Pop-up advertising supersedes content

In the beginning, everything was free. Web sites like Google,
Geocities and Webcrawler offered killer content without a single
caveat.

Then companies ranging from Yahoo to Sex.com remembered they
were supposed to make money. Now it seems that everything on the
Internet is either covered with 50 pop-up advertisements or
requires an expensive subscription.

Obviously it’s natural for companies to want to make
money, but it seems no one knows how to make their site profitable
without forcing ads down users’ throat or charging for
content and services.

Users who have been on the World Wide Web since 1994 will recall
that back then, everything on the Internet was free because it was
basically still a government experiment.

America Online was one of a small handful of major commercial
internet service providers which charged an hourly rate to get
online. Once users covered that, they were free to surf.

Now everyone has unlimited access accounts, but the
advertisements start the second users open their browser. Many
major providers attempt to set users’ home page to their
ad-laden “portal page” which consistently contains
variations on the same useless information.

Once users have searched for the information they want,
they’re hit with a dozen lethal pop-up ads from the first Web
site they click on. It’s as flashy as Las Vegas ““ but
lacks the sex appeal.

Unbelievably, many sites now use HTML layers or flash to cover
their pages with moving ads. Having clicked away the popups, users
are forced to wait for these sticky bloodsuckers to retract back
into the dark holes they spawned from.

Even TV ads are less annoying ““ at least it’s
possible to change the channel. With some Web sites, it seems like
the computer has been taken over by a hacker, not letting users
leave the site.

Now if users’ actually want content, they’re in
trouble. It’s time to cough up some cash, or at least their
e-mail address, name, credit card info and firstborn.

Web sites as varied as CNN.com, Anandtech.com and even
Freeservers.com make users pay for anything but their most basic
services. CNN charges for every video watched on their site, and
Anandtech charges for forum access (unless users want to use a
crippled, slower version).

Magazine Web sites like Maximmag.com have taken pop-up ads to
the extreme. While the content remains free, a user can hardly move
from page to page within the site without being inundated with
pop-up ads.

This takes away from the user experience, and ultimately, this
trend means that finding quality content on the internet ““
without the distractions ““ has become a frustrating
experience. It seems that we are increasingly forced to choose
between questionable no-name sites or mega-sites that bombard us
with ads.

It’s totally understandable that companies ““
especially content providers ““ need to make money off their
Web sites. I don’t blame CNN or Encyclopedia Britannica for
charging money for access to some information.

But Web sites that are more user-friendly might actually make a
profit. Dot-com companies are constantly complaining about their
low revenues, but at the same time are trying to rip users off with
every new “feature” they add to their services.

Likewise, bombarding customers with ads is not going to make
them want to come back to a site.

Until someone comes up with a revolutionary online business
model, both users and companies will continue to struggle with
these issues.