• by Larry Dobrow , November 5, 2003

In terms of consumer regard, pop-up ads tend to rank somewhere between nuclear power and anchovies. Which, come to think of it, may be giving pop-ups too much credit: 15 million consumers have already turned to pop-up blockers, while several ISPs have made the promise of a pop-up-free web experience the focal point of their marketing campaigns.

Though nobody doubts that pop-up ads are effective (nor that they provide a healthy flow of revenue for web publishers), marketers are only now starting to balance these benefits with the exasperation that the ads seem to induce in web users. The question, in simple terms: Can the pop-up ad be presented in a non-intrusive way? If not, will pop-ups sour consumers on the entire notion of online advertising?

Those were the central debates during "Clicks, Ticks, and the Destiny of Pop-Ups," a session held Wednesday at Ad:Tech New York. What elevated the discussion above the usual trade-show clamor were the varied perspectives: represented on the panel were creators of pop-up ads (WhenU chief executive officer Avi Naider), ISPs (Earthlink vice president of narrowband marketing Robert Kaiser), Internet consultancies (Archer Advisors president Rich LeFurgy), trade groups (Association of National Advertisers senior vice president Barbara Mirque) and unabashed boosters of the format (Orbitz director, e-marketing Geoff Silver).

Kaiser seemed the only participant wholly unswayed by any of the pro-pop-up arguments. Responding to Naider's comment that advertisers continue to demand pop-up ads, he snapped, "'If there was no demand we wouldn't be selling it' sounds like a drug dealer's justification." He also presented the session's best analogy for the frustration felt by web surfers confronted by pop-ups, likening it to driving down the road and having to brake repeatedly for somebody in front of the car yelling "want to buy a watch?"

"Pop-ups work. Telemarketing works. Direct mail works," he said. "But you have to do things in a way that the consumer wants them."

Of course, as much as online marketers might pretend to know what consumers want, few of them have little clue - which is why, Naider suggested, nobody should dismiss the pop-up format until it has a chance to evolve. "[Pop-ups] are not a monolithic entity," he said. "The mass market accepts TV commercials, but that took 50 years. Remember, two years ago, people were writing off the online medium completely."

Naider, who freely conceded that his company produces what he called a "fair number" of pop-ups, added that it was unfair to make blanket statements that pop-ups are any better or worse than other Internet ad formats: "You have to recognize that any format done poorly or abused... can create ire among consumers." Besides, he noted, it's not like consumers are helpless to defend themselves from pop-ups, as witnessed by the proliferation of pop-up blockers. "In other mediums, there's less control," he said.

LeFurgy, also chairman emeritus of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, took the comparison to other mediums one step further, arguing that any ad which might be perceived as intrusive is likely to upset consumers. "I don't think people differentiate among spam, pop-ups, pop-unders, banners, rich media or TV commercials," he said. The quip elicited a response from the ANA's Mirque, who prefaced her remarks with "don't lose sight of the fact that, believe it or not, advertising is a good thing." She acknowledged the obvious - that trade groups like hers are quite concerned about the efficacy of online ads - but said that quick-fix solutions like banning a particular form of advertising will only make matters worse.

The crux of the pop-up argument, she proposed, was relevance. "If I'm on Orbitz and I get a pop-up for a rental car, that's relevant to me," she said, joining LeFurgy in his call for industry-wide best practices.

Nodding his head firmly during Mirque's comments, Orbitz's Silver attempted to distinguish between his company's ubiquitous pop-ups (which, he noted repeatedly, were in fact "pop-unders") and most others on the web. He noted that Orbitz's ads are less about prompting consumers to make an immediate purchase than about increasing engagement with the brand. To prove his point, he pointed to the company's latest pop-unders, which attempt to engage viewers via a series of games. "They're spending a significant amount of time playing the games, which has to say something in terms of their interest and relevance," he argued.

Silver also noted Orbitz's policy of directing consumers who complain about the company's pop-unders to a site where they can download a free pop-up blocker. Still, he acknowledged that few online marketers have adopted a similar tactic.

In terms of making the pop-up format more palatable for consumers in the months and years ahead, no clear consensus emerged. Kaiser suggested that the debate shouldn't be framed in terms of protecting consumers, but rather in terms of giving them the tools they need to protect themselves. Naider proposed that all pop-ups should clearly identify their origin, while Silver suggested that marketers keep a wary eye on web publishers, who may be "exploiting pop-ups to the extent that it's damaging the industry."