I retired from personal blogging in July 2008.
But you can find me over at http://blog.xero.com.
Surfing stuff.co.nz this week I’ve been noticing this LTSA advertising message for ‘cars with stability control’.
I guess there is a joke here on pop up’s.
But I don’t think it’s good practice for web advertisers to mimic browser elements and fool the user into a click. Especially not a Government department.
Older web users get flustered by pop up’s and while this is no doubt well intentioned I think this crosses the line.
Maybe because it’s election year but as I know from experience what advertising on the few big New Zealand web sites costs it offends me to see my tax dollars spent on such a campaign which I can’t imagine has any cut through what so ever.
What do you think. Does this cross the line?
blog
Fake Pop-up’s are just one small step away from giant animated smiley’s
mate, that ad really sucks
it is so annoying trying to read with those pop boxes flashing up at you all the time
standard practice for me now, is to go to the “print view” and read the stories, much, much easier on the eyes
I can’t say that I approve of this type of online advertising, but I know that LTSA will never apologise for it if there is any possibility it’s going to save lives.
Just look at the road-mine ads where they blatantly shot a Ford Falcon going off the road (http://tinyurl.com/5mc68f); then just for good measure they picked on Holdens (http://tinyurl.com/6q22p7).
This, if anything, shows that they’re willing to stomp on any media’s unwritten rules. Nothing is sacred.
[...] now I notice that Rod’s found another example; this one hitting right at the heart of what we internet surfers really [...]
LTSA advertising that doesn’t suck, that would be a miracle…
From a personal perspective, it’s really bloody irritating. And it would (has) discouraged me from using Stuff, which probably makes it not very clever from Stuff’s point of view.
But from LTSA’s perspective, irritating isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it gets your attention onto their message for a few moments. I remember a TV programme on advertising a few years back where the agency responsible for one of those really bloody irritating toothpaste ads was saying that it was one of their most effective ever, and it was intended to be really blooody irritating, because it makes the brand stick in your mind, and when you’re looking at the supermarket shelves you only remember the brand name, not why you’re remembering. Same logic may well apply here.
As far as ethical correctness of using popups goes, from LTSA’s perspective, who gives a damn? If their mission is saving lives (which in this instance it is), how many trojanned computers is a life worth?
Stuff, on the other hand, who live and die by the internet, seem to me to have something of a “corporate good citizen” obligation not to let these sorts of games be played in their playground. Dump on them if you want to dump on anybody.
I have to say I think Rod (and others) have it wrong here.
I have viewed the ad and its not a pop up (as Rod says it mimics a pop up only)
There is no “trick” to make anyone click anything - try clicking on any of the bit that look like pop ups - you can’t.
This is just an animated image that has stuff that appears (simulating a pop up) but thats all. Get’s your attention - which is what good ads do.
Harmless.
Richard
PS: I hate pop ups too! This just isnt one.
PPS: I also think the ad is a waste of time - information only ads like this dont do much to change behaviour.
@Richard you’ve missed the point. This sort of advert confuses non experienced web users and breaks down trust and safety on the internet.
A number of older people have mentioned this to me over the past day or so.
I think it’s appalling.
Rod - I’m surprised that you feel so strongly about this. I thought it was a clever play on internet jargon & imagery within an advertising context; brave for a mainstream brand, given the plethora of crap trick-ads that really do obfuscate.
Given that nearly 20% of media consumption is now online (but only 5.8% of adspend), LTNZ needs to diversify from TV to continue its road safety messages and they and their agency have a reputation for strong creativity.
Your post proves that this execution is cutting through - especially for older audiences. But I would say that …
Google have taken a strong position on this and will not allow any of these types of image ads on their advertising network. From their policies:
http://adwords.google.com/support/bin/static.py?page=guidelines.cs&topic=9274&subtopic=9295
We would be better off if they spent some of their advertising money on actually improving the roads or eliminating the risk of them.
The classic example is the amount of money they put in at the beginning of the school term to tell people to slowdown around schools…. But around most of the schools in our suburb there is absolutely no sign posts or indication that there is a school until you pass it.
And what about that crazy intersection with the wheel of misfortune and the dodgey looking guy with a beard. Looks very expensive and clever but why not just work on eliminating all the dodgey intersections out there with proper controls or a little bit of rework…. Make the roads safer rather than intimidate the road user….
Its appalling that we have so much surplus taxpayer money at the moment and all of it from my point of view is going on slick advertising campaigns trying to scare us off the road to mitigate for some of the shocking preventable traffic hazards out there.
I would be interested in knowing how they measure the success of these campaigns…
No where else in the world do you get bombarded with so much traffic carnage on the TV. They even show them during kids broadcasting…
I hate to think the impact these campaigns have on our kids.
PS there is no excuse for a mimiced windows dialog!
Given Stuff’s main page throws 326 validation errors, I hardly think this ad is much of a problem.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stuff.co.nz%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0
The web is free, there are no rules (or very little). This is both good and bad, it encrouages innovation, e.g. Web2.0, imagine if the Internet Rules didn’t allow dynamic content. But it also means that there will be some crap out there, such as web designers who think that validating Html and css code is a waste of time. E.g. stuff.co.nz, IE6
From a Stuff.co.nz perspective …
We have definately had a strong reaction to the LTNZ ad. Although we feel it is a clever concept which uses the medium well, (and is probably effective in reaching the target demographic), we appreciate that it has been irritating and at times confusing to some readers.
Mid last week we requested the creative agency revise the ad to include a border and bolder ADVERTISEMENT headng so that it can be clearly recognised as advertising.
We are still waiting for the changes to be made, so until they happen we have paused the campaign. We are also updating our advertising specs to give us greater control when an ad like this comes through.
Thanks
Stuff :)
Thanks for responding Kirsty
That stuff really annoys me - how would LTSA like it if I put up fake speed limit signs to slow people down so they could stop at my roadside business?
Maybe MS, Apple and Netscape should put a prominent logo in their (real) dialog boxes. Then sue the pants off anyone who fakes one - nice revenue earner.
I don’t see the problem with that ad, and disagree about lack of cut through - it has plenty of people talking, and not just here.
I really respect Kirsty’s comment, however, and think the increasing engagement by organisations on NZ blogs is a big step forward. TradeMe forums watch out!
I actually really liked the ad, though I’m not a fan of Government advertisign full stop.
It certainly caught my attention… in a WTF are pop ups doing on the herald website, which considering I normally ignore banner ads is quite a feat.
I completely agree with your comments Rob and had already separately emailed Stuff complaining about this advert before reading your post.
The practice of using pop-ups and close buttons on advertising was banned by all self-respecting international advertising networks around 4 years ago.
It should have been removed as soon as Stuff was made aware that this is an unacceptable practice.
It’s shocking that Stuff.co.nz, after pausing the above advert, have now put it back up live with very minor adjustments (a slightly larger “Advertisement” and black surround).
The problem is the fake pop-ups themselves, not the surrounding advertisement statements. Advertising professionals might notice the difference but the advert is still misleading from the point of view of a standard internet user.
The practice of using fake windows and close buttons inside adverts is unacceptable in most advertising networks worldwide.
These adverts are offensive to the NZ online advertising industry. They lower NZ’s standards when we need to be at the forefront of the international market to be competitive in the rest of our online endeavours.
Once one company starts this, others who are not aware of acceptable standards will start to push the boundaries…
[...] contrast to the LTSA advert I didn’t like the TV One Business ads are brilliant. Saw them in print last week and now on the [...]