One Year On | Are ads ok yet?

Posted by Andrew Faulkner on November 9th, 2006.

Andrew Faulkner is the admin at fadtastic. Andrew prides himself on standards-based, accessible web design in the city of Nottingham, UK. He believes in aesthetically pleasing accessible design and that 'standards compliant does not equal boring.'

http://fadtastic.net/

Andrew Faulkner has posted 208 articles.

RSS Feed for fadtastic.net RSS Feed for Andrew Faulkner

Full Profile →

(Almost) One year ago Phil asked whether ads were ok yet. He discussed the demise of the flashy pop-up ad in the world of standardistas and (I think) welcomed the change to content driven, simplistic ads. I now wish to think aloud in this post and let you know my opinions on this subject - a subject which is often taboo for webmasters.

Disclosure: We currently use Text Link Ads here at fadtastic.

My opinion on the subject is simple in effect. If ads intrude and shout at me then I’m less inclined to feel welcome on a site. A good example of a respected site using all manner of ads is www.t3.co.uk. I love the content but often find the ads distracting. On the other hand I have no issue with ads on sites such as logopond.com.

You see, logopond’s ads don’t pop-up or intrude on my browsing experience. It seems that the more an ad tries to grab me, the less likely I am going to click it. I much prefer simple non-animated images or text links for ads. After all, I guess that’s (one reason) why Google became so popular. Simple, effective text links.

Another aspect of web ads is the content/theme. I much prefer logopond’s adverts because they are relevant to me. I am on logopond.com, a design resource and therefore would be interested in other design resources. Content driven ads appeal. They provide worth.

I’d like to end by asking your opinions on the subject. Are ads OK? Why?

Share This

( 15 so far )

Comments RSS Feed

I think the big problem with online advertising is that users don’t seem to get that webmasters have bills to pay. This is clear with the rampant use of adblock extensions. People need to understand that a lot of time and effort, not to mention financial expenses, go into creating a good website.

I don’t like obtrusive ads any more than the next person, but I also recognize the value I get from sites I enjoy. I’m willing to consider supporting them in some way, and that includes viewing advertisements (and even clicking on them sometimes!)

Megan
November 9th, 2006
#

Addition to the above: I have a post about that here.

Megan
November 9th, 2006
#

Megan,

I agree that it is hard to understand how much time and effort goes into creating, maintaining and improving a website. Not to mention the financial cost. As a webmaster I appreciate this.

But as a reader of other sites it gets on my nerves when a flashy ad intrudes on the content. I think that a middle-ground is necessary. For some sites, ads are required (I admit we have to pay for hosting here) but some people go way over the top.

It depends whether you are doing it for the passion or for the money. It’s passion here for sure.

Andrew Faulkner
November 9th, 2006
#

hey, it’s me!

except, past-me. far out!

In any event, obtrusive ads aren’t okay on websites that don’t need them.

read: microsoft.com does not need to have ads, because microsoft does not need the money that ad revenue generates, although it must cost hundreds of thousands to run the microsoft.com site. On the other hand, my own site is without ads because it costs very little to run (less than my cell phone bill), and I get an enormous amount of satisfaction for it. My satisfaction has become a product, and I am paying for it. That is fine with me.

I won’t elaborate too much or berate anybody for using the big ol’ skyscraper obtrusive ads, but remember: when you get greedy, better get ready to get lonely.

One thing that I have found weird, however, is the way that designing a site has changed in the absence of ads. Going over old designs of ad-ridden sites and revamping them sans-advertisements is a very difficult process, comparatively.

Phil Renaud
November 10th, 2006
#

Well, mostly because it pays my salary since I work in the online newspaper business. :) A lot of sites would never exist if they couldn’t provide income or at least pay their own expenses I guess… Giving away something for free is a lousy concept if you have a lot of expenses in the process, and those needs to be covered in some way. What it essentially boils down to is if more people in general click on obtrusive advertising or non-obtrusive advertising. Given then amount of actual sales spam campaigns generate, I fear for the result…

Håvard Pedersen
November 10th, 2006
#

In any event, obtrusive ads aren’t okay on websites that don’t need them.

I like that thought, Phil. Do you agree that (some) bloggers need the revenue? Who needs income in your opinion?

A quick question that I forgot to mention in the post that Håvard just reminded me of: What counts as an obtrusive ad for you?

Andrew Faulkner
November 10th, 2006
#

check this out (link removed)

Bowers Web Media
November 10th, 2006
#

Bowers Media,

Is that relevant? Surely this is spamming?

Andrew Faulkner
November 10th, 2006
#

I appologize for the short comment. I was trying to show an example of better Search Engine Optimization as a natural search instead of the common ads.

Bowers Web Media
November 10th, 2006
#

I feel like we might be asking the wrong question here… Its not a matter of whether they ads are ok… Its a matter of whether they are USEFUL. Yes, you can fill your entire sites up with banner ads for online gambling sites and maybe get some people to click on them… But if you run a design blog, what’s the point?

The reason non-intrusive text ads are starting to win the game is because they are providing quality content-relevant links that are useful to the user. Ads are okay, as long as they’re selling something that’s relevant to me.

But if you try to sell me a mutual fund when I’m watching Family Guy, I’m gonna change the channel. If you try to (repeatedly) sell me a membership to eHarmony when I’m reading about Donald Rumsfeld on Slate, I’m gonna block the ad.

Ads are decreasing on web sites not only because they’re loud and obnoxious… But because the old “Web 1.0″ ads were as useless as standing on a busy street corner screaming “HEY, WHO WANTS TO BUY MY CUSTOM BATTLESTAR GALACTICA PEWTER CHESS SET!?!?” But if you sell the same product by seting up a booth at a Sci-Fi convention and sit there quietly, you’ll get buyers who are actually (gasp) interested in the product.

Ads are just fine as long as they’re useful… It doesn’t matter whether its text or an image.

But a blinking advertisement that tells me I’m the billionth visitor to a web site and to click here to claim my reward is just a lie… And as a consumer, I don’t trust that ad anymore.

Jim
November 15th, 2006
#

Jim,

Very good points made. I like the fact that you brought up trust as well as relevance. I never really thought about the trust issue. This coupled with content driven ads definitely do provide worth to the user.

Andrew Faulkner
November 16th, 2006
#

Haha, I once saw ads in at a portfolio page..

Anyway, I’m hoping that a few sites, newssites especially, makes to kind of sites. One with ads, and another pay-site, which is free for ads. I think people are willing to pay to have content delivered in a nice way, with good whitespace where the ads should have been. The ads on any newssite pretty much destroy the look and typography of the text presented. But the pay-version have to be worth the cost.

My two cents

Tor Bollingmo
November 22nd, 2006
#

Thanks for the opinions, Tor. Do you think that a system where people pay for the pleasure of having no ads would work on news sites? What about blogs/communities etc?

Andrew Faulkner
November 22nd, 2006
#

Maybe, but I don’t check blogsites that often, and regular people doesn’t either. On communities it might also work. I also think that people that pays to have their ad presented at a page, should really get some advice on it’s estetique - to many flashy ugly gif-ads are represented today. But then again, ads should not look to good. I first though the ads at Logopond were content - because it slipped so well in with rest of the content, and thats not good for the end consumer.

Tor Bollingmo
November 22nd, 2006
#