
Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well - tghw
http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/11/23/image-ad-blending-works-really-really-well/
======
richcollins
_Is This Evil Or Just Evil Genius?

Once upon a time I was an engineer totally scornful of effective marketing,
but I have gradually gotten over it. After thinking it over, this is
aggressive but within my comfort envelope. The ad is honest about being an ad,
makes a straightforward commercial proposition (“Sign up for a free trial”) to
an audience that I think will respond well to that, and is pretty true by the
standards of marketing copy. It is designed to catch clicks only from people
interested in signing up for a free trial of Bingo Card Creator, and sends
them straight to a landing page where they can do just that.

I wish there was a way to dynamically generate the image such that I could
provide a more exact star valuation, but in the context of a sponsored
placement, “Rated 5 starts by lots” is both non-specific and true. Lots of
people have used BCC, and when I ask for star ratings in internal surveys I
get something like 4.8 on a volume of hundreds or thousands. I think this
compares favorably with “9 out of 10 dentists agree” and other pretty banal
marketing copy._

Your ad is obviously designed to deceive the user into thinking that it is an
organic listing. Evil.

~~~
sp332
It says "sponsored placement", which is true because the website put the ad
right in the middle of the organic results.

~~~
richcollins
It doesn't matter what it says, it matters what users perceive it to be. It's
obviously meant to deceive the users while providing the author (not very)
plausible deniability of the deception.

~~~
aidenn0
How do you think this compares to google's ads at the top of search requests?
That is the comparison this article is making.

~~~
richcollins
Those are deceptive as well

------
blahedo
This reminds me of those newspaper ads that are crafted to look exactly like a
newspaper article (columns of copy, headline, etc) but only set out with an "
_Advertisement_ " in very small print at the top of their enclosing box. I
usually can pick them out because the font isn't a perfect match, but once in
a while I don't notice until like a third of the way through the "article"
when I'm going, "wtf? What was the editor thinking?"

And that's the real problem here, and the reason I complain to the editor
about those newspaper ads: when they are made to look like a regular article
(or in this case, organic results), then they implicitly carry the imprimatur
of editorial approval. Someone at this newspaper (/website) has vetted this
factually, edited it, and I can put the same trust in this item that I put in
any other thing I read here (which might not be 100% but is often reasonably
high for edited content on a paper/site I'm familiar with).

Ads that are faking their way in violate this assumption and this trust. As a
user of that site I'd be annoyed; as an editor of that site I would be
_furious_.

~~~
patio11
I think they're a UGC site: there isn't a formal editing process., regular
users just upload stuff which interests them. The publisher pre-approved the
ad.

~~~
blahedo
Even if the content is user-generated, there is still curation by other users,
analogous to editing, that this is short-circuiting. I didn't realise the site
publisher had pre-approval, or I wouldn't have said "as an editor of that site
I would be _furious_ ", I'd've said "as an editor of that side I would _never_
approve something like that."

------
teej
I'm going to come out in defense of patio11 here. Not because the ad isn't
deceptive - it undoubtedly is. But because he fell into the dark side of a
grey area and it's worth discussing HOW good people end up there.

From a rationalist perspecive, the ad is justified. He is effectively
capturing the majority of the market possible through adwords. So what's next?
It makes sense to take your know-how in one market and apply it to another.
The problem is that the other markets are filled with sharks. Sharks that will
stop at nothing to generate leads for scammy, high-value businesses (for-
profit ed, weight loss, etc)

As a moralist, one would turn their nose up at these shark-filled waters at
the start. If scammy people advertise through it, why should I?

Personally, I think it's really important to dive in deep to the grey area.
Not because you can make more money, but to better understand the inner-
workings of the "dark" side of the business. Most of the successful players
there use a slathering of evil techniques combined with a wealth of direct
marketing experience that whitehat marketers use every day.

It's important to test -everything-, learn as much as you can from empirical
data, and then move forward with both your knowledge and moral compass in
mind.

