Full Frontal Marketing Assault

greeneagle · #1 (**permalink**) 11-29-2004, 12:07 PM

Microsoft Challenges Google Adsense

The latest version of XP service pack portends a bar that disallows "Blocked Content" without a second viewer step requiring another button push to view "GOOGLE Ads" on any Site when using IE! What do you know about that?

It aggrivates the bejeevers out of me!

Will it backfire on them?

Will the next update bring more "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheep"?

Their new SE is coming on strong in the acceptance arena, but is it time to assume such an austere position this near to a full frontal marketing assault? Will it drive more users to alternative browsers?

Ken

activeco · #2 (**permalink**) 11-29-2004, 01:05 PM

Many others have similar features, Norton among them.
Norton changed the default to "enable ads", hopefuly others will follow.

greeneagle · #3 (**permalink**) 11-29-2004, 01:15 PM

If I were CEO of either leading "Security Firm" I would be "making pretty" for a lucrative Microsoft buy-out too!

Ken

pdstein · #4 (**permalink**) 11-29-2004, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greeneagle

The latest version of XP service pack portends a bar that disallows "Blocked Content" without a second viewer step requiring another button push to view "GOOGLE Ads" on any Site when using IE! What do you know about that?

It aggrivates the bejeevers out of me!

This may be what threw me for a loop this weekend. I sell advertising on my site (not google ads). I was visiting my parents for Thanksgiving and was surprised to see all the ads missing from the site. I thought there was a problem with my site until I hooked up my laptop and saw the ads there just fine.

Does anyone know...

When did this service pack become available?

Where is the option to enable/disable this "blocked content" once the XP service pack has been installed?

And if anyone knows how to design advertising to circumvent the ad blocker, please let me know. Hopefully it's something as simple as changing the URL of the ad management software.

greeneagle · #5 (**permalink**) 11-29-2004, 03:29 PM

enable/disable? - I haven't seen it, though it may be there!

Ken

pdstein · #6 (**permalink**) 11-29-2004, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greeneagle

enable/disable? - I haven't seen it, though it may be there!

So, they it just blocks whatever content it feels like without giving the user any options???

If that's the case, that is deceptive and completely unethical. When people view websites they expect to see what the owner of the site put on the site, not some arbitrarily modified version of the site. I am surprised there isn't more outrage over this.

sfowler · #7 (**permalink**) 11-29-2004, 05:24 PM

I think people are sick of seeing banners, pop-ups and various other adverts on half the sites they view. I am quite pleased to be able to block it, and would never dream of pressing something to see adverts I don't want. Do you open your junk mail? Do you view every email?

pdstein · #8 (**permalink**) 11-29-2004, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfowler

I think people are sick of seeing banners, pop-ups and various other adverts on half the sites they view. I am quite pleased to be able to block it, and would never dream of pressing something to see adverts I don't want. Do you open your junk mail? Do you view every email?

Suppressing unsolicited email is a completely seperate issue from giving an unsuspecting visitor altered content of a website. First of all, some people actually appreciate non-intrusive, relevant ads (like the ads on this site). Second, this apparently removes the choice to see those ads from the user, and control should always be in the hands of the user. Third, it has the potential to intentionally or unintentionally block non-advertising portions of web pages.

This is less analogous to blocking junk email and more analogous to living in an apartment building where the building manager cut the ads out of everyone's newspaper each morning before it could be delivered.
[/b]

tcampione · #9 (**permalink**) 11-29-2004, 06:09 PM

XP Service Pack 2 updates IE with a popup blocker and does include a more robust content filter, but the content filter is not new and I can’t imagine it having anything whatsoever with AdWords. The content filter is for language, nudity, sex and violence. . . .but not advertising. To set the level, go to Tools, and the Content tab.

The only software I know of that blocks AdWords is Norton Internet Security 2004. By default, ad blocking is turned on. To turn it off, go to Options, and Miscellaneous (if I remember correctly.)

If you don’t see AdWords, or if there are no AdWords titles, chances are good you’re using NIS 2004.

beanstalk · #10 (**permalink**) 11-29-2004, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfowler

I think people are sick of seeing banners, pop-ups and various other adverts on half the sites they view. I am quite pleased to be able to block it, and would never dream of pressing something to see adverts I don't want. Do you open your junk mail? Do you view every email?

I think it's a fantastic notion to give people the OPTION to block such ads however to do it by default is just wrong.

I'll give old MS props for coming up with yet another means of screwing over their competition without actually killing anyone but good God. I don't even do much PPC and this bugs me.

All it would take is a simple popup after install explaining the function and allowing the user the opportunity to say "Yes" or "No", telling them the risks in regards to missing actual content, and outlining how to change this setting in the future and all would be appeased.

Like your point with the email, probably 90% of people would still block the ads but at least we would have a choice.

Kellare · #11 (**permalink**) 11-29-2004, 08:01 PM

Firefox has some nice add-ons to stop ad's and images n stuff appearing, works like a charm.

activeco · #12 (**permalink**) 11-30-2004, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kellare

Firefox has some nice add-ons to stop ad's and images n stuff appearing, works like a charm.

Uhm...

No ads = no money
No money = no TV, no cheap newspapers, no radio ... should I mention our (quality :) ) sites?

Or do we have to start charging per view?

greeneagle · #13 (**permalink**) 12-03-2004, 09:56 AM

tcampione:

"The content filter is for language, nudity, sex and violence. . . .but not advertising."
________________

When I updated to SP2 (not long ago) the default was to install a secondary bar that pops up with an anoying "bleep" that warns when any "active content" hits the browser, including js and GOOGLE Adwords on any Site.

