5 ms·

Facebook has far more intrusive ads than myspace did.. I'm pretty sure facebook also makes a lot more from ad revenue, so I'm not sure of your point... "The pr

Facebook has far more intrusive ads than myspace did.. I'm pretty sure facebook also makes a lot more from ad revenue, so I'm not sure of your point... "The prevalence of adblock suggests otherwise." What is it... less than 1% use adblock? hmm FWIW I've been earning a living from online advertising for 10 years. I've run community websites that run adverts, and fielded feedback from users.

mirkules 15y ago
I know next to nothing about advertising online, so please don't think I'm being facetious by asking this: what is the actual rate of display ads vs. people that click and buy stuff directly resulting from that ad? From what I heard it's sub-10% or even 5%. If 5% is considered good, doesn't that say something about advertisements, that is, that 95% of the people _didn't_ follow through, and probably ignored it. This to me screams that there should be a better way to advertise.
- RainFlutter 15y ago
  5% would mean that for every 20 pages viewed on the Internet, advertising is leading someone to make a purchase. I can't imagine that ever happening no matter how fantastic the ads are. Don't think of it as a percentage hit rate; think about how that number fits into the way we use the Internet and live our lives.
- maximusprime 15y ago
  Not really. That's pretty high compared to print advertising, billboards, TV/radio etc.
Goladus 15y ago
> Facebook has far more intrusive ads than myspace did.. MySpace had surprise obnoxious audio ads, MySpace had "punch the monkey and win" flash ads, MySpace had header banners inserted above all of the content you wanted to see. Facebook doesn't do any of that. Their redesigns have all allocated slightly more screen real estate to ads, but it's nowhere close to facebook levels of insanity. Facebook ads conform standards and are specifically unobtrusive, except for newsfeed spam, and plenty of tools are provided to manage that. > What is it... less than 1% use adblock? hmm 1%-2% of people using adblock does not mean 1%-2% of people hate ads. It means that's how many of the people who hate ads have the knowledge, means, and will to do something about it. Given that, 2% is a lot.

mirkules 15y ago

I know next to nothing about advertising online, so please don't think I'm being facetious by asking this: what is the actual rate of display ads vs. people that click and buy stuff directly resulting from that ad? From what I heard it's sub-10% or even 5%. If 5% is considered good, doesn't that say something about advertisements, that is, that 95% of the people _didn't_ follow through, and probably ignored it. This to me screams that there should be a better way to advertise.

RainFlutter 15y ago
5% would mean that for every 20 pages viewed on the Internet, advertising is leading someone to make a purchase. I can't imagine that ever happening no matter how fantastic the ads are. Don't think of it as a percentage hit rate; think about how that number fits into the way we use the Internet and live our lives.
maximusprime 15y ago
Not really. That's pretty high compared to print advertising, billboards, TV/radio etc.

Goladus 15y ago

> Facebook has far more intrusive ads than myspace did.. MySpace had surprise obnoxious audio ads, MySpace had "punch the monkey and win" flash ads, MySpace had header banners inserted above all of the content you wanted to see. Facebook doesn't do any of that. Their redesigns have all allocated slightly more screen real estate to ads, but it's nowhere close to facebook levels of insanity. Facebook ads conform standards and are specifically unobtrusive, except for newsfeed spam, and plenty of tools are provided to manage that. > What is it... less than 1% use adblock? hmm 1%-2% of people using adblock does not mean 1%-2% of people hate ads. It means that's how many of the people who hate ads have the knowledge, means, and will to do something about it. Given that, 2% is a lot.