• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Facebook Selling Log-Out Ads for $700K a Pop

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Did you ever wonder how Facebook makes all of those mega-bucks from advertising? Facebook just has a knack for putting advertisements everywhere to catch your attention on at least one of them and now they have you coming and going. :D

The company's new log-out page ads are selling for $710,000 for a day's run in the U.S. market, according to Ad Age Digital.
Click to expand...
 
So sad what a shame.

I guess I will never see what a $710,000 ad looks like.
 
U people with ad blocks are hurting sites like this. U should be ashamed...

Just look at the ads and shutup.
 
mjz_5 said:
U people with ad blocks are hurting sites like this. U should be ashamed...

Just look at the ads and shutup.
Click to expand...

I look at ads for sites I like to support, such as this one, and a few others that are related to my hobbies.

Everything else can fuck off. :)
 
mjz_5 said:
U people with ad blocks are hurting sites like this. U should be ashamed...

Just look at the ads and shutup.
Click to expand...

I had the hearing in my right ear damaged by a banner ad with sudden blaring sound.. I bet my damage is worse than theirs. :p
 
mjz_5 said:
U people with ad blocks are hurting sites like this. U should be ashamed...

Just look at the ads and shutup.
Click to expand...
I turn off the adblocker for [H] and the [H] forums, but I couldn't care less about the impact on Facebook's revenue.
 
I look at ads for sites I support.

Ads for some sites are getting way out of hand. Especially now that a lot of ISPs are capping bandwidth.
 
$710,000 for the amount of chumps they snag on this facebook is "chump"change...

I only disable adblocker for sites I support also, otherwise it's add-free browsing here...

What REALLY annoys me is having a bunch of adds on mobile sites (especially the following adds) on my phone screen, that's one way to make sure I either don't go there, or block ads if I do go later.
 
mjz_5 said:
U people with ad blocks are hurting sites like this. U should be ashamed...Just look at the ads and shutup.
Click to expand...
Ashamed is a bit much, but they should load the ads, yeah. It's an unwritten, unspoken agreement that you make with a site operator: you get the content/service if you load the ads. Don't like the ads? Don't take the content. It's unfortunate that it's an unenforceable unwritten, unspoken agreement, but it's human nature to take without reciprocating, and if people can do it and get away with it, that's what many will end up doing.

I do find the selective morality kind of interesting, though. "I load the ads on sites I support, but won't stop using resources from those I won't support, because I'm entitled to that content and those resources."
 
wonderfield said:
Ashamed is a bit much, but they should load the ads, yeah. It's an unwritten, unspoken agreement that you make with a site operator: you get the content/service if you load the ads. Don't like the ads? Don't take the content. It's unfortunate that it's an unenforceable unwritten, unspoken agreement, but it's human nature to take without reciprocating, and if people can do it and get away with it, that's what many will end up doing.

I do find the selective morality kind of interesting, though. "I load the ads on sites I support, but won't stop using resources from those I won't support, because I'm entitled to that content and those resources."
Click to expand...
The same can be said about TVs. Remember when you would watch something and suddenly, BLAMMO commercials are louder. The companies set this up on purpose. It's noticeable when I switch over to my HTPC that suddenly it's also louder. That's because the TV shows are lower in volume on purpose.

The point is we were fine with people getting up and walking away during commercials. They of course stopped this, but it's a pretty scary concept to grab peoples attentions. Commercials are now longer, and more frequent.

Web advertising is much worse in relation. Web pages are literally one big blaze of flashing adds or animated. Some are getting creative, where a video automatically plays and you have to find it to stop it. To top this off, they can even transmit viruses, without any knowledge of the website.

So no, there has to be a limit. People didn't like pop up ads when that was popular, and nobody had a problem with pop-op blockers, which are now part of browsers. Ads should be limited to still pictures, and only a few on a web page. Not every inch of it.

Some people maybe using limited bandwidth, which they don't need flash based or animated Gif ads. Better yet smart phones, which really have limited bandwidth and screen size. So a limit has to be imposed.
 
Yup, limited bandwidth is an unfortunate reality for some parts of the world... I can't run Netflix and other high bandwidth apps, be very selective if I decide to buy a game in a month, and so on...
 
