of these bad experiences on phones - https://www.ampproject.org

 

[beorhthelm]

.

With web users so used to barely registering banner ads on pages they view, advertisers have gone to more extreme lengths to capture attention: video/flash, sound, expandable ads and page takeovers.

i feel this is to the great detriment of the usage. banners are unobtrusive and i for one have just accepted (ignored?) them. getting an ad all in my face will have a negative effect on me, to both the site and the product. i fear that accidental clicks are unfortunately used to show they are "working", i recall a Jag ad that i learnt if i clicked wouldnt do the page take over on subsequent views.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

NSC gets 1 click for every 25,000 banner ads displayed. That's probably quite typical.

With web users so used to barely registering banner ads on pages they view, advertisers have gone to more extreme lengths to capture attention: video/flash, sound, expandable ads and page takeovers.

Each week I probably turn down 5-10 approaches for ads like these. They may be (more) lucrative but they are a pain in the arse so I always reject them.

Last week Google and others announced AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages) with the aim of resolving some of these bad experiences on phones - https://www.ampproject.org

You have a click through rate of 0.004%? That's not typical at all, average CTR is usually predicted at 1-4% depending on ad placement and type of site. I average about 3% for article based sites. I'd say NSC is very atypical due to have no adverts in the actual content. 95% of views (?) must come from registered users who probably barely see a banner during the whole day as they're so out the way. Putting an ad inside the post section or near the quick reply box would increase clicks hugely I think.

 

[Biscuit]

People need to vote with their feet.

If I visit a page and something starts playing in the background or an obtrusive ad pops up I'll simply close the page and go elsewhere.

 

[Easy 10]

NSC gets 1 click for every 25,000 banner ads displayed. That's probably quite typical.

And you can almost guarantee that it was an accidental click.

 

[Easy 10]

You have a click through rate of 0.004%? That's not typical at all, average CTR is usually predicted at 1-4% depending on ad placement and type of site. I average about 3% for article based sites. I'd say NSC is very atypical due to have no adverts in the actual content. 95% of views (?) must come from registered users who probably barely see a banner during the whole day as they're so out the way. Putting an ad inside the post section or near the quick reply box would increase clicks hugely I think.

Bozza. Can you ban him immediately please.

 

[beorhthelm]

And you can almost guarantee that it was an accidental click.

i reckon i click more ads than that deliberatly, to support NSC.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

You have a click through rate of 0.004%? That's not typical at all, average CTR is usually predicted at 1-4% depending on ad placement and type of site. I average about 3% for article based sites. I'd say NSC is very atypical due to have no adverts in the actual content. 95% of views (?) must come from registered users who probably barely see a banner during the whole day as they're so out the way. Putting an ad inside the post section or near the quick reply box would increase clicks hugely I think.

Are you an SEO specialist?

 

[Bozza]

You have a click through rate of 0.004%? That's not typical at all, average CTR is usually predicted at 1-4% depending on ad placement and type of site. I average about 3% for article based sites. I'd say NSC is very atypical due to have no adverts in the actual content. 95% of views (?) must come from registered users who probably barely see a banner during the whole day as they're so out the way. Putting an ad inside the post section or near the quick reply box would increase clicks hugely I think.

Two thirds of NSC views comes from unregistered users (or those not logged in anyway).

These users have more adverts, including a large top banner a lot of the time, as well as in thread ads.

There is an ad unit by the quick reply box but I have a high minimum bid price for that so it doesn't display all the time, but it's always a high quality ad when it does.

I think the balance on NSC is just about right as your post illustrates.