Ken

activeco · #14 (**permalink**) 12-03-2004, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdstein

Suppressing unsolicited email is a completely seperate issue from giving an unsuspecting visitor altered content of a website.

Fully agreed.
In fact, it even touches copyright issues, in some way.
Could you imagine a revolutionary TV set - blocking commercials?

P.S Xcuse my ignorance, I just found info about v-chip, back from 1998!

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/980806.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20020514-2163.html

What happened to these things?

hal · #15 (**permalink**) 12-03-2004, 06:06 PM

Has anyone thought about this one?

If your browser blocks ads, does it still count as an "exposure" when the s.e. reports activity to the adveretiser?

Hal

Gootch · #16 (**permalink**) 12-03-2004, 06:14 PM

Again... refer to the article i posted quite a while back...

Firefox May Actually Be the Devil - http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...808&highlight=

by the sounds of it, Norton might also be in bed with satan! ;)

Jumbuck · #17 (**permalink**) 12-03-2004, 06:23 PM

Bloody good job if you ask me.

The profiliation of the Google adds across the net is nothing more than degrading the value of the internet. You see them everywhere and they are beginning to mean very little. As time goes by they will mean even less.

I mean, just stop and think about this from a non-google-brainwashed point of view. They are adds. Read this again. ADDS. Who really goes to a website with the intention to see adds - this may come as a shock but the answer is hardly anyone.

Google has been in slow decline for about six months now as more and more SEO's start to realise that Goggle is just another search engine and one that is hoplessly inconsistant in its search results. Nothing is assurred which is part of the strategy to keep you all on your toes. Well my advice is get off your toes and stand on your own two feet with Google.

I have numerous sites, many are located in the top ten of all other search engines. With the allinachor:keyword search in Google they are all within the top 10 using numerous keywords, but in normal search results they are no where to be found. Some say its the "sandbox" effect, but the point is Google=inaccuracy and poor results. And to think they have got all you on a string pushing and shoving their bloody adds for them is nothing short of amazing.

I am hoping Microsoft can create and fine tune their IE product to block every Google add from even displaying. Spam mail, pop ups and google adds, THEY ARE ALL ADDS for goodness sake.

The bottom line is people have the RIGHT not to have to see adds coming up on their screen. And who really can argue against that!!

Power to Microsoft to develop something that helps stop bloddy adds from ruining our lives!!!!!!

tcampione · #18 (**permalink**) 12-03-2004, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greeneagle

When I updated to SP2 (not long ago) the default was to install a secondary bar that pops up with an anoying "bleep" that warns when any "active content" hits the browser, including js and GOOGLE Adwords on any Site.Ken

That's the popup blocker. Clearly, it is for popup windows. But, I can't imagine it being responsible for not displaying AdWords.

There have been many PC articles regarding this long overdue addition to IE, and many critics of IE's less than robust controlhave spoken out. But, nothing I've run across mentions anything about AdWords. I use XP SP2 with IE's blocker setting (Tools>Popup Blocker>Settings) on maximum protection (kill all windows) and have no problem displaying AdWords.

The only AdWords issue I know of is with Norton Internet Security. Very strange indeed. . .

/*tom*/

Gootch · #19 (**permalink**) 12-03-2004, 07:10 PM

Quote:

They are adds. Read this again. ADDS.

First of all,,, ADS, not ADDS... we're not doing math here...

Secondly... ads were never meant to be the main intent to visit a website... (non-intrusive) ads that are relevant to the content of a website should be welcomed... you never know when you will find a site that you actually find useful.

Only companies who believe that their content is useful to others will pay for advertising. For example, I don't pay to advertise crappy sites that I know will never fly or will not make me a lot of money even if they do... it's for those who actually believe in their product enough to pay.

Now if these companies who provide "Google Adsense" were stripped of their right to build a website and have it viewed the way they intended, you would find that not only the publishers would go out of business... but the advertisers would also be blown out of the water.

Not to mention if relevant ads were blocked, Google would be out of business... stock holders would "sell sell sell!" on the news that "Browser with 99% market share stops displaying Google Ads (a large source of google's income)"

I realize you have a grudge against Google for not displaying your page in the top 10, but (in my opinion) google is much better at finding websites that are actually what people want to see than any others such as Yahoo.

Its my opinion, but from my experience, Yahoo only seems to care about content rather than backlinks from reputable sites(which i believe are a great signs that the website in question is acutally good).

Only caring about content lets the spammers easily create sites that are very attractive to search engines, and the quality of those sites in the top 10 are MUCH lower than the ones you would find on a search engine such as Google.

strum4life · #20 (**permalink**) 12-03-2004, 07:36 PM

At first I freaked out about this post because Adsense is a decent part of my revenue. On the other hand, any negative effect on my personal Adsense revenue will have a much larger impact on Google's revenue. I hope Google finds away around the XP block.

cbp · #21 (**permalink**) 12-03-2004, 07:40 PM

Quote:

I hope Google finds away around the XP block.

XP is not blocking google ads. Where did you read that or did you misread what is being dscussed in this thread?

CBP

tcampione · #22 (**permalink**) 12-03-2004, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbp

XP is not blocking google ads. Where did you read that or did you misread what is being dscussed in this thread?

Thank you cbp... if MS were blocking Google Ads, that news would be on the front page of every technology paper/site.

Heynow · #23 (**permalink**) 12-03-2004, 08:20 PM

I wonder how many websites will die if they cannot advertise. Mine will!

I would hope that there would be some type of script that would block visitors from entering a site if they had an ad-blocker. Advertisements pay for my site and without them, I would have to try and get my visitors to pay or I would have to close shop.

I also wonder if they'll be any legal issues concerning this, because you would see lawyers running to the court house if I invented an ad-blocker for televisions.