July 27, 2001
7:08 AM   Subscribe

Turn your webwasher off for this link.

I hate banner ads, which is why I use webwasher, they're annoyingly large, wasteful, and don't work. The reason they are dying and taking the rest of the dot-com industry along with them.

I don't know much about Hondas or cars all entirely, but prius seems like a good idea, better fuel efficiency saves on money and doesn't pollute as much. The reason I like the ad though, is it's not intrusive, it doesn't have a 200k gif of a windows alert box telling you 'your connected is too slow. CLICK HERE to make it faster OK', it doesn't blink or use flash. It is tailored to a specific audience, people that look up directions and drive their cars, the product that the company sells.

I hope this is the future of advertising on the web, but then again, how exactly are you suppose to fish out people to buy your 'ultra small hidden bathroom cameras'?
posted by tiaka (21 comments total)
Apparently I'm not targeted, the ad didn't appear. And I *really* like hybrid cars.
posted by mecran01 at 7:11 AM on July 27, 2001

I'm not targeted either ... I got a "MESSAGE ALERT" telling me that "Your Connection May Be Capabale of Faster Speeds. Download InternetBoost Now".

Why don't I ever get the good ads *pout*
posted by bclark at 7:15 AM on July 27, 2001

I think banner ads *do* work and aren't really that annoying. I think right now the industry has over-backlashed against them and they are insanely cheap. I can't help it. I *do* see them. Honestly, the first time I read that page I missed the ad for the Prius entirely, but I did see the ad for NextCard's low low APR at the top. Do you think banner ads don't work in that they don't make you buy stuff or in that you don't even see them? I don't ever say, "hey, you know what? I could go for some BAWLZ cola from ThinkGeek.com!" when I read slashdot, but I sure have seen the ad a lot, and I know that ThinkGeek sells that, some sort of caffeine mints, a lot of nerdy t-shirts, and a hot-shot cordless phone, all from their slashdot ads (probably helped by slashdot's insanely slow loading). Everyone has seen an internalized "punch the monkey" (though I still don't know what it's an ad for). I think they really do help with branding. All those ones for Sephora and Banana Republic manage to effectively communicate the brand aesthetic in a really small space. If I was an ad agency or corporation interested in branding, I'd be buying those ads left and right at bargain-basement prices, maybe only paying per-click, which is irrelevant to their effectiveness.

Similar to the Prius ad though are the google ads, which I think are highly effective, cheap, and honestly, sometimes valuable to the consumer, since they are insanely well-targeted but don't require demographic information from me. I think Google ads are under-valued.
posted by jeb at 7:30 AM on July 27, 2001

I think banner ads are horrible by their positioning. The Web has become the new Pennysaver. On the other hand, Salon's ads are quite good, particularly because of their low density.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:35 AM on July 27, 2001

I can see the Toyota ad, even though I'm surely completely out of their target market and indeed in another country. But Jeb, I agree. I'd rather a banner ad or indeed one of the above Toyota links than a huge pop-under or Flash movie.

Actually, I'm surprised banner ads haven't made people examine the advertising industry as a whole. Internet firms have received a lot of criticism because users don't click on banner ads. But at the risk of sounding facile, they don't click on traditional print ads either!

Advertising works best when it creates general awareness, rather than saying "leave your armchair and buy this Bud/ car/ visit this website NOW". People still look at good banner ads. And so I reckon they still work.
posted by tobyslater at 7:37 AM on July 27, 2001

I can live with banner ads - small price to pay for all this free Interweb bandwidth, hosting etc - anti -banner ad sentiment is soooo Q4 2000.
posted by johnny novak at 7:44 AM on July 27, 2001

I reloaded four times and got two morgage offers, a single's group and a credit card. might be out of rotation.

personally I never see banner ads, except whack the monkey which is so distracting I have to cover it with my hand to read whatever else is on the page.

interestingly enough, some studies (including this one, which was the first that i could find on google) have shown what banners appear on the site affect the perception of the site's trustworthiness.
posted by christina at 7:46 AM on July 27, 2001

