Ad Publishing - To Pop or Not to Pop?

[MadCool]

If one person is complaining then that can't be a good thing. Most visitors wouldn't even bother to let you know and will just leave the site.

[AllClicks Robert]

MadCool,

Put a poll on your site asking if the surfers like banner ads. They don't, and they will complain.

If you ask surfers what they want, they want everything for free, 100% of the time, with no ads. They also want to pay for a Chevy and drive a Ferrari.

Espn.com is the #1 web site with males ages 18-34 and they have popped windows for years. Yahoo pops windows, MSN pops windows.

There is no statistical evidence showing that pops drive away users. There is unlimited factual statistics showing that pops increase a websites revenue.

I can respect anyones opinion if they say that they don't like pops...But saying "pops don't work" or "pops drive away visitors" is false. I don't like broccoli. But I don't say that broccoli is unhealthy or lacking in nutrition because I personally don't like it.

[BlogPatrol]

I have also found that for ad publishing, nothing beats the rates of pop-unders. Also, ...

My two cents:

In August I ran my site without any popunders at all. I was sure that I would get many more pageviews, but in fact it was so close to the same pageviews as with popunders. I have now enabled the popunders again and I have not seen a drop in visitors nor pageviews, just an increase in income. So there you have it.

Of course it heavily depends on your content. Some content attracts people with less tolerance for annoying pops.

...like canman888, I really haven't seen a difference in traffic for when I serve pop-unders or not.

My biggest concern is being able to trust what I've selected from my ad broker. I mean if I've selected 12-hour unique frequency cap, how can a user get hit with 14 pop-unders, 4 of them being the same user? (Were they exaggerating in their complaint?)

If I serve multiple pop-unders, it should be because I've chosen that frequency, not because somehow some advertiser 'beat the system' or because the ad broker itself is not honoring the frequency caps set by the publisher.

Finally, it's not just a matter of losing traffic, but also branding. Even if I don't see a decrease in traffic - then my "site brand" suffers a loss in the eyes of visitors/users who are getting annoyed by too many pop ads. Arguably, for some visitors, one pop ad is already enough to get the annoyed. It is difficult to argue, however, that 14 pop ads is annoying to everyone: user and publisher.

For the time being, I'm still using CasaleMedia for the banner ads, but I'm going to try Tribal Fusion's pop ads now to see if their frequency caps are any better.

[AllClicks Robert]

<<<
My biggest concern is being able to trust what I've selected from my ad broker. I mean if I've selected 12-hour unique frequency cap, how can a user get hit with 14 pop-unders, 4 of them being the same user? (Were they exaggerating in their complaint?)
>>>

BlogPatrol,

It's quite possible that the lone complaint came from a surfer who had adware installed on their computer.

If they were on your website when the adware started popping they are going to think it came from your site and complain to you. If they had been on Yahoo! at the time they would have complained to Yahoo!.

[aspen]

Its also possible they have cookies disabled (or blocked from the network).

Really, cookies have an unfair bad rep. They're often used to prevent excessive advertising and people don't realize that when they block cookies they're blocking the code that prevents repeated popunders.

[BlogPatrol]

It's quite possible that the lone complaint came from a surfer who had adware installed on their computer.

If they were on your website when the adware started popping they are going to think it came from your site and complain to you. If they had been on Yahoo! at the time they would have complained to Yahoo!.

Its also possible they have cookies disabled (or blocked from the network).

Really, cookies have an unfair bad rep. They're often used to prevent excessive advertising and people don't realize that when they block cookies they're blocking the code that prevents repeated popunders.

I've sent a follow up email to my user that combines the info provided in these two quotes, AllClicksRobert and aspen. I'm looking forward to sharing what the user tells me about their settings, etc.

[hoqensihy]

Simply put, don't use popups. There HAS been research done that demonstrates that people HATE, HATE, HATE popups, and DOES negatively effect their opinion on the site. If you want, I can post it.

You know what? I came here through a conversation that ended back in March or May of this year about blocking ads. By sitting here and saying that "...well, users don't think popups are THAT bad" and trying to rationalize squeezing ju-u-u-u-ust one more bit of junk onto a person's browsing experience, you're adding fuel to the Ad-Blocking movement's fire. I mean, if you don't care enough to take our surfing experience into consideration, and instead spend more time trying to defeat a popup blocker than develop content that will bring more users to your site, why should WE not use AdBlock extensions, Norton ad blocking, and hosts files? Can you give me a good reason? After all, when you get right down to the "brass tacks" of the issue, you're basically asking "how much annoyance will my average user tolerate", and it indicates you don't care about us as customers, just means or "click-thu's" to your commerical end. Instead of developing class-act content that will bring more traffic to your site, you're okay with developing average or mediocre content, but with advertising programs that'll annoy a user into clicking an ad, just to get rid of it. THAT'S why "We the People" support ad-blocking software more than we support your wish (not right) for us to view your advertising. THAT's why, when I do freelance computer support, that I always install ad-blocking software - and you know what? I haven't had one user complain that they miss the advertising.