I often say I have the full Zynga playbook at my disposal and the judgement to
know when not to use it.

~~~
patio11
I'm curious as to why you'd draw a distinction between AdWords and scam filled
advertising. Google's bread is buttered by credit cards, diet pills, and
degrees. Search any relevant keyword if you don't believe me. Most of the
advertisers I share pages with on the AdWords Content Network are also not
pages you'd want your mother going to. The economics of Internet advertising
heavily favor scams.

Would it be better for the world and users if a site about teaching activities
had off-topic ads inviting people to sign up for weightloss pills (snake oil
with a rebill scam) or software which actually makes teaching activities?

~~~
teej
Let me clarify - I would much rather a teaching activities site be filled with
BCC ads over weight loss ads. That doesn't justify the use of deceptive
advertising beyond exploration.

This is the -exact same- line of thinking that goes on at social games
companies with viral game features. Good people say: "20% of users respond to
this request, it must be interesting to people. Send more!" This is completely
oblivious to the negative value you're imposing upon those other 80%. Just
because your negative value is LESS negative than a rebill scam doesn't make
it positive.

There are potential customers on sites outside of Adwords network. You've
proven that. Now capture them in a way that doesn't trick people into clicking
on your ad.

~~~
tptacek
So, just so we can be as specific and absolute as possible: you also think
that every Google SERP is dishonest. Because the whole premise of Patrick's
post is, "here's how Google's ads work; I wonder what would happen if I
crafted my ads to fit into pages the same way Google's do?"

~~~
olaf
Do you automatically sanction Google's deeds? I think, they are clearly doing
evil in this case.

~~~
tptacek
Do you remember what Google's ad strategy was a reaction to?

~~~
olaf
I never knew. How can that justify that they deceive many users?

~~~
tptacek
Google's Adwords strategy was a reaction to competitors who _literally sold
placement in search results_.

~~~
olaf
From my point of view, this is an explanation not a justification.

More or less deceiving visitors is not ennobled because everybody else does
it.

~~~
tptacek
When Google announced Adwords, it was with fanfare about how _above-board_
their program was, and they were widely praised for it.

~~~
anthonyb
That would have been for the original version - which just had links down the
right hand side, not the blended ones at the top.

------
ig1
Warning: This type of behaviour may be illegal.

For the US see the FTC guidance:

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/20635261/FTC-Guides-Concerning-
the...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/20635261/FTC-Guides-Concerning-the-Use-of-
Endorsements-and-Testimonials-in-Advertising)

(the FTC has bought prosecutions on this topic recently)

It's also illegal in the UK and presumably a lot of Europe.

You can't make an ad look like an legitimate endorsement, it's as simple as
that. In this case the small "sponsored placement" text could easily be taken
to be about the following ad which looks like an ad.

~~~
sssparkkk
What about when some site is raving about a product, and pointing users to the
product's website using an affiliate link. No disclosure at all. Is that also
illegal? Because I think it would be great if it was.

~~~
dwwoelfel
Why should that be illegal? We already have laws in place for fraud. The
situation you've described could be perfectly innocent.

~~~
sssparkkk
Well, what's the difference between making an ad look like a legitimate
endorsement, and endorsing a product even though you're financially benefiting
because of the affiliate link?

------
ErrantX
I think where the ad "crosses the line" here is the faux star rating; the
other (unpaid) listings have been user rated/ranked and Patrick's ad is
misusing the trust that users of the site potentially put into the ratings.

I think that if the stars were removed, or, say, greyed out with the "Rated by
lots" on top that would be absolutely fine.

~~~
losvedir
Agreed, though it depends on how the other ratings are established.

Communication is ultimately about the semantic information conveyed and not
the specific words used. If you _intend_ to convey the wrong information, even
by using technically correct words, that still counts as lying to me.

Since the other items say "rated by 1" I'm inclined to believe it's a small
community that self rates the items. Hence, patio11's co-opting of the styling
conveys the information "lots of members of this small community rated BCC 5
stars" rather than "lots of some random group of people rated BCC 5 stars".

I agree that graying out the stars would make it more honest.

------
alexhawket
Patrick is falling into what, I call, the marketing trap. I like some of
Patrick's advice, but I wouldn't follow this... ever.

Patrick has a nice little niche business but that's all it is, a niche.
Niches, by definition are really small, focused and low in demand.

In a niche, the stream of new customers eventually dries up and the temptation
is to move further and further over to the marketing dark side to keep the
ship afloat.

Deceptive marketing tactics work, but they shouldn't be necessary. If that's
where this is headed, then just go full darkside into scamming and call it a
day.

Grey and black hat techniques are a bad as crappy products, terrible service,
bad systems and stolen ideas. If you wouldn't think of using any of those,
then don't use scammy marketing.

If you find yourself pursuing deceptive tricks, it's a sign _your niche is not
big enough_ and your product is _not high enough in demand_.

This is the most common trap analytic/scientific minded business owners fall
into.

Many people on HN have voiced concerns that the current crop of startups are
increasingly using deceptive practices to boost their businesses.

A well planned business should not have to do this.

It's one thing to decide to be purposefully evil, but rationalizing it as
necessary is amoral and possibly illegal.

~~~
schleyfox
And you are falling into the "if I build it they will come" trap.

He definitely has a niche business. Many of us do. For most of us, our niche
is tech. Patrick's niche is education.

In the tech/startup niche, often the extent of marketing that is required is
posting to HN and getting featured by TechCrunch. Trying to expand our niche
outside of this is probably a bad sign, and most likely ineffective. I hold
this thread as a prime example of how much we hate advertising.

The education niche is quite different. You don't reach them by getting
coverage for raising a round of financing or writing a blog post on SEO that
casually mentions your cloud based retro encabulator. This "deceptive"
marketing may be an effective way to raise interest in different segments of
his target market.

Traditional online advertising is increasingly ineffective because of all the
bad ads in that form. Would we be so quick to ignore all ad-like content if we
hadn't been tempered with the aversion therapy of flash horrors, scams, and
weightloss/white teeth/work at home? The end result is even advertising that
might serve a useful purpose can't exist in that environment, so, like
bacteria after the invention of penicillin, it has to adapt and change and
find a new way to continue. If only "good" ads make the jump, then I think
we're better off as a whole. If bad ads make the jump, we'll soon get pretty
good at filtering them out as well. Honestly, if scam ads can blend seamlessly
into a page, what does that say about the _actual_ content?

~~~
alexhawket
Firstly, I was not saying businesses do not have to do marketing. All
businesses have to (or should) do significant marketing/pr/advertising to
reach their market.

However, there's a massive difference between good marketing and
deceptive/illegal marketing.

Apple does great marketing. Grifters, scammers and spammers do deceptive
marketing.

Second, education is not a niche. Education is a sector, one of the largest in
the world. Primary school teachers are a market, and bingo cards is a niche.

Technology is a sector, Web developers are a market and version control is a
niche.

Boxing yourself into a niche that's too small with a product that's not
particularly attractive makes marketing much more difficult than it needs to
be.

------
TylerE
Look, I'm normally pretty easy going, but it's just like to say it's people
like YOU that are ruining the internet. I really wish all the SEO-cretins
would just go find something else to do with their time.

~~~
tghw
I disagree. I would rather ads blend in and disappear than be flashing in my
face. If I click on something that sounds interesting and it turns out to be
an ad, then they did a good job with it, because clearly it's something I'm
interested in. If I'm not interested in it, the back button is easy to get to.

~~~
TylerE
The issue I take is when they're blatantly trying to makes ads look like
legitimate content.

~~~
tghw
I understand, but when you say "ruining the internet", I would prefer
deceptive ads that blend in than those that make my eyes bleed, which is often
the case with banner ads.

~~~
TylerE
The difference is I can't adblock text.

~~~
jbigelow76
If the inability to block an ad is the primary determinant of "ruining" the
internet you probably need to re-evaluate your sense of entitlement.

------
badclient
Another trick that works: break your website.

When I ran a somewhat large music site(100K uniques/day), we'd make
significantly more money from adsense when our streaming server went down.

Why? Because when hitting the play button on the player didn't work, people
start clicking on the ads.

~~~
prawn
Sadly, also effective are having an ugly site and not fully solving the
problems of your audience.

~~~
msellout
Reminds me of a company I worked for back in the dot-com boom days.
MostChoice.com planned on being some sort of meta insurance company, but that
failed and the hundreds of pages of content they'd generated about insurance
and financial planning, etc. stayed on the web. I would check on them over the
years (to laugh at the fact my code still existed) and it seems they made more
money as a static site just on AdSense clicks than they did with the original
business idea. Insurance clicks are very nice.

It looks like they've redesigned the site now and taken down much of what I
wrote. Too bad. I was a sophomore in high school and it was exciting to me to
have my financial planning calculators out there on the internet.

------
Timothee
Have you thought about trying the yellow background as well based on your
comment about how some people think it's the best result?

I have to admit I'm split on the ad. On one hand, I feel that it's deceptive,
because I expect ads to look like ads. When they start to blend too much, I
feel it's "cheating". Similar in a way to how I feel when a crafted-to-become-
viral video ends up being an ad for something.

On the other hand, I'm thinking "why not?". The site allowed you to have such
an ad and people are looking for a product similar to yours, so…

It's definitely skirting the line…

------
chaosmachine
I watched that Mixergy video too, and was inspired to try something similar :)

BSA is great, but if you need more inventory, you can get this strategy
working on Google AdWords, too. You just need to create a new ad group, and
use "managed placements" to specify the sites you want to target.

Since you probably don't want 100 ad groups, you have to get a bit more
generic with your ads, but there are plenty of ways to do that and still get
the "this is useful information, not some off-topic ad" effect.

Here's another tip: Once you have an ad that exceeds about 0.2% CTR, you'll
often get much lower cost-per-click by switching the campaign to CPM bidding.

For example, if you're bidding $1 CPM, and getting a 2% CTR, your effective
CPC is only $0.05! In CPC mode, you'd often have to bid $0.30 CPC just to show
up.

~~~
nirvana
Wow, that's a very valuable insight! Do you need a %0.2 CTR in order to switch
to CPM (e.g.: is it disabled before that?) or is it that your bids will not be
as good if you don't have at least that high a CTR?

Every time I experiment with adwords, something in their policies seems to
drive me off (last time it was that I couldn't use the terms "iPhone" or
"iPad" in the ad, even though we have a legal license from Apple to use them.

This time, the costs seem really high the ads don't seem to run often, and I'm
getting outbid even on terms where no ads show up when I do searches.

Between google having a mysterious cut, and taking on the roll of "optimizing"
the experience, they make it very opaque for people who aren't add placement
pros to use their service... and very hard to make it cost effective, which
means, we don't use it. A real shame.

CPM might make adwords viable again...we still have the incentive to produce a
good add to get more clicks for our Mille.

~~~
msellout
If your ads aren't showing up for certain word choices, you might want to
rethink the type of words you're using to ensure that Google knows your
content is appropriate.

------
mrcharles
Irony of ironies... all the images on his page are blocked by adblock.

~~~
kmm
Apparently, an URL like

[http://images2.bingocardcreator.com/blog-images/ad-
blending/...](http://images2.bingocardcreator.com/blog-images/ad-
blending/blended-ad-example.png)

is blocked by the rule

-images/ad-

This is a false positive and a surprisingly broad rule.

~~~
bh42222
It is a broad rule and I gave on the article because I could not see any of
the image. I was about to white list the site when I realized that using Ad
Block Plus and NoScript for years has resulted in me experiencing a
significantly different Internet.

So much of SEO simply does not apply to people like me.

But in fact I do spend a lot of money on-line, but the I spend on content.
Even if it's a funny shirt from a web comic, something trivial and designed to
have shallow commercial appeal, it is still content.

So there's things that are hard to distinguish from content, and then there's
things that are real content which you can buy.

And NoScript and Ad block have never kept me from the latter.

I think I'll skip the white listing.

~~~
po
I actually don't use adblock and the like (although I do actively block flash)
for that reason: as someone developing for the web, I don't want to experience
a different internet. I want to see it as my users do.

Also, if a site is covered in ads, I click away. If I kept reading the site
the person reading the analytics of the site would think I approve of what
they're doing. I'm not going to get into an arms race with my content
providers. I'd rather find and support better content providers.

I suppose it's similar to the GNU 'don't use non-free software even if you
pirate it' stance although I'm by no means dogmatic about it.

~~~
bdonlan
I use adblock for one reason: Youtube started playing audio ads without user
interaction, on tabs that had been open fo quite some time. Every other site
is collateral damage, I'm afraid; it's not worth my effort to figure out how
to switch chrome adblock from a whitelist to a blacklist model.

------
kakuri
In related news, AdBlock Works Really, Really Well.

------
iamjustlooking
Love the fake 5 stars. All that's missing is mimicking the scammy copy those
ads always have: "See this weird trick a mom learned about bingo cards"

------
jfager
I think the most jarring part of this ad is something that isn't patio11's
fault: it's juxtaposed against an ad that completely stands out as an ad,
which makes the 'blending' that much more 'blendy'. Without that other ad in
the adjoining slot, I think the visual difference between patio11's ad and
regular site content would be more stark, putting it at about the same shade
of moral gray as a Google search ad.

~~~
lazugod
Oh. I had assumed that the blatant ad was a fake, tacked on by patio11 for
just that reason.

------
mikeklaas
There is a clear distinction between what Google is doing and what Patrick is
doing. Respect diminished.

~~~
aidenn0
What is it?

------
CodeMage
As a user, I really, really dislike this sort of deceptive advertising. I'd
like to explain why.

The defense I've seen so far starts by "Well, Google does that too, so by your
definition they're also evil." Here's the first problem with that defense:
appeal to authority. Do you really expect anyone to say, "Oh, Google does it
too? Shucks, then, I retract what I said, because we all know Google isn't
evil."

Second, there are significant differences between how Google "blends" their
ads and Patrick's example. The background color distinguishes the ad from the
rest of the search results. You might argue that some users have crappy
screens or poor vision, but the fact is that the background color _is_
different. The intent was to distinguish the ad clearly. In Patrick's example,
there is no such intent.

Another thing that has been downplayed is the "Ad - Why this ad?" text. On its
own, it probably would have been less noticeable. But when you spot the
different background, you automatically look for other differences. The "Why
this ad" text is one of those differences and it's prominent not by virtue of
its size, but position: it's separated from the rest of the information in the
ad.

But really, it's not just about the background and the "Ad - Why this ad?"
text. It's also about the fact that Google always puts this stuff as the first
result, whereas in Patrick's example the ad was snuck into the results.

The fake rating is another problem. People try to defend it by saying "It's
not fake, it was based on real data." Nobody said the data was fake. The
rating is fake, because for every other result the rating was computed by the
site, based on the data the site has, while here it was supplied by the
advertiser. By the way, if I'm wrong about this, if it is also generated by
the site, please let me know.

Finally, I'm perfectly happy to adapt to the way Google presents their ads:
they're sort of my "doorway" to the rest of the Internet. I'm not as happy to
have to research and adapt to every site's unique way of "blending" ads. But
this is really a minor point for me. The most important point remains the fact
that Google has made at least some effort to distinguish their ads from the
content, whereas in Patrick's example the effort was invested in doing the
opposite.

------
csomar
He is comparing to Google, but I think there is a huge difference. It's not an
Ad blended like a content. It's an Ad faked in a content style. He is copying
the exact same style, the same kind of content (title, description, category,
photo, rating) and not even mentioning it. There is no way to find out if it's
an ad or a real post.

------
philjackson
Is this just a ruse to get us all to disable AdBlock for his site? :)

~~~
grecy
I had to do exactly that just to see what he was talking about. (I didn't
click any ads)

------
extension
I thought about where exactly patio11 crossed the line into evil territory,
and I realized that there is no line.

All ads are deceptive, because they are all trying to steal your attention by
showing up when you are looking for something else. That we've developed the
ability to ignore most of them doesn't change the basic principle. But the
degree of deception can certainly vary.

By running ads, you are pawning off the user value of your site. The more
effective the ads, the more value they are losing. It's a zero-sum game.

~~~
patio11
Ads are clearly not a zero-sum game, any more than links offsite are a zero-
sum game. Transfers in attention are like transfers in money. It is _entirely_
possible for both sides of "I give you money, you give me a banana" to end up
better off. Similarly, if you're looking at a list of ways to teach kids
subtraction, "I give you thirty seconds, you show me subtraction bingo" leaves
both sides better off.

