04 Feb 2003 | ajr said...

On one hand, I say something has to pay the bills. On the other, it almost seems disrespectful to the content and to the paper to run such large ads.

04 Feb 2003 | hurley#1 said...

"We've found that readers do not mind advertising, they just don't want it to disrupt their experience," Mr. Krebs says.

That's the key. I'd be very happy to have big, static ads along the right side of the page if it meant they'd stop using popups and annoying Flash animations that take over the page and make you wait before you can read content. The intrusive ads are counterproductive in two ways: first, they make me want to look elsewhere for my news, and second, they make me vow to NEVER purchase anything from the companies whose products or services are being advertised that way.

04 Feb 2003 | Michael S. said...

I think I'd rather see an entire column devoted to ads, even if they're bigger, rather than see them mixed in with the article. It's probably less distracting, and I can tune out the right half pretty easily. When they're scattered around the article I might spend a few seconds glancing at them to see if they're infographics, or somehow related to what I'm reading.

04 Feb 2003 | Joshua Kaufman said...

"We've found that readers do not mind advertising, they just don't want it to disrupt their experience," Mr. Krebs says.

So what falls into the "disrupting my experience" category? Hmm, half-page ads seem right up there.

04 Feb 2003 | nathan said...

Lately wired.com has started using those horrible content covering animations. Its always sad when a good site goes bad.

Are there any official terms for content obscuring ads? They arent really popups, or interstitials. I suggest "popovers" or "insta-aneurysms".

04 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Does anyone here actually advertise online (banners, not Google Adwords)? I'd love to hear about online advertising from the other side -- from the people who actually place the ads. What kind of pressures are you seeing? Do bigger ads result in better clickthroughs for you? What do you say to those who say that advertising is just an annoyance?

04 Feb 2003 | hurley#1 said...

So what falls into the "disrupting my experience" category? Hmm, half-page ads seem right up there.

It's pretty easy to ignore static ads, even when they're big. I never look at ads in the print versions of newspapers and just flip past the full-page ones. This is probably why more sites are starting to use intrusive ads, but as I mentioned above these can backfire in terms of turning people away from sites and making them angry at the advertiser.

You know, I have never intentionally clickedthrough any online advertisement. I've done it once or twice by accident (usually in trying to close a popup window, so now I do that with keyboard commands instead of the mouse).

04 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

When newspapers first went online they essentially put their printed material straight on the Web. But people don't read on the Web the same way they read online. So they changed (rightly so). But to now go backwards?

I know, I know. They are doing this for money, not to actually improve the user experience. Well, perhaps they want to improve a user's life experience by offering them quality products at not-so-discounted prices.

04 Feb 2003 | brian said...

I used to buy and sell lots of advertising (until 2001), and noticed that as far as clickthrus go, larger ads didn't necesarily fare better, it more often than not had to do with the content of the ad. Text ads fared better years before google came around, mainly because they promoted deals on products. In regards to the NYT, I think this is another push towards modifying a new medium to function like its successful predecessor.

04 Feb 2003 | vanderwal said...

Size matters?

04 Feb 2003 | cj said...

It's interesting to think about the fact that large ads in a newspaper aren't put under a microscope like big ads are on the web. We don't hear about the number of people who saw the Saks ad in the NYT and ran off to buy a pair of shoes. Websites on the other hand are constantly baraged by advertisers who wanna know traffic numbers and click thru rates---ENOUGH. We've oversaturated the web with crappy advertising.

04 Feb 2003 | Nick said...

Absolutely - too many ads. At least they're shoving them all to the right and leaving the content (unobstructed?) on the left. If they really do leave all the content on the "good side of the page," we can just start reading with our browsers at 640px wide - that ought to keep the ads right out of view.

05 Feb 2003 | Mart said...

This all begs the question of why bother putting your newspaper's content on the web anyway. In print the 50 real newspaper is essentially already paid for by advertisements and subscriptions (in close conjunction with each other, btw, as sales reps will use subs' stats to bargain with advertizers: in other words, the messy front line of newspaper revenue collecting is where it's really at). I think the online equivalent is all smoke and mirrors. Even though you can supposedly garner better demographic data online the techniques of online advertizing are so crude that there is no accounting for click-throughs or anything beyond. Web advertizing is only slightly more sophisticated than the snake oil purveyors of the 19th century. Personally, to coin a cliche, I think "they just don't get it". It needs to be sexy - or spectacular - or hilarious. All I see at newspaper sites is gutless versions of tv and print ads. My point being that it seems like these online versions of newspapers must be lossmakers. If that's the case then we're lucky that the publishers continue to subsidize these sites.