[Crusader]

I was always of mind that I would never ever use pop-unders on my sites. Until recently that is. My free wallpaper site wasn't doing too hot revenue wise, and I had to do something to keep it going. As a last resort I decided to experiment with pop-unders from Casale.

In under two weeks I've earned half of what my site used to earn from the pop-unders alone. Quite a difference. I limit it to one pop-under per unique visitor per 24hours. So it isn't that intrusive to the visitors. So far I haven't had any complaints, and my traffic hasn't decreased.

The added revenue ensures that my site can keep running, and stay free. So in this case I'm seriously considering keeping the pop-unders running. If it really bothers people that much, they are welcome to install pop blockers.

[AllClicks Robert]

By all means, Please post the cite to the research you've found.

Simply put, don't use popups. There HAS been research done that demonstrates that people HATE, HATE, HATE popups, and DOES negatively effect their opinion on the site. If you want, I can post it.

You know what? I came here through a conversation that ended back in March or May of this year about blocking ads. By sitting here and saying that "...well, users don't think popups are THAT bad" and trying to rationalize squeezing ju-u-u-u-ust one more bit of junk onto a person's browsing experience, you're adding fuel to the Ad-Blocking movement's fire. I mean, if you don't care enough to take our surfing experience into consideration, and instead spend more time trying to defeat a popup blocker than develop content that will bring more users to your site, why should WE not use AdBlock extensions, Norton ad blocking, and hosts files? Can you give me a good reason? After all, when you get right down to the "brass tacks" of the issue, you're basically asking "how much annoyance will my average user tolerate", and it indicates you don't care about us as customers, just means or "click-thu's" to your commerical end. Instead of developing class-act content that will bring more traffic to your site, you're okay with developing average or mediocre content, but with advertising programs that'll annoy a user into clicking an ad, just to get rid of it. THAT'S why "We the People" support ad-blocking software more than we support your wish (not right) for us to view your advertising. THAT's why, when I do freelance computer support, that I always install ad-blocking software - and you know what? I haven't had one user complain that they miss the advertising.

[hoqensihy]

Here are a couple, ranging from opinions to eye-tracking systems that measure if an ad is acknowledged. There are a few more out there, but these seemed the most credible.

http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article1608.asp
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Breaki...om=moreStories

To me, this just says that any web publisher willing to utilize popups is irresponsible, because he KNOWS FOR A FACT that they are hated. The research group link even equated it to "brand suicide"!

Simply put, just another argument FOR ad blocking!

[DeveloperGuy2000]

If I stopped using popunders I'd lose around $5k a month in revenue.

But I'm against any download based ads, so I won't serve those.

Also like others I don't show them on any forums.



I've never had an issue with that. Maybe you were blocking their cookies?

Do you mind sharing which popup networks you use?

Also, what is your opinion on interstitials? Currently that is what I use. I am not sure whether visitors hate interstitials or popups more.

[AllClicks Robert]

Bunnyfoot university (I'm being serious here) tested a whopping 36 people using (shockingly) the Bunnyfoot eye tracking software they are selling.

And Bunnyfoot concluded that 35% of pop ads were ignored. That means a whopping 65% are viewed. Sounds like a tremendous success for pop windows and probably exlpains why pop rates are higher than ever.


The second article is from an unknown gentleman selling a tutorial on search engine marketing. His conclusion...shockingly...was that surfers pretty much hate ALL ads. (except, of course, the tutorial he's promoting)


Sorry. 2 strikes.

Where are the hundreds (or even dozens, or even a couple) of scientific studys showing how how sites that use pop windows lose traffic?

I've worked with thousands of real websites, in the real world, and I have never had a single instance of a measurable, meaningful drop in traffic, long term or short term, from the responsible use of pops.

"Surfers don't like pops" does not equal "pops don't work"

[Azam.net]

Popups and unders are great. There are too many freeloaders on the net who enjoy free content while ignoring banner ads, Adsense etc. I spend hours targetting the ads on my content-rich sites, but 99% of people still ignore them.

