Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Ever Have a Download Site Blow You Away?

<< < (4/5) > >>

Carol Haynes:
I agree that tricking and scamming is the only way to make money out of advertising (which is why I hate advertising).

Being deliberately deceptive does nothing to improve your relation with customers though. You might make a few dollars but you are hardly likely to attract a loyal customer base and you are highly likely to piss off many people in the process.

It doesn't alter the fact that Google allows its ad users to abuse their own policies and systems and the only way to stop that happening (unfortunately) is to police all clicks via their ads in a more aggressive manner and ban people from using Google Ads if they abuse the system.

Given that will cost a lot of money Google has the option to enforce a system such as I suggested which would also solve the problem.

Ironically I am much more likely to respond to advertising when I am not being scammed than when I feel tricked.

Trickery has two effects on me:

1) I don't purchase items I am scammed into looking at
2) I avoid websites that scam me into looking at things.

This behaviour on websites is no more moral or acceptable than pure email spammers - it is precisely what they are doing.

I have just got off the phone to a client who has been scammed by a telephone call "from Microsoft" about how her computer is infected. She even let the caller use LogMeIn to access her computer (stupid yes - but I have come across this scam on more than one occasion). Using the argument above is similar to saying that it is OK for people to run a 'business' like this because it is the only way they can make money! Actually what they are doing is illegal - but really what is the difference.

One of the most common problems I am fixing these days is fake antivirus. As far as I can tell most of these seem to come from exactly the method you think is reasonable - ie. people clicking on misleading and undisclosed adverts (often Google Ads too).

Renegade:
This is tangentially related:

http://healthfreedoms.org/2010/02/15/aspartame-has-been-renamed-and-is-now-being-marketed-as-a-natural-sweetener/

Aspartame has been Renamed and is Now Being Marketed as a Natural Sweetener

Artificial sweeteners especially aspartame has gotten a bad rap over the years, most likely due to studies showing they cause cancer. But not to worry Ajinomoto the company that makes Aspartame has changed the name to AminoSweet. It has the same toxic ingredients but a nice new sounding name.

And if you or your child happens to be allergic to Aspartame, well don’t take it personally it’s just business.

Despite the evidence gained over the years showing that aspartame is a dangerous toxin, it has remained on the global market . In continues to gain approval for use in new types of food despite evidence showing that it causes neurological brain damage, cancerous tumors, and endocrine disruption, among other things.
--- End quote ---

The point: With enough money, you can purchase plastic surgery for inconvenient truths and give them a pleasant makeover to suit yourself.


Still, we might be being a tad harsh on online ads. They DO come with a teeny tiny little (i) that is supposed to tell us that they are from Google, etc. etc.

I have no problem seeing ads on a site, but when they are deliberately out to deceive? Different story. A huge download graphic with a tiny (i) is deceptive.

mahesh2k:
Product doesn’t need to be scammy but should catch attention. Almost every ad network is seeking for the ways to get attention. This is the reason you see some of the scary ad positions and the layouts. Not all ad networks and the products who use such tactics are scammy, they just want attention to convert sales.

I didn’t mean that deceiving tactics should be fine, in previous reply. I’m against those auto installing and scammy products and  prefer to stay away from when merchant promotes them via plimus or swreg or click bank.

My point is that average surfers who visit site for any type of content for free are compensated with ads or some offers. In my opinion that is fine.

As for google ads, almost every google ad has notice at the bottom to identify that these are ads. No doubt there are some scary video or auto-video playing ads on google which gets removed after successful campaign for both merchant and google. I don’t expect any white hat act from folks at google inc. 

Renegade:
What Google recommends:

https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=17954



Certain locations tend to be more successful than others. This "heat map" illustrates the ideal placing on a sample page layout. The colors fade from dark orange (strongest performance) to light yellow (weakest performance). All other things being equal, ads located above the fold tend to perform better than those below the fold. Ads placed near rich content and navigational aids usually do well because users are focused on those areas of a page.


While this heat map is useful as a positioning guideline, we strongly recommend putting your users first when deciding on ad location. Think about their behavior on different pages, and what will be most useful and visible to them. You'll find that the most optimal ad position isn't always what you expect on certain pages.

For example, on pages where users are typically focused on reading an article, ads placed directly below the end of the editorial content tend to perform very well. It's almost as if users finish reading and ask themselves, "What can I do next?" Precisely targeted ads can answer that question for them.
--- End quote ---

40hz:

Same thing as above, only written as above. (40Hz - don't click~! :) )

-Renegade (April 05, 2011, 04:43 AM)
--- End quote ---

Shoulda Listened!!!
  ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page