• by Masha Geller , June 1, 2001

I might just start a heated debate with this one. The topic is that X10's $80 wireless video camera "pop-under" ad you've probably noticed recently. The ad slips clandestinely onto a Web surfer's PC and remains unseen until the surfer closes down browser windows. Then the pop-under ad becomes visible, filling most of a computer screen.

As a story in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press today puts it, pop-under ads are "just one of many alternative ad forms that advertisers are experimenting with these days as they try to punch up the impact and effectiveness of online advertising. To do that, they want bigger, more compelling ads."

The question is: are those bigger, more compelling ads a good idea?

One school of thought is that this placement is the best idea since the text link. According to Jim Nail, a senior analyst with Forrester Research quote in the story above, "the industry thinking is that banner ads are too subtle. Consumers don't really see them or they've trained their eyes not to see them, some marketers believe. So, they're pushing for more intrusive ads --'big box' and tall 'skyscraper' ads. And in the current online ad environment, the media companies will do whatever advertisers want them to do to get the money."

Another school of thought is that these new ad formats are the result of advertisers confusing good advertising with inquisitive response, as AudioGraphics' Ken Dardis puts it. He writes, "When banner ads were new they got click-throughs. Pop-under ads are new, and they are getting clicks. But they are also alienating users." Pop-under ads, he says, are "too forceful a sell," adding that intrusiveness may work on a billboard or broadcast commercial, but "Internet advertising needs to be woven into the content's surroundings and presented as a relatable item to the user."

I wholeheartedly agree with Ken. What do you think?

>