|
|
|
Annoying ‘spam’ and ‘pop-up’ ads
I don’t think anybody likes advertisements that spring up on ones computer screen, blocking view of the internet. And, likewise, “spams” — unsolicited messages are not only annoyingbut at times frustrating.
I wonder, if internet uses backhome have the same problem. Here in the US, “spams” and “pop-up” advertisement have become a problem, some of which even have melodies and thunders, moving objects on the screen, obscuring what you have been scribing or reading.
Pop-up ads are used to lure customers, despite complaints by a growing number of internet users who find pop-up ads intrusive.
Plenty of people get aggravated, 78 per cent of web users say pop-ups are “very annoying,” according to a survey by research firm GartnerG2. The ads create a new window, each of which must be closed individually.
When we go to the Dawn website internatinal section, Mr Bonzi pops-up at each opening of a news item. It is not a complaint, we understand, it brings financial benefits. It’s not only a visual distraction but it’s annoying to close them down. Sometimes when you do, another one will pop up. It’s never-ending. But the pop-ups are not going away. They’re growing.
Online pop-up ads increased to 4.9 billion in September 2002 from 1.2 billion in January that year, according to NetRatings AdRelevance, which tracks online campaigns, ad sales and advertiser spending.
Pop-ups and pop-unders, ads not seen until users close their internet browsers, now make up 5 per cent of all internet advertising, up from 1.7 per cent last year, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, a firm that measures internet traffic.
But measures are being taken to thwart the onslaught of pop up ads. In March, America Online launched Web pop-up controls that allow its 35 million users to block most pop-ups and pop-unders. Earthlink, the internet service provider, has also come out with a similar service for its 5 million users in August.
“There are two evil twins out there, pop-ups and spam,” said Earthlink’s vice president of product development. “You don’t have to listen very hard to hear that pop-ups are one of the biggest annoyances.”
As many as 14.9 million people have installed their own ad-blocking software, according to GartnerG2. The software programs, which can be downloaded from the internet, have catchy names like PopUpSmasher, AdsGone and PopUpStopper. They’re available for $10 to $35, and some are free. AdsBeGone is free for 21 days, but then $19.95 to buy the software.
BannerZapper is $12.95. Another one, Panicware, is free through the internet. Plenty of businesses are creating such software, including Sunbelt software. The firm typically makes business software but last month introduced IHatePopUps.
One will see more pop-up ads if one visits specialty websites, such as those featuring home and garden, politics and sports. Pop-ups make up about 20 per cent to 40 per cent of those sites’ ads, according to Nielsen/NetRatings.
By contrast, pop-ups make up only 3 percent of ads on internet search engines and health, shopping and automotive websites.
Travel website Orbitz is one of the internet’s biggest advertisers and relies on pop-unders to get people to come to its site. A number of large companies, including Dove, McDonald’s and American Airlines, are putting more ad dollars to work on the internet, hoping to reach people who don’t watch much TV but have significant buying power, said an analyst with the Aberdeen Group, a market research firm.
They’re also experimenting with “rich media” ads, more animated ads where a Cadillac drives across your computer screen or a video pops up to show a teaser for a new movie.
Another example seen on EyeBlaster.com, an agency that sells the technology for such ads, shows a Snickers candy bar landing on a web page and a cartoon saw cutting through the words on the page and around the candy bar. Both the print on the web page and the candy bar fall into a black hole. The tag line: “Resorting to desperate measures, another unfortunate side effect of hunger.” Next month, Earthlink will introduce software to let subscribers block those kinds of rich media ads too.
Advertisers, however, won’t give up. Consumers want free content online, and that costs money. And advertisers are willing to pay to communicate with you, whether you like it or not.
If you look at advertising, it’s always intrusive. They’re always trying to find a way to capture the eyes of folks. The reality is, that’s marketing.
And now about ‘spams’
Their arrival was steady, sure and annoying. An email account that I hadn’t checked in three weeks was brimming with 309 messages. All but four were spam, also known as unsolicited commercial email. That’s an average of 14 junk e-mails a day. And that’s way too much.
The amount of spam skyrocketed 86 per cent from 2001 to 2002, according to Jupiter Research, with email users in the United States receiving 261 billion spam messages last year.
A Harris Interactive poll, released in January, found that 80 per cent of respondents “find spamming very annoying, a huge increase from the 49 per cent who felt this way two and a half years ago.”
Respondents also said pornographic spam led the list of the most annoying types of junk e-mail, followed by spam about mortgages, loans, investments and real estate.
In the workplace, spam will cost businesses more than $10 billion this year, according to Ferris Research. The figure is based on the use of computing resources to deal with spam, reduced employee productivity, and the cost of e-mail administrator and help-desk personnel time.
Anti-spam filtering soft wares are also available. Sales of anti-spam and content-filtering software are expected to exceed $653 million this year, and increase to nearly $2.4 billion by 2007.
In California, State Sen. Debra Bowen, has introduced, a bill that would outlaw California-based, unsolicited e-mail advertisements and allow recipients to sue the senders for up to $500 for each e-mail received.
There already is a state spam law, which Ms. Bowen helped craft in 1998. That law, however, has not proved to be enough to deal with the deluge - and it’s not certain whether SB 12 would, either.
Existing law says spam must be identified in the subject line of e-mails as an advertisement (“ADV”). Commercial e-mails also have to include a way for recipients to remove their addresses from spam mailing lists.
The reality is that some spammers comply with the advertising alert and provide a way to get off the lists, but most don’t.
While the new law would ban spam, catching and suing the spammers — much less trying to collect any money from them - is another matter.
Many spammers aren’t based in the state, or even in the U.S. and much of this junk e-mail comes from other countries.
In the US it is a Federal Offence to email unsolicited and without an option to “unsubscribe” or “remove” mail. Last week, two US senators have introduced a bill that would require legitimate return addresses on unsolicited commercial email and also mandate that requests to be taken off email lists be honored. Violators could be sued by state attorneys general and fined by the Federal Trade Commission.
Minimizing
Legislation and special software aside, the Centre for Democracy & Technology in Washington, DC, has some suggestions about minimizing spam.
Last summer, the centre set up hundreds of email addresses, then waited six months to see what kind of email those addresses received.
Among the findings and recommendations:
— Email addresses that were posted on websites or in newsgroups drew the most spam. Spammers often use email “harvesting” software to get e-mail addresses from websites. If you put your email address on the web, the CDT suggests spelling it out in “human-readable equivalents.”
For instance, instead of typing “JaneDoe@aol.com,”; type “jane doe at aol dotcom.” Harvesting software has not yet evolved to where it can pick up such an address.
— When you’re filling out online forms, “pay attention to check boxes that request the right to send you e-mails or share your e-mail address” with others.
— Shorter email addresses are “easy to guess, and may receive more spam.”
Consider modifying your e-mail address; it needn’t be “incomprehensible,” says the CDT, but it should be more of a challenge for those spammers who simply try to guess at email addresses.
— Spam filters aren’t perfect, but “can cut down tremendously” on the amount of spam you receive.
Good luck to you all. Here, we are fed up with spams and pop-ups.
The writer
|
|
|
|