05 Feb 2003 | ry rivard said...

The only times ads really work is when someone is seeking them out or someone is dramatically insecure, but even those people have trained themselves to ignore most of it and center their eyes to the signal. And not even exponential increases in the disruptive force of the ads (sorry Salon) will convince people to drink sand.

05 Feb 2003 | pb said...

Salon's move is more interesting. I just hope web pages don't go over the 800 pixel wide mark any time soon.

05 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

"That's the key. I'd be very happy to have big, static ads along the right side of the page if it meant they'd stop using popups and annoying Flash animations that take over the page and make you wait before you can read content."
---
amen.

05 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

It would be interesting to see, if offered an easy way to do it, how users would react to being allowed to turn off the ads.

They'd have to do it on each visit of course. That way the site could try an bunch of different types of ads to see what works best. They could track how often the ads are turned off, how quickly, and they could even gather some brief (2-3 questions at most) demographic data.

I got a popup from the Washington Post asking for 3 pieces of demographic info while the site loaded the story I requested. I am not a typical user, but I didn't mind it.

05 Feb 2003 | JF said...

I must admit that I'm often surprised by the backlash against ads. If they don't obscure/cover the content, or pop-up windows all over the place, what's the big deal?

05 Feb 2003 | pr said...

It's clutter and it's extra work to stay focused on the content. You know all about that - right?

I have an idea for an ad scheme... say the science page of your favorite online paper has three ads. By clicking through those ads twice each, you would turn that ad space off for the whole month. You could then read that section for that whole month. At the start of the next month, the ads would return. Just a thought...

05 Feb 2003 | JF said...

It's clutter and it's extra work to stay focused on the content.

I'd much rather the sites focus on improving the layout of the content itself (kill the super wide paragraph blocks, increase the font size, use more paragraph subheads to describe the gist of the paragraph, etc.). That's what annoys me.

05 Feb 2003 | hurley#1 said...

I must admit that I'm often surprised by the backlash against ads. If they don't obscure/cover the content, or pop-up windows all over the place, what's the big deal?

I think it is partly a relic from the days when the Web was an entirely commercial-free zone. (Some people are anxious to make sure everyone knows that they've been online since the DARPANET days). And there's also a certain hipness associated with complaining that commercial interests are spoiling our online experience. "They're ruining it," someone says, and everyone nods their heads gravely, rolling their eyes at the crass forces of capitalism.

Obviously, the Times is spending real money, and lots of it, to produce their online version. They have to pay for it somehow, and for now advertising seems to be the model that works.

For people who are really offended by advertising, there are lots of non-commercial sites free for the browsing, including sites where you can go to get news. I'm not offended by advertising, but I am offended by intrusive ads. I would hate to see the commercial Web tumble down the same path taken by television, which in itself isn't a bad medium but has been used badly. There's got to be a better way.

05 Feb 2003 | Joshua Kaufman said...

If they don't obscure/cover the content, or pop-up windows all over the place, what's the big deal?

They flash, change colors and are simply distracting, especially when they take up half of the page.

I'm willing to pay for content without ads and I'm sure that there are others like me. Give us the option, NYT!

05 Feb 2003 | pr said...

Well, you aren't going to have super wide paragraph blocks when ads are taking up half the page. ;)

This half-page ad scheme seems to work well for the ad, not the articles.

05 Feb 2003 | brian said...

One thing everyone seems to be forgetting in regards to newspapers, is that they see a HUGE percentage of their revenue from classifieds (at least the local ones). You could also look at the usage of an online form as a means of drawing in those readers who wouldn't otherwise read your content. just my 2 cents.

05 Feb 2003 | Paperhead said...

Applied Semantics. So does this make anyone feel better or worse about online ads?

BBC :: semantic ads