I'd so go for them and you'll be pleasantly suprised at the revenue. You deserve to get paid for your content. If you have high quality original content, people won't mind the occaisional pop-under. Obviously don't go overboard.

Make sure the code you use can get around pop-up blockers.

[Josh_]

For those of you who do run them, how frequently do you show them to your visitors?
I've stayed away from them on my sites, waiting until I get about twice as much traffic as I do now.

[Ulchie]

If you have a website where you get visitors once, and you never expect them to come back to your site, then pop as many ads as possible.

If you want visitors to come back to your site, then don't pop any or do what sitepoint does. (Delete all cookies and refresh sitepoint, you'll understand what I mean.)

[snareklutz]

Most browsers/toolbars block popups anyways...as long as the popups are really related to content, and they aren't big, I don't really mind. Sitepoint has some popups themself, asking you to buy a book, or newsletter, they're pretty OK.

[BlogPatrol]

My site offers free site statistics for bloggers. For this free service, I feel that it's a fair trade to run pop-unders on a 24-hour unique frequency: one pop-under per day for checking your stats.

Also, I'm actually looking to run a pop-under program that does not try to get around pop-up blockers. If someone's gone to the trouble of installing a pop-up blocker to fortify their web experience against unwanted advertising, then, hey, I can definitely take a hint and I want to respect that. If someone allows pop-unders, then I want to advertise to them without overdoing it.

On a side note, I just got into TribalFusion, and I'm working through their signup process, but something that caught my eye (favorably) is that they use only one frequency cap: 24-hour unique. ...I'll post an update once I start running some test campaigns with their service.

[Digitalman]

It's all about the money and I don't think it's funny.

[RevenuePilot]

One pop out or pup under is considered normal even for a big name websites so I don’t see anything wrong with having one pop out or pop under per visitor!

[Digitalman]

I just got a great idea on how to make even more money with your website.
It's a new ad type that's more annoying therefor you will even make more money with it.
Who knows what it is?

[RevenuePilot]

Thats how it is for most publishers, its all about maximizing revenue from their websites since most websites are created for one and only one purpose and thats to make money! You will never have all your visitors happy so basically you apply the rule of profit maximization with least damage to your return visitors potential.

It's all about the money and I don't think it's funny.

[Kilroy]

IMO for a true content-base website where you want visitors to return I wouldn't use pops. I think many people get thoroughly annoyed by them and won't return. However, for look-up websites which won't be repeatedly and regularly checked by the same visitors, it's probably OK to make lots more revenue by slightly annoying your users.

I'm still interested to hear whether or not pops actually have a higher clickthrough rate than "normal" ads, as in things like Google Adsense ads.

[BlogPatrol]

IMO for a true content-base website where you want visitors to return I wouldn't use pops. I think many people get thoroughly annoyed by them and won't return. However, for look-up websites which won't be repeatedly and regularly checked by the same visitors, it's probably OK to make lots more revenue by slightly annoying your users.

I'm still interested to hear whether or not pops actually have a higher clickthrough rate than "normal" ads, as in things like Google Adsense ads.

Kilroy, I think you bring up an interesting point on type of site: content-based, look-up based, etc.

Do you think it would be accurate to think of sites like BlogPatrol as 'service-based'? I'm thinking that BlogPatrol is kind of a hybrid between content-based (the site statistics) and the look-up (users return frequently to look up their own ever-changing content, i.e., the stats).

If BlogPatrol is a hybrid, then I wonder what recommendations you would have for running pop-ads or not?

[Crusader]

It's all about the money and I don't think it's funny.

To some webmasters this is unfortunately the case, but lets face it. It costs money to run a website be it for the domain name, hosting, people writing content etc etc.

In the real world people that go looking for information buy books, magazines etc and they pay a premium for that information. In the digital world (WWW) the information is provided largely for free, but you pay by having to view ads, pop-unders etc.

The alternative would be a WWW where you need to pay to view each and every site. Want to be a member at Sitepoint? Pay $5 a month. Want to use Google search, pay $20 a month. This might be a bit harsh, but in reality that's what will happen if advertising isn't feasible anymore.

Webmasters have a responsibility to their visitors to not overdo it, but the visitors also have a responsibility to tolerate advertising, because, unless you are being for your access to the site, that is what keeps the site running for free.

[Fahd]

I've never clicked a pop up/under ad in my life even if it was something I found interesting. Banners and text ads on the other hand, I'll click if it interests me.