Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

advertising getting out of hand on BMG

By

It appears that even more space is being taken up by ads lately.  Many ads seem to be deliberately long from top to bottom and repetitive between diaries, which calls for additional scrolling.  My biggest complaint though is that on the front page I’m often redirected to a full screen ad for a service called “my web face” which appears to be a tool bar that allows you to make a cartoon rendition of your portrait.  Sometimes, despite hitting the back arrow it repeatedly redirects me there.  It only seems to happen on my desktop, though; my laptop doesn’t seem to have this problem.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Soapblox sometimes gets confused when serving up flash.  It happens on RMG from time to time as well.  

    • I was traveling and goggling various things – the ads now know where I am, they have got my tracks – creepy.

      <

      p>But if you are an advertiser great.

      <

      p>Soapbox must use some sort of google ad words.

      • …for Alexa’s gourmet onion rings.  There’s nothing related on any post or in my search history.

        • I’m looking at an ad for tablecloths – and I googled this topic a few days ago.

          <

          p>Not all of the ads are targeted

  2. I was going to comment that I don’t like seeing ads above the fold in every last front page thread, but now I see that that has stopped, so thank you.

  4. but it does take a few minutes to load the page as I watch a multitude of cookies being dropped onto my computer. And true for me as well, it does make me more reluctant to visit here. One time I was redirected by Internet Explorer telling me it was unsafe to visit this site.  I don’t appreciate all of the tracking cookies.  When I call someone, I don’t expect that there are hundreds of advertisers tuning in to hear my conversation so they know which ads to mail me.  I don’t appreciate this on the internet at all.  It’s not just BMG, but other sites as well.

    • …the stupid cartoon-y thing hijacked me!  That’s when it seems to strike – when you try to expand a diary.

      <

      p>Trend has started blocking BMG as a dangerous site because of the cartoon thing.  And David – fwiw, the cartoon folk have never appeared on RMG.

    • The ads are up to finance the website that is provided for FREE to the public. By using Adblock, you’re cheating BMG out of revenue from Google ads, which I equate to stealing. You’re using BMG for free while the rest of us see ads.

      <

      p>Do I like the ads? No. Do I understand they are necessary to keep BMG free? Yes. Would I be willing to contribute towards the expenses of the website instead of ads? Yes.

      • …than watching PBS but not pledging, or flipping through a magazine without stopping to look at the ads.  At least a magazine won’t magically flip the page back on you to make sure you see its ad.

        • PBS is partially financed by taxpayer dollars, so I don’t feel bad about that. It’s not a huge amount of money, but enough to anger the right wing…

          <

          p>and a Magazine? YOU PAID for the magazine. The advertiser PAID to be in the magazine. The magazine makes money regardless of whether or not you buy. BMG makes no money unless the ads appear.

          <

          p>I do agree that a full screen-changing-webpage ad is annoying, but I have yet to get one here.

          • Surely you realize that public stations only get a small portion of their revenue from government subsidies. The bulk of their funding comes from private donations without which they would shut down.

            <

            p>Once again, why should it be my business to worry about the details of how any given website makes money?

            <

            p>

            • It’s not a huge amount of money, but enough to anger the right wing…

              <

              p>That was my poor way of conveying that, should have said it differently. It was in response to Christopher’s comment about watching PBS but not pledging, because we all are paying a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny amount towards PBS.

              <

              p>To answer why should you care how BMG makes money, see my comment below:

              <

              p>

              I simply feel like BMG provides a great service to the progressives/liberals/Democrats of Massachusetts, and that everyone should do their part to give the site owners the opportunity to offset their expenses. While people have the option of not reading BMG, there really is no “elsewhere” for the diverse content available on this site.

      • One thing advertisers know is that people try to avoid ads. There’s a famous dictum about half the ad budget being wasted, but no one knows which half.

        <

        p>I don’t use adblock. Things with ads look weird without them for some reason, like the announcerless football game (yes, there was one, exactly one — it was creepy).

      • First, I absolutely promise that I am highly unlikely to buy anything I see in a web ad, so no advertiser is missing out on a sale because I didn’t see their ad here.

        <

        p>Second, I really hate web ads and wouldn’t frequent any site that forced me to look at ads. Is it better to scare away readers?

        <

        p>Third, the content here is provided by visitors to the site. How much do we get paid for this?

        <

        p>Fourth, do you think it is “stealing” to skip over a commercial for a TV program you have recorded on your DVR?

        <

        p>It is totally reasonable to try to raise revenue through advertising, but it is also totally reasonable to not want to see the ads because no one comes to this site for the ads.  That is a problem for all advertising mediums.

        <

        p>DailyKos lets you pay money to turn off ads by purchasing a “subscription” at $4/month, $40/year, or $100/lifetime. I bought the last one.

        • The difference between webads here and TV commercials is simple: The television stations are getting paid to run the ad, while BMG is getting paid per click. I don’t want to buy any of the crap on here either, but I occasionally click the ads to send a few pennies to BMG.

          <

          p>So in short, when you fast forward over commercials on your DVR, you’re denying the advertiser the ability to lure you in to buy, but the TV station still gets paid. When you block the ads on BMG, BMG has no chance of getting paid.

          <

          p>I’d happily pay per month or year or lifetime to support BMG, but in the meantime I’d like to give them the opportunity to not have to reach too deep into their own pockets.

          • It’s not fair to be paid per click when most of us, most of the time won’t click.  Rather than letting Google figure it out and having the ads be so random, advertisers should be solicited based on what a BMG audience might actually want to see.  I would target Democratic campaigns and progressive causes to buy ad space.  Even then I still prefer keeping to the margins rather than being in my face.

