July 30, 2001
6:22 AM   Subscribe

Yahoo! Explorer ads the wave of the future? (via RRE) Taking over your browsing in the name of advertising.
posted by bison (12 comments total)
More like wave of the past. May, to be exact.

And the ad doesn't take over your browser exactly.

And yes, advertising is annoying, and the more annoying it is the happier the client is. Therefore, we can conclude that the client is annoying.
posted by Outlawyr at 7:11 AM on July 30, 2001

A Ford rep in the article says "The feedback we've gotten has been phenomenal. There was literally nobody who said they resented us using this," reports Scott.

Anyone know his phone number?
posted by Tubes at 7:51 AM on July 30, 2001

It's going to become harder to ignore the advertising on major sites, although like television, there will always be another 'channel' that you can turn to so you can avoid the commercial.
posted by dave at 8:18 AM on July 30, 2001

I haven't run into a takeover ad in Yahoo! yet, but I don't really mind C|Net's Gateway ads on its homepage. They're initially on top of content, but in a second or two, it folds up, and comes back if you click. Content and services ain't free.

I did think those Boston.com ads (MeFi link) were really obnoxious, however.
posted by gramcracker at 8:19 AM on July 30, 2001

It was discussed when it was new.
posted by mathowie at 10:10 AM on July 30, 2001

Yet another reason to use Opera...
posted by fooljay at 10:38 AM on July 30, 2001

Ford and Yahoo! object to the term "intrusive"
posted by rschram at 11:11 AM on July 30, 2001

A separate report (today) has Yahoo testing pop-under ads as well. This might be a good time to install AdSubtract or WebWasher. (I use/recommend the former, but it's Win-only.)

It seems like only a matter of time before visiting a site will get you a full-screen JavaScript window with a non-interruptable ad you must watch in order to get to the meat of the site. The technology is all there to do it -- only fear of user reaction has kept this at bay. If the results of "takeover" and pop-under ads are as good as the linked articles claim, more such innovations will come very quickly.

For today, AdSubtract and WebWasher are good enough defenses. A determined attacker, however, could easily set a per-session cookie in the midst of an ad, which would then be required to get into the rest of the site. That could lead to an arms race pretty easily. Or, ad-bearing sites could take a litigious approach, and use the same argument used against TiVo/ReplayTV, namely that proxies that filter out ads are depriving the copyright holders (the sites) of their payment (ad revenue) for use of their property (the page content).
posted by precipice at 11:40 AM on July 30, 2001

So does the Explorer ad flip your screen over a few times or something??? I haven't seen them.
posted by Sal Amander at 12:26 PM on July 30, 2001

It seems like only a matter of time before visiting a site will get you a full-screen JavaScript window with a non-interruptable ad you must watch in order to get to the meat of the site.

This won't work. Ads are less effective on cable TV than on broadcast TV because there are more choices. The web creates even more competition. Ads are a cost to the user in terms of time. When the cost of a product goes up, it opens up room for others to come in with a less expensive product... Consumers will go to the next guy offering the same stuff...
posted by fooljay at 1:02 PM on July 30, 2001

I heard that they dropped their ad agency after this ran, something to do with problems on Netscape. Anyway, they replaced then with a smaller, unproven, lesser know ad agency. Now I hear they are having even worse problems.
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 1:26 PM on July 30, 2001

"A split-second later, the entire Yahoo! homepage was replaced by an animated Flash ad for the vehicle."

A split second when you're on serious drugs p'haps.

(wanders off to self medicate in spirit of scientific inquiry)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:20 PM on July 30, 2001

« Older I guess we'll walk.   |   This NYT article Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments