> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To be blunt if it's served to *my* PC I have every right to do as I > > wish with the content; the same as if I buy a book, I don't have to > > read it all, why is it different for a website? I don't > > have to read > > the adverts in magazines or newspapers no one considers those "an > > intrinsic part of [their] content" > No - but they're still there. You flick past them, and they > don't annoy you by their very presence, which web ads appear > to. You don't insist your newsagent takes a pair of scissors > or a bottle of Tipp-Ex to your copy of "Wired" or "Empire" > before you buy it, do you? (And, as someone who used to work > in print media, I think you'd find that yes, ads *are* > considered an intrinsic part of a magazine's content.)
There's an interesting side issue on advert intrusiveness in all this. Some forms of advertising are more intrusive than others. The 15 or so billboards I have to walk past in the ten minute walk to the tube station, are far more intrusive than a page advert in a magazine. A flashing, zooming, screeching flash advert on a webpage perhaps even more so. So there's an inevitability. Make your adverts intrusive and annoying, and people will want to skip them. And if they find a way, they will. (Believe me, if I could destroy the combined works of Titan, Clear Channel and JC Decaux who continue to blight the area I live in (usually without planning permission too), I would.) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
