Controversial ad serving firm Adzilla pulls out of the US Controversial behavioural advertising firm Adzilla has reportedly quit the US market. The move follows the resignation of chief exec Toby Gabriner. Gabriner told the New York Times that a stronger than expected backlash against the privacy implications of its Phorm-like technology derailed the firm's business plans. "It’s not …
> I don’t think consumers want to opt in simply to get better ads
::snort::
Show me a consumer who wants ANY ads. Just one. In fact, show me a person who isn't fed up with all forms of advertising.
What is it with marketing people, anyway? They seem to exist only for the sake of their own existence. They certainly don't do anyone any good ... in fact, they seem to exist purely to get in other people's faces, just to irritate them.
Since when was irritating people good for business?
I'm as anti-ad as the next person, although I realise it makes the internet turn in many ways - I doubt if there would be half as much interesting stuff out there if it was all just VCs pouring their money down the drain and getting nothing back; I can't see there being a Facebook/GApps/Youtube if it weren't for the ad revenue.
It's surprising to see a company in this field actually holding their hands up and saying 'Yup, no-one likes this stuff here. We'll try elsewhere' though - a nice change. Kudos to them in that respect.
FAO Phorm - take note...
Steven R
Uh-huh, sure. Well I'm glad you woke up to the fact, even if it was a bit late.
Mostly I hope that this will serve as a warning to other would-be companies willing to spy on people's lives and sell the results.
But frankly, that sentence shows one thing : they knew it WOULD be an issue, and they KNEW they would have to work around it, so they also knew it would get big, but they were banking on it not becoming a problem before they had time to settle in and become unremovable.
Has anyone tried to douse them in garlic and see if they shrivel ? No ? Too bad.
here is a little clue, for most web sites we go to do not charge us. Running a web-site though costs money (unless your in russia, where websites run you!). Whoever is running it has to be able to eat, pay for houseing. Then they still have to pay for upkeep of the site, hosting fees, creation of new content. It begs the question, where is this money comming from?
So, unless you want to pay for your browsing, you need to accept ads. Your free access to content is the value that advertisers create. If you don't like it, you're (mostly) going to have to limit yourself to sites which charge for service.
Welcome to First Life.
> here is a little clue, for most web sites we go to do not charge us.
True.
>Running a web-site though costs money
True.
>(unless your in russia, where websites run you!).
Very, very tired meme. Stop it, child.
>Whoever is running it has to be able to eat, pay for houseing.
True. So do I. So do all of us. Running a web site or not. Strawman.
>Then they still have to pay for upkeep of the site,
Not my issue. Their choice. The Web is hardly life or death.
>hosting fees,
Not my issue. Their choice. The Web is hardly life or death.
>creation of new content.
Not my issue. Rarely my choice. Have you actually seen "new content" recently? I sure haven't. Porn's still porn, news is still news, user comments are still user comments, and really bad web sites designed by people who think "comment icons" and fixed width web pages are a good idea are still really bad web sites ... oh ... hang on ... Oops.
>It begs the question, where is this money comming from?
Not my issue, except for my own sites.
>So, unless you want to pay for your browsing,
I do pay. Monthly. This DSL line costs (a little bit of) money. My OC-96 costs a lot more. The three T-1 lines that I thought were a good idea when I got 'em in '93 cost even more (thankfully I only got a three year lease on 'em ...).
>you need to accept ads.
No, I don't. My computer, my bandwidth, my CPU, my disk, my rules.
>Your free access to content is the value that advertisers create.
No. Totally incorrect. Advertisers create nothing but loud, ugly artwork. Haven't you noticed that for virtually all ad-driven sites that have any merit, there are several dozen other sites that are built as a labor of love, offering essentially the same content, with no advertising?
>If you don't like it, you're (mostly) going to have to limit yourself to sites which charge for service
Not in this lifetime.
>Welcome to First Life.
Sadville1.0? You actually relate to that?
Sad.
>> here is a little clue, for most web sites we go to do not charge us.
>True.
>>Running a web-site though costs money
>True.
>>(unless your in russia, where websites run you!).
>Very, very tired meme. Stop it, child.
As long as we are brining up logical fallacies (as you try to later), I call argumentum ad hominem. The entire point is that it is tired, so congradulations, you almost got it.
>>Whoever is running it has to be able to eat, pay for houseing.
>True. So do I. So do all of us. Running a web site or not. Strawman.
It's not a strawman, it is the fundemental point. If you don't get paid for your employment, you won't (or at least shouldn't) do it for vary long. If your employer doesn't get paid for goods and services provided, they won't be in "bussness" vary long. (I only put bussness in quotes because if they are not getting paid for good/services, it's not much of a busness.)
