 |
|
FEATURES
GUIDES
RESOURCES
MEDIA BUSINESS
ABOUT US
 |
|
Each issue of CMO Close-up features an interview with a CMO, as well as other marketing executives answering that issue's "Big Question."
This week's feature:
Close-up with Laura Howard, CMO, ECI Telecom
|
|
|
|
|
|
LinkedIn: Internet users frustrated by advertising characteristics
Christopher Hosford
Story posted: July 24, 2009 - 1:22 pm EDT
|
Rochester, N.Y.—Internet users find many characteristics of Internet advertising, including expanding and pop-up ads, a big turnoff, according to a new study by professional networking site LinkedIn.
According to an online survey of 2,025 adults, conducted in June by the LinkedIn Research Network and Harris Poll, 80% of respondents said they find ads that expand on the page and cover content very frustrating, while 79% become extremely annoyed with ads that hide “close” or “skip” buttons.
In addition, slightly more than three-quarters of Internet users (76%) find Internet ads that automatically pop up very frustrating, while 66% have the same negative reaction to ads that open if they are moused over. Three in five find animated ads that start playing automatically to be annoying, the same percentage that are vexed by ads that play music or have loud sound tracks.
LinkedIn noted the danger of a backlash against such ad practices and said Internet advertisers must come up with more engaging ways to connect with consumers.
|
7 Comments
1 through 7
Eddie Bryant
FMB Advertising/VP Marketing
July 24, 2009 02:41 pm
Does 'annoyed' equate to 'I'll never visit this site again?' If not, what REAL incentive is there for a web advertiser to change her/his evil ways?
Molly
July 24, 2009 03:38 pm
To Eddie's point, I wouldn't necessarily equate "annoyed" with "I'll never visit this site again," but I would equate it with "I'm so annoyed with this ad and I'm focusing so hard on making it go away that I don't even know what the ad is for." If there are more who think that way, then I think that there is incentive for web advertisers to rethink their approach.
Pat
July 24, 2009 04:44 pm
They had to conduct a study to realize this?? It is annoying to most anyone.
Sunny
July 24, 2009 05:01 pm
Love Pat's reply. Seriously, why waste money on a study of what's so obvious.
@Molly .. notice consciously or not, I believe there would be subliminal perception. I agree, unless annoyed equates to I'll never visit, there is no incentive to change this practice.
Hazza
July 25, 2009 02:43 am
@Molly + Sunny
I hear you both - this article is a piece of shit.
"LinkedIn noted the danger of a backlash against such ad practices" seriously..an intern must have wrote this. Backlash...really? are they suggesting we are going to march on parliament to demand it stops. Folks an extra click to get rid of something is a small price to pay for the engaging (or otherwise) content on the site.
it is like an insert on a newspaper, you have to expend all of half a second to put it somewhere so you can continue reading your newspaper, but it helps to reduce the cost of your newspaper to a reasonable price.
what's the big deal? write some bloody stories that have interest or are less obvious like the percentage of people cancel their RSS feed based on the number of shite stories written by interns they get through it. In fact what about the number of people who cannot be bothered to unsubscribe because it takes 18 times longer to do it than it does to close an annoying ad on a website.
niko
July 25, 2009 04:47 am
In my case "annoyed" means "add this site to the black list and never bother again". Full stop.
That's when JavaScript comes in very handy...
There is a bunch of clever and dirty developers creating all sorts of banners but then there is a bunch of smart programmers who are already providing the weapons to avoid them.
I think this study is a good thing. It is pretty obvious that the majority of the people will find those adverts *very* annoying (so as not to get back to those sites -- as I personally do).
This is a rotund *no* to bad/intrusive advertising. The message is clear. Hopefully the offending advertisers will get the point...
The internet is world-wide and there is a lot of competition (i.e. freedom). If you are bothered by the ads on some site you have the freedom, and the ability, to go somewhere else.
Stephen Wade
Director of Marketing, Sewell Shutters, Inc.
July 27, 2009 11:08 am
Personally, I don't care to be interrupted when I'm actively working on something. If I'm consciously researching a topic and taking an active role in following links, a pop-up interrupts my journey, and that annoys me. I close it and move on.
Newspaper/Magazine ads are different for me. When I pick up Business Week for example, it's a much more passive environment. I don't know what I'll find when I begin reading, so an unexpected ad isn't seen as an interruption, and I find myself reading them with more interest - especially if they're well designed. Also, since I usually save magazines for at least a week, I see the same advertisements in a passive environment again and again. The company/product/service represented is more inclined to stay with me because a) I was introduced to it in a passive environment b) I've seen the same ad multiple times.
Overall, I think that while pop up ads may help a company achieve some short-term sales, they turn off many more consumers than they convert. I would shy away from that strategy.
1 through 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
