The problem with pop-up/under ads and obnoxious Flash banner ads (which lead to system alert pop-ups for those who don't have the correct plug-ins installed) and other intrusive advertising tactics -- besides slowing page-load times -- is that they just plain make people mad.

Everyone knows this. Even the advertisers who use them know this, but for them the small click-through rate is enough to outweigh ad-space costs and therefore enough to outweigh the costs of angering everyone else.

Note I said "for them" the gains outweigh the costs.

I have no formal research to support the following claim, however based on my own experience, observation and hundreds of e-mails from angry readers, I hypothesize that most users direct their outrage at the site sponsoring the ads, not the advertisers themselves.

Maybe it's the inconvenience, maybe it's the lack of respect for personal space or maybe all of the above plus more. Regardless, your users see the infringement as your choice. Your inability to bring in revenue honorably. Your failure to meet their needs. The advertisers may be paying to put the ads there -- heck, maybe that's even smart business on their part -- but you let them do it.

I've barred a number of sites from my daily surfing routine because of advertising tactics, yet I can't name a single advertiser on any of those sites. And Netflix seems to recognize this. While the company regularly pays for pop-under advertising on other sites, I've never seen such tactics used on its own site.

So what about your company? Are you making enough money in the deal to outweigh the costs of angering your users? Are the unmarked ad-links in your content space jeopardizing your credibility? If you look past short term gains in ad revenue, it may not be worth lost users and damaged reputation in the long run.

March 17, 2003