4 ms·

Exactly. The more unintrusive the better. Frankly, I'd rather have subtle, subliminal messaging then to be interrupted by an advertisement. Youtube interrupts

Exactly. The more unintrusive the better. Frankly, I'd rather have subtle, subliminal messaging then to be interrupted by an advertisement. Youtube interrupts with ads whereas I believe they used to front load the ads at the beginnng. I'd be way more inclined to respond favoribly to an ad for which I don't already have a negative association: breaking the flow of something I'm already watching. I can't imagine anyone getting interrupted then buying the product who's advertising just abruptly interrupted something. I wonder how the analytics work on ads meaning what do they consider a success? Just that the ad played? Some action by the user?

zaarn 8y ago
Frontloading is still a bit annoying IMO but much better than interruptions. If it needs to be a spot ad or sponsorship shoutout then it should IMO be at the end. Lots of youtubers do that and I usually already tuned out when it gets to that point so it'll only hit interested people.
JadeNB 8y ago
> Youtube interrupts with ads whereas I believe they used to front load the ads at the beginnng. I'd be way more inclined to respond favoribly to an ad for which I don't already have a negative association: breaking the flow of something I'm already watching. Just like web browsing after ad blocking as compared to before, I've found that using youtube-dl (https://youtube-dl.org https://youtube-dl.org) just a few times has made me way less patient with this junk whenever I accidentally navigate to the official site. > I can't imagine anyone getting interrupted then buying the product who's advertising just abruptly interrupted something. I wonder how the analytics work on ads meaning what do they consider a success? Just that the ad played? Some action by the user? My impression has always been that there is almost no visible penalty for failure in advertising—you can't easily track the people who didn't buy your product because of an irritating ad—that even what must be the tiny success rate is deemed worth the investment. (I think that also advertisers are in the same boat, relative to this, as consumers are: we want our products cheap, and manufacturers would rather keep them apparently cheap by loading hidden costs (like data gathering and advertising) on us than actually charge us what they're work; and advertisers, presumably, want their ads to work, so the networks would rather use whatever extreme and scummy trick is available if it appears to give them a short-term advantage over other networks than acknowledge the ineffectiveness of that technique.)
- zaarn 8y ago
  Advertisers to tend to measure how many people are turned of by their ads. Atleast the ones that care. The lower bidders (ie the scum of the internet) who sell ads for the absolute lowest price. They usually don't offer any clickthrough analysis, it's just a place to dump your ad into. Quality advertisers will tell you if an ad sucks and is annoying potential customers (they measure accept/ignore/deny rates of ads). The internet is a great tool to have a product offering race to absolute zero in both price, features and quality
  - JadeNB 8y ago
    > Advertisers to tend to measure how many people are turned of by their ads. Atleast the ones that care. How? If I don't respond to your ad, then how do you know whether it's because I just wasn't interested, or because I was interested and your ad removed that interest? That is, in this language: > Quality advertisers will tell you if an ad sucks and is annoying potential customers (they measure accept/ignore/deny rates of ads). how can you tell the difference between 'ignore' and 'deny'? (I think particularly of Pandora, which plays the same ad over and over and over and over. I don't mind it once, but, the more I hear it, the more I vow never to use the advertised company; yet I have no choice but to sit through it. How can any company measure the negative effect they're having on me in this way?)
    - zaarn 8y ago
      How long you stay on a site or focus on the page with the ad visible can determine this somewhat. If you quickly scroll by once the ad becomes visible and this behaviour is consistent with other pages with the same ad, then you're probably not showing a good ad. Additionally advertisers do have surveys where users are asked about this (usually not many but sufficient to get a first guess). On youtube the example would be the ratio of people clicking the ad, people letting the ad play out and people skipping it (and then likely also measuring how long it takes for them to click skip once it's available).
      - JadeNB 8y ago

zaarn 8y ago

Frontloading is still a bit annoying IMO but much better than interruptions. If it needs to be a spot ad or sponsorship shoutout then it should IMO be at the end. Lots of youtubers do that and I usually already tuned out when it gets to that point so it'll only hit interested people.

JadeNB 8y ago

> Youtube interrupts with ads whereas I believe they used to front load the ads at the beginnng. I'd be way more inclined to respond favoribly to an ad for which I don't already have a negative association: breaking the flow of something I'm already watching. Just like web browsing after ad blocking as compared to before, I've found that using youtube-dl (https://youtube-dl.org https://youtube-dl.org) just a few times has made me way less patient with this junk whenever I accidentally navigate to the official site. > I can't imagine anyone getting interrupted then buying the product who's advertising just abruptly interrupted something. I wonder how the analytics work on ads meaning what do they consider a success? Just that the ad played? Some action by the user? My impression has always been that there is almost no visible penalty for failure in advertising—you can't easily track the people who didn't buy your product because of an irritating ad—that even what must be the tiny success rate is deemed worth the investment. (I think that also advertisers are in the same boat, relative to this, as consumers are: we want our products cheap, and manufacturers would rather keep them apparently cheap by loading hidden costs (like data gathering and advertising) on us than actually charge us what they're work; and advertisers, presumably, want their ads to work, so the networks would rather use whatever extreme and scummy trick is available if it appears to give them a short-term advantage over other networks than acknowledge the ineffectiveness of that technique.)

zaarn 8y ago
Advertisers to tend to measure how many people are turned of by their ads. Atleast the ones that care. The lower bidders (ie the scum of the internet) who sell ads for the absolute lowest price. They usually don't offer any clickthrough analysis, it's just a place to dump your ad into. Quality advertisers will tell you if an ad sucks and is annoying potential customers (they measure accept/ignore/deny rates of ads). The internet is a great tool to have a product offering race to absolute zero in both price, features and quality
- JadeNB 8y ago
  > Advertisers to tend to measure how many people are turned of by their ads. Atleast the ones that care. How? If I don't respond to your ad, then how do you know whether it's because I just wasn't interested, or because I was interested and your ad removed that interest? That is, in this language: > Quality advertisers will tell you if an ad sucks and is annoying potential customers (they measure accept/ignore/deny rates of ads). how can you tell the difference between 'ignore' and 'deny'? (I think particularly of Pandora, which plays the same ad over and over and over and over. I don't mind it once, but, the more I hear it, the more I vow never to use the advertised company; yet I have no choice but to sit through it. How can any company measure the negative effect they're having on me in this way?)
  - zaarn 8y ago
    How long you stay on a site or focus on the page with the ad visible can determine this somewhat. If you quickly scroll by once the ad becomes visible and this behaviour is consistent with other pages with the same ad, then you're probably not showing a good ad. Additionally advertisers do have surveys where users are asked about this (usually not many but sufficient to get a first guess). On youtube the example would be the ratio of people clicking the ad, people letting the ad play out and people skipping it (and then likely also measuring how long it takes for them to click skip once it's available).
    - JadeNB 8y ago