If the advertising didn't work, it wouldn't be there. Web advertisers
carefully record hits and compare them to sales. I'm not happy with
the Adorama ads on photo.net, but I would guess they're working.
Newbies who arrive at the site are probably looking for a place to buy
equipment. Bingo: Adorama. And the prices are good. So a sale is made.
The economy is tough these days. Everyone is struggling to survive.
Marketers seize on any edge they can find. Could the Adorama tie-in
backfire for photo.net? Possibly. But chances are, it will prove
successful. The trick is to find the balance between noticeable,
actionable and unintrusive. Right now, it's probably too intrusive,
but not by much. It really doesn't bother me. Didn't even notice it at
first. But the list reaction suggests that it may be over the top,
Paul
On Nov 26, 2008, at 7:45 PM, Bob W wrote:
As a photo.net user, I have to admit I was a bit startled
when I discovered
the Adorama page-turner ad when posting some pics
recently--and I admit to a
moment of impatience when I noticed it--but it didn't last
very long, & I
now know how to avoid the turning page.
that kind of sums it up though, doesn't it. You avoid turning the
page. This
means that you have to think about how & where you're moving your
mouse when
you're on that page, which seriously compromises usability and
enjoyment. If
I'm on the page to look at your photos I shouldn't have to be
thinking about
the traps I need to avoid.
And since we're avoiding the ads they've become self-defeating.
This means the site host doesn't get the revenue, the advertiser
doesn't get
the click-throughs, and the viewer doesn't get the full pleasure of
your
site. So what's the point of the ads?
Moreover, I'm hoping
to use the
Lightroom web page module to start posting pics.
It's extremely easy. To use a recently-prevalent 'persuader' that is
popping
up everywhere in the bullshit corporate propaganda my senior
management
sends out "This is the right thing to do".
All you need is a decent web host. You put the ftp details into LR
once, and
that's it. My host costs me about £25 per year. I get 100 Mb of
webspace and
a zillion email addresses.
[...]
But having said all that, I was a little shocked at the suggestion of
avoiding PESOs & GESOs that are posted on photo.net, and
[...]
but is this
annoyance so
great that it justifies boycotting long-time PDML folks (who
use photo.net)
who've given so much to the list and with whom you've formed
online (or skin
& bones :-)) friendships with?
Well, I haven't actually boycotted it yet. But some things are so
annoying
that when I'm on a website and they crop up, I just click out. A prime
example of this was on Salon, which regularly hosted excellent
galleries by
Magnum photographers. But they started having an advert which
featured an
animated fly, buzzing loudly. There was no way I was able to put up
with
that, however good the photos were, so I stopped visiting the site,
and I
haven't been back since.
The photo.net ads are only marginally less annoying - at least they
don't
come with sound. Why don't these people learn? Don't they test
people's
reactions to their to their stupid, sophomoric ideas? The first
lessons in
user interface design are: Don't piss off your user; don't put
animations on
the screen; don't use sound unless it's easy to turn it off.
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