          • For one thing, DVRs do in fact depress the value of ads on TV. Yes, ad slots get sold regardless of whether people watch, but the prices they fetch aren’t as high. For another thing, both TV and web sites suffer the same penalty for too many ads: if people get sick of the ads, they will switch to another channel/web site. There are plenty of other places to waste time in either medium.

            <

            p>I also find it strange that you seem to be extending the moral responsibility not only to view the ads, but to also click on them in order to get revenue for BMG. So am I stealing if I refuse to click on the ads? If they only get revenue from clicks then what is the difference between not viewing ads, and viewing them without clicking? Your logic is muddled.

            <

            p>I also don’t see why it is my moral responsibility to know the details of BMG’s advertising contracts.

            <

            p>The fact is that if they really wanted to, they could implement the site in Flash in such a way that it would not be feasible to block ads. Or they could force everyone to pay a small subscription fee in order to get posting privileges.  

            <

            p>There are plenty of ways for them to get revenue, if their current advertising scheme is not breaking even, but that is their choice to make.

              • You seem to be upset that everyone is not congratulating you on your excellent opinion. What do you really expect when you go over the top and declare that ad blocking is “stealing”?

                <

                p>BTW, are you “stealing” from advertisers when you click on ads just to send revenue to BMG with no intention of considering purchasing something from the advertiser?

                • I was having a crappy afternoon, took a break to finish my sandwich and log onto BMG, and became incredibly frustrated when I couldn’t get my point across in words. After several attempts, I just deleted what I had written and left the above comment. Needless to say, it didn’t help my afternoon.

                  <

                  p>I’ve since had a chance to relax.

                  <

                  p>I simply feel like BMG provides a great service to the progressives/liberals/Democrats of Massachusetts, and that everyone should do their part to give the site owners the opportunity to offset their expenses. While people have the option of not reading BMG, there really is no “elsewhere” for the diverse content available on this site.

                  <

                  p>Your “BTW” point is well taken, BTW.

                • and would hate to see it go away, but as long as there are enough of us who care about it, there will always be some way to pay for its upkeep.

      • I am not a fan of pop-up ads, but having been involved in internet advertising myself I simply click on the ad, wait for it to load and then close it.  More revenue for BMG (or RMG) and takes about the same amount of time.

      •  * I mute television commercials and look elsewhere
        * I read the Metro and other free papers and don’t look at the ads
        * When a commercial comes on the radio, I switch stations
        * I only look into the eyes of those people who stand at corners with sandwich board signs hanging from suspenders
        * I use adblock plus

        <

        p>I mean, taking it to the logical conclusion, if we never buy things in the ads, then the companies will go out of business and we’ll lose BMG.  Therefore, we should feel obligated to buy the stuff, right?  Otherwise, we’re stealing.

        <

        p>Barf.

        • But in all of those scenarios, aside from the sandwich board and adblock, the medium being used for advertising is making money. No ads on BMG = no money for BMG.

          • Either other BMG readers provide the ad revenue, or BMG goes to a subscription model, or BMG Editors take a small financial loss in running the site, or BMG Editors shut it down, or BMG Editors solicit donations in articles, or BMG Editors solicit donations off line.  All of those are fine by me.  I’ll still block ads.

  7. … as long as they don’t take up to much space and especially as long as they don’t wink, blink, strobe, flash or otherwise puke some animation at me.  I come here to read.  There are other sites for video and other sides for flashing lighted-up animation.   When I want to see those things, I go to those sites.  When I want to read and engage other actual humans, I come here.  

    • … I don’t mind ads if they’re not intrusive or otherwise make the act of reading this blog onerous.  I think this particular diary is a warning just ahead of that tipping point.

      <

      p>I would be more likely, nay willing even, to patronize the advertisers if they stopped trying to treat me as a mere pair of reflexive eyeballs while they impede my enjoyment of this blog with some garish attempt at an attention grab. Yuck.  

      <

      p>For example, I used to greatly enjoy Pandora.com.  I think their base model is unsurpassed and provided a great deal of enjoyment.  But it is internet radio and I found the value greatly decreased once they introduced video ads that, every few songs, grabbed the focus of my browser, automatically raised the volume of my speakers and splashed some bright whoo-haa at me.  It wasn’t just the audacity of the ads, but the juxtaposition and context switch the ruined the flow of whatever it was I was doing when the ads came along as well as the sheer disconnect between the background music and the foreground ads: it was like eating a very well made pizza where some of the pepperonis were randomly exchanged for large slabs of re-inforced concrete.  So I don’t listen to Pandora.com anymore.  I could have purchased a an ad-free subscription, but decided against it, reasoning that anybody who would so dichotomize their free offering would be likely to mess up their subscriptions too.

      <

      p>The point is, if you introduce ads that impede the flow of whatever it is that makes this site enjoyable… well… there you have it.  Much better to have ads, if you must have ads at all, that fit into the flow of the site.  

  11. All the ads I get were for the Chicago mayoral campaigns and seemed to know I was in Chicago, I am not sure if thats because of my IP address or if its because I occasionally type ‘chicago’ in my posts every now and then. Either way its creepy. Also a really creepy picture of Boehner keeps coming in and out of the main page, sometimes blocking the main articles. Anyway the editors have heard us and I trust they will fix the more egregious ones. My take, a good reform would be keeping ads in the left and right hand margins, get rid of the ads that are in the center of the page where diaries and posts would be.  

Archives