~~~
extension
But with advertising, the attention transfer is _involuntary_. The user is
always trying to spend their attention on something else, and they aren't
getting what they pay for. If attention is currency then advertising is
clearly bait-and-switch fraud.

~~~
lftl
The user is exchanging some portion of their attention to receive whatever
service the publisher is providing.

If you want to watch this football game, you give some portion of your
attention to our advertisers. If you want to view whatever the regular content
is on the site patio11 advertised on, you give some of your attention to
patio11.

There's nothing involuntary about it. If you don't like ads, don't watch TV
shows, or view websites that show ads. The only part that's different from a
normal transaction is that you aren't very strongly forced to give up the
attention the publisher is asking from you. You can get up during TV ads, run
an ad blocker, or develop ad blindness on sites. This extra ability of yours
doesn't change the face that you agreed to possibly give up some of your
attention to an advertiser to use whatever service you're using.

~~~
extension
But we don't agree in advance to give up our attention in exchange for things.
Nor do advertisers feel obliged, per se, to give us something in return for
looking at ads. It is simply assumed that we don't own our attention, and it
is up for grabs to anyone who can get their hands on it.

We expect to see ads in many situations, but only due to past experience, not
because we ever made a deal with anybody.

And the most effective ads, the ones that advertisers strive to create, are
those that are the most unexpected.

------
xd
Tactics like this are utterly immoral. I hope browser plugins like adblocker
become massively mainstream and people start to learn to actively oppose this
kind of rubbish. People that spend their "careers" advertising; contribute
FUCK ALL to humanity.

------
dendory
This is the kind of attitude that's bad for the Internet overall. Take someone
like me, I probably spend more online than most 'casual' users. Yet I use
noscript and adblock, so I don't see any ads or SEO crap. I spend money wisely
on sites that deserve it by providing good content. The SEO people lose out on
the bigger share of the pie, and instead they all go 'dark side' over trying
to get as much of the tiny slice as they can.

~~~
zone411
You don't know what "SEO" means, do you?

------
raghavsethi
No it doesn't. It's an awful, deceptive move.

You know why? It's because Google makes it easy to spot the sponsored link if
you spend more than half a second on it before clicking. A yellow background
and text that says 'Sponsored Link' is way less deceiving than the lack of a
'like' button.

The devil is in the details. And the significant amount of justification you
do in your post shows that you're trying to convince yourself as much as us
that it's OK.

------
jongraehl
Scammy. This could fool me if I were in a rush and adblock didn't filter it.

Since it works, I'd consider using it (in venues where users aren't as likely
to be outraged+vindicitive about being tricked, or even notice being tricked).

Thanks for sharing.

------
tagawa
I always appreciate Patrick's willingness to share information, but won't be
using this deceptive tactic. Sad to see it voted to the top of HN.

------
FJB
Ads that look like content work well.

FB's sponsored stories, Twitter's sponsored tweets, Adwords, brand sponsored
content on demand media's properties -- it's all the same shit.

Let's not jump on our high horse here.

------
md1515
No wrong done here in my opinion.

The content of your post has brought up a topic I have been thinking about
recently, which is intensely devoted sponsorship advertising. For example, if
you (Patrick) want to write this piece about your positive experience with
BuySellAds, then you could write the entire blog post with heavy mention of
the product that YOU TRULY LIKE AND PROMOTE.

The trust factor will go a long way in helping you. I have watched "This Week
In Startups" on Youtube and noticed they use a similar approach. They stop the
broadcast so that Mark Suster could talk about how X product has helped him.

Most of that is off-topic, but your blog post got me thinking...which it is
supposed to do, right? :)

------
viveksec
How else can you pull this off unless you design to image to be as close to
organic results as possible ? But I wonder what happens if the site owner
decides to change the styles, the image would then foolishly look fake.

The rating stars however are a different story and are definitely in the dark
gray area (say at #333). The "rated by lots" will make users draw a comparison
with the other unpaid listings without realizing it is fake, atleast in the
sense the other stars arent fake.

------
tycho77
It's actually kinda crazy that I looked at this image

[http://images2.bingocardcreator.com/blog-images/ad-
blending/...](http://images2.bingocardcreator.com/blog-images/ad-
blending/blended-ad-example.png)

for about thirty seconds and literally did not see the ad, at all. I am now
impressed/scared of my mind's ability to completely disregard probably
unimportant information.