I can't say I've ever seen an ad and bought anything from it. I actually won't buy something from an ad because they annoy me. Good way to ensure I'll never buy your product is stick in my face and be obnoxious about it.
 
the only log out ad I've seen is for bing and there's an "X" in the upper corner to close it (which is kind of dumb since you're logging out of a site). Usually I just close the browser too, but have hit log out on occasion.
 
wonderfield said:
Ashamed is a bit much, but they should load the ads, yeah. It's an unwritten, unspoken agreement that you make with a site operator: you get the content/service if you load the ads. Don't like the ads? Don't take the content. It's unfortunate that it's an unenforceable unwritten, unspoken agreement, but it's human nature to take without reciprocating, and if people can do it and get away with it, that's what many will end up doing.

I do find the selective morality kind of interesting, though. "I load the ads on sites I support, but won't stop using resources from those I won't support, because I'm entitled to that content and those resources."
Click to expand...

I'm an irresponsible web user because I don't want to waste bandwidth on "PUNCH OBAMA TO WIN A FREE IPOD" ads? When the ads are relevant and interesting, they are tolerable, but if the site owner and advertisers are just going to feed me noisy, flashing, obnoxious ads for junk or scams, I don't feel obliged to view them. Are you one of those people who reads all the Viagra ads in their email inbox? If so, my friend "Prince Mugadubi" has a Nigerian oil field for sale that you might be interested in.
 
CEpeep said:
I'm an irresponsible web user because I don't want to waste bandwidth on "PUNCH OBAMA TO WIN A FREE IPOD" ads?
Click to expand...
I didn't say "irresponsible".

CEpeep said:
When the ads are relevant and interesting, they are tolerable, but if the site owner and advertisers are just going to feed me noisy, flashing, obnoxious ads for junk or scams, I don't feel obliged to view them.
Click to expand...
I understand your feelings. They aren't relevant.

CEpeep said:
Are you one of those people who reads all the Viagra ads in their email inbox?
Click to expand...
The resources I'm not consuming by not viewing those are those of the spammer and the ISP/mail service he uses to send those emails. In this case, he's the advertiser using resources already paid for to deliver his advertisements. The resources you're consuming by not viewing ads on websites are those of the site operator's, not those of the advertiser(s) (no delivery means no resource consumption). You understand the difference, yes?
 
wonderfield said:
You understand the difference, yes?
Click to expand...

Of course, but just like spam emails, viewing ads on the web isn't compulsory, any more than viewing Flash video, using Javascript or viewing images is. Developers know this when they build sites. It's not like NoScript is some sort of arcane magic. People who you can catch with random web advertising fall in two camps:

1. People stupid enough NOT to block ads. (These people are the only reason PUNCH THE MONKEY ads exist.)
2. People who voluntarily allow your ads to come through because they want to support your site and its services, and find the ads a better way to do so than donating or purchasing. (Requires relevant, targeted, often hand-picked, ads that provide useful services/information/discounts.)

That's it. If your site can't be sustained by these groups of people, you need to find a new niche. The idea of being able to indiscriminately advertise to every single web user is the relic of a bygone dot-com bubble. Times have changed. Find a new way to monetize, or court the second group of users by paying attention to their needs.
 
Metrocall said:
Being a dick to someone isn't the best way to get them to see your point of view, especially when that or any person isn't going to listen to you anyway. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
His feelings are not relevant to the issue we're talking about. They don't change the situation: they don't reduce or negate the resources required for a site operator to serve a page to him.

CEpeep said:
That's it. If your site can't be sustained by these groups of people, you need to find a new niche.
Click to expand...
I'm not debating you on the commercial viability of online advertising. That's for the site operator to determine and make a decision as to whether to pull out of it or not. What I'm arguing is that it's morally wrong to demand that a business owner provide you with content (content and resources you specifically request), at his expense, without allowing that business owner the opportunity to generate income to cover said expense via advertising revenue.
 
wonderfield said:
What I'm arguing is that it's morally wrong to demand that a business owner provide you with content (content and resources you specifically request), at his expense, without allowing that business owner the opportunity to generate income to cover said expense via advertising revenue.
Click to expand...

