6 ms·

> I'm more concerned with the fact that I can't go to any web page these days without getting one of these pop-ups. People use these pop-ups (Landing Pages, O

> I'm more concerned with the fact that I can't go to any web page these days without getting one of these pop-ups. People use these pop-ups (Landing Pages, Optinmonster, etc) because they are extremely effective at capturing emails. Your average programmer or techie on HN is horrified when prompted to sign up via a pop-up, but many regular users will just comply. The site has now converted a random passer-by, into someone who might continue to receive new content (and marketing material) in the future. Nothing comes even close to the ROI that you get from people subscribing to your mailing list. Note that I'm not talking about whether this is right or wrong, just that it's done for a very good reason. Would I put a pop-up form on a programming blog? Obviously no. Know your audience. But on a regular site? Not doing so is literally leaving money on the table. And that's why they are ubiquitous. When you don't see one it's often either an ethical choice (the site owner decided to maximize user experience, not profit) or lack of knowledge of how effective these pop-ups are.

xiaoma 10y ago
>"Your average programmer or techie on HN is horrified when prompted to sign up via a pop-up, but many regular users will just comply." ... especially if you shame them into it!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gedrap 10y ago
Exactly. >>> Obviously no. Know your audience. But on a regular site? Not doing so is literally leaving money on the table. And that's why they are ubiquitous. This. Most (all?) of the mentioned ones are run by companies, not individuals who are not seeking any profit or anything. In terms of ethics, I wouldn't even call it unethical or a dark pattern. Some sneaky checkbox to receive spam is bad. Sneaky checkbox for addon when purchasing is horribly bad. But pop up with email field? Nope. Calling it ethical decision is a stretch. Worst case scenario - you close the tab and move on with your life. If anyone loses then it's the business, not you. At the end, it's a business decision whether it's worth annoying some users in order to extract more value later from a fraction of them and it's the users choice to accept or not. It's a personal choice, to each their own. You think the UX is so crap because of it and surely something better can be done? Take it as a business opportunity!
- Sir_Substance 10y ago
  >Nope. Calling it ethical decision is a stretch. Worst case scenario - you close the tab and move on with your life. If anyone loses then it's the business, not you. So here's the thing: That's a perfectly reasonable standpoint, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to run your website like this, you lose the moral highground to declare it wrong when I order my browser to automatically disassemble their website and strip out all their cookies, all their ads and all their popups. You are also the one that has to answer to your peers if I just leave those tools running out of sheer laziness when I go to other, less pernicious websites.
- vitd 10y ago
  >In terms of ethics, I wouldn't even call it unethical or a dark pattern. I disagree. Offering your user the option to get on your mailing list is fine. But when you a) shame them if they chose not to, and b) make it significantly harder to find the way to express their "No" choice, it becomes an unethical dark pattern. Arguably, blocking their access to the material you offered them until they make this choice is also dubious.
  - gedrap 10y ago
    >>> shame them if they chose not to It's not unethical to potentially harm your own business. I'd say it's just bad for the business, that's all. Offline companies occasionally run silly/trying to be too clever campaigns. But no one really calls them unethical, as long as they stay clear from potentially discriminating topics. People mock them, but they don't call them unethical. >>> make it significantly harder to find the way to express their "No" choice. I see where you are coming from on this one. But, again, it's not preventing the user to quit using the standard way of quitting.
    - tadfisher 10y ago
      Obviously "No thanks", "Close", "Cancel" and so on are standard mechanisms for dismissing a form. You're arguing that it's standard to make the user read and understand that the funny or insulting quip is the mechanism to close the form. I disagree.
collyw 10y ago
I think even many non techie types have spam emails accounts for signing into crap like this.
alttab 10y ago
"The returns justify the investment!" Where have I heard that before?

xiaoma 10y ago

>"Your average programmer or techie on HN is horrified when prompted to sign up via a pop-up, but many regular users will just comply." ... especially if you shame them into it!

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

gedrap 10y ago

Exactly. >>> Obviously no. Know your audience. But on a regular site? Not doing so is literally leaving money on the table. And that's why they are ubiquitous. This. Most (all?) of the mentioned ones are run by companies, not individuals who are not seeking any profit or anything. In terms of ethics, I wouldn't even call it unethical or a dark pattern. Some sneaky checkbox to receive spam is bad. Sneaky checkbox for addon when purchasing is horribly bad. But pop up with email field? Nope. Calling it ethical decision is a stretch. Worst case scenario - you close the tab and move on with your life. If anyone loses then it's the business, not you. At the end, it's a business decision whether it's worth annoying some users in order to extract more value later from a fraction of them and it's the users choice to accept or not. It's a personal choice, to each their own. You think the UX is so crap because of it and surely something better can be done? Take it as a business opportunity!

Sir_Substance 10y ago
>Nope. Calling it ethical decision is a stretch. Worst case scenario - you close the tab and move on with your life. If anyone loses then it's the business, not you. So here's the thing: That's a perfectly reasonable standpoint, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to run your website like this, you lose the moral highground to declare it wrong when I order my browser to automatically disassemble their website and strip out all their cookies, all their ads and all their popups. You are also the one that has to answer to your peers if I just leave those tools running out of sheer laziness when I go to other, less pernicious websites.
vitd 10y ago
>In terms of ethics, I wouldn't even call it unethical or a dark pattern. I disagree. Offering your user the option to get on your mailing list is fine. But when you a) shame them if they chose not to, and b) make it significantly harder to find the way to express their "No" choice, it becomes an unethical dark pattern. Arguably, blocking their access to the material you offered them until they make this choice is also dubious.
- gedrap 10y ago
  >>> shame them if they chose not to It's not unethical to potentially harm your own business. I'd say it's just bad for the business, that's all. Offline companies occasionally run silly/trying to be too clever campaigns. But no one really calls them unethical, as long as they stay clear from potentially discriminating topics. People mock them, but they don't call them unethical. >>> make it significantly harder to find the way to express their "No" choice. I see where you are coming from on this one. But, again, it's not preventing the user to quit using the standard way of quitting.
  - tadfisher 10y ago
    Obviously "No thanks", "Close", "Cancel" and so on are standard mechanisms for dismissing a form. You're arguing that it's standard to make the user read and understand that the funny or insulting quip is the mechanism to close the form. I disagree.

collyw 10y ago

I think even many non techie types have spam emails accounts for signing into crap like this.

alttab 10y ago

"The returns justify the investment!" Where have I heard that before?