The New York Times has an article about how the Internet advertising industry is looking to place fewer fancy interactive ads. Hmmm… I wonder why that is. The article has a lot of theories:
“The new advertisers are more cautious about requiring some sort of proof or evidence that something is working,” said Paul Iaffaldano, executive vice president and general manager of the Weather Channel Media Solutions. Existing clients, he said, are continuing to spend, just not at the same pace.
So advertisers want to be convinced these ads are actually working before they spend money on them. Makes some sense. If I was an advertiser, I’d be going even further. Maybe advertisers ought to consider trying to read a web page that’s been crippled by an advertisement. Maybe they should try to read a 12-page article that takes 30 minutes to load because of those fancy interactive ads. And maybe they should consider how easy it is for readers to install software that blocks those annoying ads.
You know, I never minded discreet advertisements peppered even fairly liberally around the web pages I read. I figured if I was getting the web page for free, the least I could do was to peruse the ads. But when the latest crop of ads started making web pages load slower, I installed adblock and never looked back.
I’d be interested to see statistics on how many people use ad blocking software. I wouldn’t be surprised if the upturn in adblocking software mirrored advertisers increasing disinterest in fancy ads that disrupt readers’ browsing experience.