~~~
DiabloD3
Its funny that there is an almost exact same thing in audio processing called
masking, where a loud signal will hide a quieter signal similar in frequency.

Maybe this is the visual processing equivalent?

~~~
MartinCron
It's "search satisfaction", I think. People expect to look for (and dismiss)
the obvious stuff.

This is similar to the notion that having the TSA check for liquids at
airports is dangerous, because when they find a bottle of shampoo, they stop
looking for other stuff.

~~~
DiabloD3
Are you kidding me? I knew the TSA was security theatre, but holy crap,
Batman.

The terrorists not only have won, but they have all the cheat codes!

------
cool-RR
Images don't load in this post.

~~~
patio11
I am available for consulting in adjusting your Adblock regexp at my usual day
rate.

------
storborg
Do you have any solutions for dealing with slight browser rendering
differences? E.g. antialiasing on one browser but not another, slight font
size / padding differences, etc. What browser are you "targeting" with the
image?

------
nicpottier
My vote is evil, not evil genius.

There's a million ways of tricking customers, and a million ways to
rationalize it. But if you have ethics you won't go down that path.

If you care about money more than your character, then by all means though.

------
revorad
So why does image blending for ads work better than contrasting ads, but
contrasting (usually red) sign up buttons convert better than blending
buttons?

------
chrisduesing
I think a fairly important point is that BuySellAds requires the site owner to
approve the advertiser. So in effect, the person providing content on the site
has agreed that Bingo Card Creator is not so reprehensible that they cannot
accept money for what is then essentially a paid/guest listing on their site.

OTOH were this Google adwords instead, and there was no human approval, I have
to say it would be pretty sketchy.

------
three14
Funny. I didn't realize that I had Adblock Plus installed until the I noticed
the images in the blog post were missing.

(Apparently, Chrome syncing will actually install Adblock for you when you
switch computers(!), but will leave the default lists set. I had it on without
any lists, and just blocked the egregious stuff... except now I suddenly
blocked everything.)

------
asmosoinio
Random note: AdBlock blocked the images in the blog post. Screenshots of ads.

------
epaga
Definitely a darker shade of grey IMHO. Reminds me of the SourceForge ads
shown on the download pages that have a big green "download" button. The ads
usually display before the actual download button appears, and more than once
I have accidentally clicked on it.

I end up angry and remembering NOT to deal with whoever was responsible for
the ad.

However the difference I see to patio11's tactic is that in his case, people
are searching for something educationally related and he gives them something
related. That's different than me expecting to download a Java library and
getting an anti-virus software page. So, still deception and therefore dark-
grey, but not as blatant of deception as the ads on SourceForge.

------
7952
just try looking at the subtle colouring on a slightly tilted laptop display.
It just looks white!

------
bambax
I don't understand who still sees ads. It's apparently a huge majority of
Internet users, but I don't understand where they come from.

I often set up computers for family and friends and installing AdBlock is one
of the first things I do.

Who is computer-savvy enough to buy and install their own computer, and yet
not computer-savvy enough to get AdBlock?

Or do (most) people actually like ads?

~~~
patio11
_I don't understand who still sees ads. It's apparently a huge majority of
Internet users, but I don't understand where they come from._

This is like that quote for "How could X have won the election? I don't know
anybody who voted for him."

If you learn one thing from me, learn that male twenty-something techies _are
not the golden normative standard for all forms of behavior_. Some people
actually do like ads, a lot. (Even twenty-something techies love some ads. I
watch more Old Spice commercials than I watch actual TV!) Most people just
don't care enough one way or the other to change the channel.