>>Then they still have to pay for upkeep of the site,
>Not my issue. Their choice. The Web is hardly life or death.
I dont know why you felt the need to seperate the concept of "this costs money" into what the cost is, but this is addressed above.
>>hosting fees,
>Not my issue. Their choice. The Web is hardly life or death.
again, there is absolutely no reason for this to have been seperated out of the sentance.
>>creation of new content.
>Not my issue. Rarely my choice. Have you actually seen "new content" recently? I sure haven't. Porn's still porn, news is still news, user comments are still user comments, and really bad web sites designed by people who think "comment icons" and fixed width web pages are a good idea are still really bad web sites ... oh ... hang on ... Oops.
At least here you have actually done more then repeat yourself when you seperated out a section of a sentance, so I'll be happy to address it.
Apperently you must have some future version of sites that havent been released to all us little mortals. Every time I look at el Reg, there is new content. There are stories that were not there yesterday. By definition that is "new." Since this is what is contained on the site, it is "content." Hence "new content."
BTW: The format of the page is of little consequence, thats format, not content.
>>It begs the question, where is this money comming from?
>Not my issue, except for my own sites.
It is your issue if you want to have access to these sites without paying the owners of them. Nothing is free.
>>So, unless you want to pay for your browsing,
>I do pay. Monthly. This DSL line costs (a little bit of) money. My OC-96 costs a lot more. The three T-1 lines that I thought were a good idea when I got 'em in '93 cost even more (thankfully I only got a three year lease on 'em ...).
No, you pay for your bandwith, not your browsing. You do not pay El Reg to read it instead, they have ads. were it not for said ads, this site would not exsist (for long).
>>you need to accept ads.
>No, I don't. My computer, my bandwidth, my CPU, my disk, my rules.
You have ONCE AGAIN seperated a part of a complete sentence rather then taking it as a whole. This is what programmers call an "If-then" statement. it is true that you are free to not use the websites in question, and I never indicated to the contrary.
>>Your free access to content is the value that advertisers create.
>No. Totally incorrect. Advertisers create nothing but loud, ugly artwork. Haven't you noticed that for virtually all ad-driven sites that have any merit, there are several dozen other sites that are built as a labor of love, offering essentially the same content, with no advertising?
So why are you still here? You dont like ads, El Reg has ads. If there are several dozen other sites offering essentially the same content with no advertiseing I would expect you to be jumping ship.
>>If you don't like it, you're (mostly) going to have to limit yourself to sites which charge for service
>Not in this lifetime.
Since you are still here, It would appear you have choosen to put up with ads. Good for you. Now if you could just stop crying about that choice, you did have other options.
>>Welcome to First Life.
>Sadville1.0? You actually relate to that?
>Sad.
You don't relate to real life?
Now that IS sad.
I get the impression that you don't have much knowledge of the underpinnings of TCP/IP, nor how the guts of the Web work, nor human nature.
This isn't traditional publishing, where the publisher decides on the layout and content. This medium allows the reader to decide how a page looks, and what appears on it.
People are sick of being inundated with advertising. Don't believe me? Ask all your friends and family. The Web is one of the few places where they can actually do something about it.
As more people discover these facts, fewer people will see advertising.
Yes, this will lead to a change in how we use the Web. But it's inevitable.
Google, Doubleclick and the like are a house of cards, waiting for a breeze to topple them.
What will happen to (for example) ElReg? I don't know. I'm not clairvoyant, but I rather suspect that most such online rags will fail. A very few will probably successfully make the move to a subscription based model. Will I subscribe to ElReg when the time comes? I don't know.
But mark my words: The banner advertising model is doomed to failure. The only question is how much longer the bubble will last.
As for:
>>Sadville1.0? You actually relate to that?
>>Sad.
>
>You don't relate to real life?
>Now that IS sad.
Spit the hook, li'l fishy.
I wrote: "I get the impression that you don't have much knowledge of the underpinnings of TCP/IP, nor how the guts of the Web work, nor human nature."
You replied: "Maybe not, but you certainly don't!"
I don't? Odd ... Pardon me while I re-read my c.v. ... No, you're mistaken, it looks like I do ... I helped with NCP @ LBL/ Stanford / Ames / Tymshare / Moffett / Sumex (early SAIL? I can't remember ... I must be getting old), SRI, Xerox, Rand, UCLA et alia [1975-1978] while pursuing my engineering degree at Berkeley ... this lead to participation in TCP/IP with Cerf & Co. at Stanford, then Flag Day 01/01/83 ... time passes ... Later, I worked on NCSA Mosaic & Server, and contributed to very early Apache releases. Along the way, I managed to earn a degree in sociology (amongst others).
"Now shut up, both of you."
Or ... what, exactly? You'll tell your mommy I'm messing with your misconceptions?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