Not any more morally wrong than getting up to make popcorn when the TV ads come on, or going out in the lobby to take a leak during movie trailers, or not reading the ad on the back cover of the magazine even though I enjoyed the content inside. People have been consciously avoiding ads forever. I think it's tough to argue that it's more "morally wrong" now than it was in the past just because there is technology to aid you in avoiding advertisements.
 
mjz_5 said:
U people with ad blocks are hurting sites like this. U should be ashamed...

Just look at the ads and shutup.
Click to expand...

Nope, because a properly configured ad-blocker allows ads at sites you care about (like this one) and refuses to let ads show up on site you dislike (facebook).
 
CEpeep said:
Not any more morally wrong than getting up to make popcorn when the TV ads come on, or going out in the lobby to take a leak during movie trailers, or not reading the ad on the back cover of the magazine even though I enjoyed the content inside. People have been consciously avoiding ads forever. I think it's tough to argue that it's more "morally wrong" now than it was in the past just because there is technology to aid you in avoiding advertisements.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I see adblock no different than skipping commercials, ignoring all print ads (magazines, billboards, the damned spinning signs, etc), and throwing away all the spam I get in the mail without even looking at it. Unless you make it a point to let all these forms of advertisement do their intended purpose, you can't say that ad-block is bad.
 
Seeing "facebook" and "morals" on the same page made me laugh... rotfl...

:D
 
wonderfield said:
His feelings are not relevant to the issue we're talking about. They don't change the situation: they don't reduce or negate the resources required for a site operator to serve a page to him.
Click to expand...

His feelings perfectly relevant because he is the one deciding whether or not to block the adds on a given page. If he "feels" that a given site is worthy, than he will allow the ads through, and the opposite is also true. Nothing you say or do will change the face that people are naturally going to avoid ads because they "feel" that they are annoying. Whenever a commercial comes on that finds the need to shout at me, I find myself making sure I avoid their product intentionally and mute them into nothing.

If you want a perfect example of a website owner that has found a way to keep interest as CEpeep has described, just look at Kyle, I constantly reference this site and make sure no ad blocking software is running on it. It's survival of the fittest, and if other sites can't compete or adapt, they fail, end of story.
 
chockomonkey said:
Nope, because a properly configured ad-blocker allows ads at sites you care about (like this one) and refuses to let ads show up on site you dislike (facebook).
Click to expand...

Bingo :D Ad Block thumbs up for sites that deserve it, like the [H], thumbs down on sites that don't, like Facebook.
 
bildad said:
I can't say I've ever seen an ad and bought anything from it. I actually won't buy something from an ad because they annoy me. Good way to ensure I'll never buy your product is stick in my face and be obnoxious about it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the advertisers would be overjoyed if you ran out immediately after seeing an ad and bought said product/service. Advertising has a more subtle influence. Even though you see it, and don't pay a lot of attention to it, the idea persists in your mind. When you see a pizza hut ad, the next time you're wondering what kind of pizza to get, the idea for pizza hut is one of the first things that comes to mind. That's why ads are so pervasive, it takes a few times of being exposed for the idea to sink into your memory.
 
CEpeep said:
Not any more morally wrong than getting up to make popcorn when the TV ads come on, or going out in the lobby to take a leak during movie trailers, or not reading the ad on the back cover of the magazine even though I enjoyed the content inside.
Click to expand...
It's quite different. You pay for access to a TV channel to your cable/satellite provider, and that payment covers the infrastructural costs of delivering to you the content you request. The movie ticket you buy pays for the infrastructure allowing for you to view the content. With online advertising, ad revenue pays for the infrastructural costs of delivering content to you. Your ISP is not covering those costs.

Do you understand the distinction?

BGK said:
Neither are yours.
Click to expand...
I never said my feelings were relevant. They aren't.

Metrocall said:
His feelings [are] perfectly relevant because he is the one deciding whether or not to block the adds on a given page.
Click to expand...
His feelings matter when it comes to the choice he makes — it's what compels him to make it. They do not matter with respect to the fact that his choice is depriving a site operator of resources said operator has to pay for to satisfy his demand for that site's content. That's what happens regardless of how he feels about online advertising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top