I encourage everyone to see how real people actually use these devices which
we're trying to convince real people to use.

~~~
bambax
> males, twenty-something, techies, etc.

My parents are 80 years old. That includes my mother, who is not male (or else
I was lied to about EVERYTHING!) They are not techies by a very long shot.

I installed Adblock for them on Firefox and Chrome.

Sometimes they use IE by accident; inevitably they complain to me that the
blocking of ads is broken or inconsistent because they just saw ads all over
the place.

You're right to say that I'm basing my observation on people I know, but
you're wrong to assume they're all male, young and tech-oriented, or that I
lend them my own preferences.

For example, I'm not on Facebook and will hopefully never be (if that's
possible, which is not certain); but everyone I know is on Facebook and they
even kind of like it.

But the opposite is true for ads.

It would be interesting to look at statistics for Adblock. I really don't see
why it should be a "male" thing...?

\- - -

Edit: I'm actually a little more annoyed by your answer than I should, because
it tries to make me look stupid, without actually saying "I think you're
stupid". I was raised by Jesuits and know one when I see one.

There are hundreds of situations where you don't personally know people who
are of one opinion, but where you're aware they exist because they make
themselves heard. I don't think I've ever met a vegetarian but I'm very much
aware of their existence.

But ads? Who ever speaks publicly in favor of ads (who isn't, like yourself,
an advertiser)???

~~~
patio11
_But ads? Who ever speaks publicly in favor of ads (who isn't, like yourself,
an advertiser)???_

Have you ever had the after-the-Superbowl conversation? Or, take a look at the
Youtube stats / comments / etc for e.g. Real Men of Genius or Old Spice Guy or
Angry Birds or whatever. Or, watch HN when a new Google Doodle comes out. Or,
talk to people who read trade press. Or, talk to people who read fashion
magazines or bridal magazines or other things where every page is paid for. Or
Steve Jobs keynotes. Or...

People _love to buy things_ and they _love to be sold things_ , at least some
of the time.

~~~
bambax
> _Have you ever had the after-the-Superbowl conversation?_

I'm not American and don't live in America, so no, I've never watched the
Superbowl or talked about it, or its ads, afterwards. Over here when there are
very popular sporting events (the World cup every four years, or maybe tennis
every year) people talk about what happened during the game, not about the
ads.

But fashion magazines, yes, point taken. But as you say, there's nothing but
ads in them; people buy them just for that. Ads are not interfering with other
content in fashion magazines.

Anyway -- in my experience, once people know about AdBlock they can't do
without it. Therefore I'm wondering what's going to happen when everyone knows
about it (which will happen eventually).

What you're saying is that many people actually like ads; you may very well be
right.

~~~
ericd
Given that I have met many people who enjoy discussing Super Bowl Ads, it's
not a hypothetical. Many people enjoy some subset of ads. Many also love the
movie trailers that play before movies.

I don't have adblock installed, because I want things that I spend time
reading online to make some money, and because I've learned about a number of
great services when I've taken the time to look at the banner ads on technical
sites.

------
jacquesm
If you want to see the ad 'in real life' you can find it here:

[http://busyteacher.org/classroom_activities-vocabulary-
works...](http://busyteacher.org/classroom_activities-vocabulary-worksheets/)

------
AndyJPartridge
<PickyMode> Head link looks slightly bolder, and a couple of pixels to the
left of where it should be.

Stars are 1/4th-1/5th of a star to the left.

Text seems slightly lighter.

Have to admire the concept!

------
lhnn
Typically, when a site pulls that kind of thing, I cease to use the site. I'm
not interested in buying anything, and by distracting my eyes from legitimate
content with your "get a foot in the door" ads, you earn a big red X from me.

~~~
jbigelow76
The site owner is probably grateful for that mindset. Development time,
servers, bandwidth, these things all cost money. Neither your page view nor
your "screw your costs where's the free shit?" attitude pay the bills.

~~~
lhnn
Bah. I pay for the Economist, and I've paid for LWN in the past. I think a
subscription model for premium content is more respectable than deceptive
advertising.

------
danielhodgins
So let me get this straight. Critics of this tactic want to get rich doing
their own startup, while using the very techniques they just renounced to
generate traffic and conversions? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. Wake up
folks - business success can be 'seedy' sometimes. As long as your product
creates more value than customers are charged, then it's a win-win for
everyone.

What if these so-called 'seedy' techniques represented the difference between
success and failure for your own startup? I'll bet your position on the
white/grey/black hat continuum would shift quite promptly.

Well done Patrick, and thanks for sharing the details about another valuable
marketing tactic that people can try.

~~~
staunch
If you want to do naughty things then by all means do them. There's not much
harm done when people are slightly deceived into clicking onto a legitimate
product. Big deal really.

Just for the love of god don't lie to yourself about it or try to rationalize
it.