Hmm.. I wonder why some are missing it, it's not a banner ad, though yahoo directions still has a banner ad on top, it's an ad between the projected distance and time of the directions and the maps, it's small green table.
posted by tiaka at 7:48 AM on July 27, 2001

Whoops! this one's better.
posted by christina at 7:49 AM on July 27, 2001

tiaka: After reloading a few times and trying different directions, I am only being show the ad for Toyota Prius.
posted by riffola at 8:00 AM on July 27, 2001

Yeah, what Tiaka said. It's not a banner ad, and I think it appears for everybody.
posted by Marquis at 8:01 AM on July 27, 2001

Oh but it is a very decent ad banner. I wouldn't mind such ads at all.
posted by riffola at 8:01 AM on July 27, 2001

The thing about all advertising is it's cumulative. There wouldn't a newspaper or billboard company still alive anywhere if there was an accurate way to guage return on cost. Banner ads are doomed by their ability to be tracked, and that they want you to leave the page you're trying to read to look at their product.

I don't find the smaller ads all that bothersome, either, and sometimes I do eventually check out the product they're advertising. . . though usually not as a click-through.
posted by jamesstegall at 8:19 AM on July 27, 2001

check out Blues for more horrible ads
posted by sikander at 8:25 AM on July 27, 2001

This ad is similar to the ads that Google runs-- simple text ads in a seprae colored box, related to the search. Obviously a separate ad, but relevant, not annoying, not intrusive. Once again, Google rocks.
posted by andrewraff at 9:59 AM on July 27, 2001

My thought, on seeing the Prius ad: oh, how nice - it's simple, tasteful, perhaps useful, and so much less annoying than usual advertisements.

My thought, on realizing that: what a sick situation we've gotten ourselves into! Have we all forgotten that long-lost time when there were no ads at all on the world wide web? Why aren't we shooting for that? Why do we tolerate these ads at all?

posted by Mars Saxman at 10:10 AM on July 27, 2001

Mars: because those days are gone for good. Bandwidth, while not as aexpensive as some say, still has to be paid for.
posted by tj at 10:28 AM on July 27, 2001

i find that i've become so inured to banner ads that i actually do not see them. when a site has a navigation graphic the size of a banner ad at the top of the page, i literally completely phase it out. it's like my brain filters them out for me automatically. who needs webwasher?

i'm sure i'm not the only one.

with these new in-line ads that run inside the text of the message, sure, more people will see them. sure, they may be "less intrustive." but they're still hellishly obnoxious.

but hey, sites have to fund themselves somehow.

Have we all forgotten that long-lost time when there were no ads at all on the world wide web

i remember surfing the web using mosaic 0.99c or whatever the hell that was. i also remember that pretty much the only things out there were .edu publications or Homepages of the Geeky (mine being one of them. heh). banner ads are a small price to pay for the kernels of Goodness that *are* out there. but what the hell do i know?
posted by fuzzygeek at 10:31 AM on July 27, 2001

Have we all forgotten that long-lost time
when there were no ads at all on the world wide web?

And no driving directions either. For good content there must be some payment. In order for the Mapquest map folks to provide you that map from Paterson to Bellvue for free, and not charge you $5.50. Somebody's gotta pay, and if Uncle Prius wants to cough up for a chance to possibly attract my eye, so be it.
posted by brucec at 10:41 AM on July 27, 2001

Ok, I'm clueless. I finally found the link. According to the advertisement I can save $1400 a year in gas if I drive a Prius. But I'd be spending $3600 per year for the car. And in reality, I spend about $60 per month for gas for our vw Golf (1988), so I'd really only be saving $360 a year.

In terms of cash-out-of-pocket, it just doesn't make sense to buy a new gas efficient car, although there are plenty of other good reasons.
posted by mecran01 at 12:24 PM on July 27, 2001

mecran01: it's pretty much always cheaper to maintain an old car than it is to replace it with a newer one.
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:44 PM on July 27, 2001

« Older What's that you're wearing, Fidel? Nike's?   |   The Day My Car Ratted Me Out. Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments