
How 'One Weird Trick' Conquered The Internet - weston
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/07/how_one_weird_trick_conquered_the_internet_what_happens_when_you_click_on.single.html
======
orangethirty
I stumbled into some weird data as to how startups may be able to use this
kind of technique without exploiting people. Yeah, it sounds hard to believe.
But you have to understand that every technique out there can be used for
good. Anyhow, turns out that there are some tricks that these type of
advertisers use to increase their response. One just needs to carefully read
the source of their pages (specially the Javascript), and you will find lots
of interesting stuff in it. Just beware. Once you dig into this type of
advertising your view on the subject might change dramatically. You can learn
more about it here: [http://bit.ly/13wOrj2](http://bit.ly/13wOrj2)

 _Edit:_

16 clicks on 2 minutes. This sort of technique works on everybody, including
_smart hackers._ Its mostly about talking about what you want. Some people
want to lose weight, others control their diabetes. Apparently, lots of people
want to learn of _a little known advertising secrets for startups._ I should
make a Copy as a Service startup. (:

See how many are suckered into clicking:
[http://bit.ly/13wOrj2+](http://bit.ly/13wOrj2+)

~~~
xeper
I grew up in Utah. Living there taught me at least one thing that helps me
deal with certain types of more fanatical or difficult people I meet and deal
with on a near daily basis:

    
    
        Everyone wants to be part of a secret society or have some esoteric knowledge that
        makes them feel set-apart from the norm.
    

Unfortunately, this is incredibly easy to exploit and I've watched nearly
every member of my family get taken in by someone or something promising them
unrealistic benefits from some 'secret' or another.

~~~
lostlogin
Jesus!

~~~
euroclydon
The gospel of Jesus is a poorly kept secret.

------
CGamesPlay
[http://www.oneweirdkerneltrick.com/](http://www.oneweirdkerneltrick.com/)

~~~
dimatura
I made this! Please see the slides, they are more "up to date" than the
respective papers.

~~~
faddotio
Your site practically made me pee myself with laughter. You totally nailed the
tone and presentation.

------
MartinCron
I would feel a lot better about Slate (and everyone else) if they didn't run
those "SPONSORED FROM AROUND THE WEB" pseudo-article links at the bottom of
each page with this _exact same kind_ of manipulative ads in them.

Come on Slate. You think better of your audience than this, right?

~~~
eli
That's Outbrain:
[http://www.outbrain.com/engage/](http://www.outbrain.com/engage/)

In theory the ads are targeted to the content of the site, but I agree that
they're often pretty crummy.

~~~
ig1
As far as I can tell, that's not Outbrain, Outbrain is the "More from Slate" /
"From Around the Web" section.

The "SPONSORED FROM AROUND THE WEB" section appears to be a standard ad panel
from Content.ad.

~~~
eli
You're right!

I thought "From Around the Web" was what we were talking about, but of course
there are multiple similar blocks of paid links.

------
brandnewlow
When we launched Perfect Audience, we wanted to make things easy to use and as
open as possible to marketers looking to get into retargeting.

Yes, we were a bit naive.

The sheer multitude of bad actors participating in the ad/marketing world is
bewildering. It tooks us a solid month after launch to get processes in place
that let us weed out the bozos swiftly without tying up the whole team.

We have many many of these "one trick" people sign up and try to use our
tools. We'll keep turning them away and staying vigilant for the next ruse.

~~~
nhebb
> weed out the bozos swiftly without tying up the whole team.

I bet there's a trick to that. You should sell an ebook.

------
M4v3R
The article doesn't seem to mention this, but there is another trick in these
guys arsenals - fake news articles about their products.

They build entire webpages, along with side-stories and article comments that
support their product. They look SO real that once I (and I consider myself
pretty tech-savvy, having access to Internet for 15 years) fell for it
briefly, and then had to explain it to my wife who stumbled upon them as well.
I was truly impressed by amount of work these guys went through not only to
write a pretty long science-looking article, but to build a whole (albeit
pretty static) webpage and write realistic comment sections. Sadly, this whole
effort is done to deceive other people.

~~~
rallison
Indeed they do. I recently looked into a similar scam, although the starting
point was a hacked email account that sent out links to everyone in the
address book to a hacked wordpress install. It was interesting following the
rabbit hole. Here is a quick write-up I did on that instance:

This is what the original wordpress instance looked like (just the frontpage,
which did not carry malicious content):

[http://i.imgur.com/FeCKUu9.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/FeCKUu9.jpg)

\- However, the malicious page on this wordpress instance redirects to a site
named foxrxs, registered a day ago (as of this writing)
[http://whois.domaintools.com/foxrxs.com](http://whois.domaintools.com/foxrxs.com)
\- to "Gergo Czako" in Hungary.

\- The foxrxs site is made to look like Fox News, but it basically just tries
to sell people "raspberry ultra drops" \- a diet supplement:

[http://i.imgur.com/RHMxj7T.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/RHMxj7T.jpg)

\- Most of the links on foxrxs go to onlineslimdiet:

[http://i.imgur.com/e4tdYm1.png](http://i.imgur.com/e4tdYm1.png)

\- This site was also registered yesterday (as of this writing):
[http://whois.domaintools.com/onlineslimdiet.com](http://whois.domaintools.com/onlineslimdiet.com)
\- in this case to "Uta Kalb" in Germany. However, what is notable is both
domains use exactly the same name servers: ns1.dnscentral.ru ns2.dnsmax.ru So,
given the same exact registration date and same name servers, chances are,
both are owned by the same entity.

\- And, this seems to be a common scam:
[http://www.complaintsboard.com/bycompany/raspberry-ultra-
dro...](http://www.complaintsboard.com/bycompany/raspberry-ultra-
drops-a456219.html) Basically, an email address is hacked one way or another,
which then often links to a compromised wordpress blog. That redirects to a
new domain that is made to look like fox news. The fake fox news site appears
to endorse this miracle diet supplement, with all links pointing to another
site where you can actually order the product. People apparently do receive
the product, but I'm guessing the product itself is a scam. Nice way to make
money - only $60 for two ounces of snake oil!

~~~
M4v3R
> [http://i.imgur.com/RHMxj7T.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/RHMxj7T.jpg)

This is exactly what I had in mind. A web page stylized as a news website with
an article that subtly points to some diet pills. If one didn't read the URL
he could really fell for that.

------
junto
This is the same as the 'Nigerian 419' fraud concept. They fill the email with
spelling and grammar mistakes and in doing so, they filter out the marginally
intelligent, resulting in a pre-filter to attract the most gullible.

The crappy, hand drawn ads, the dire videos, and the bad production have the
same effect. The punter needs to be a gullible fool, since a fool and his
money are soon parted.

~~~
grimtrigger
Makes sense, but Occams razor is more than enough to explain the bad grammar
and production effects. Any evidence its a conscious decision?

~~~
mmanfrin
PlentyOfFish did a small test: [http://blog.ads.pof.com/2012/04/03/throw-
everything-you-know...](http://blog.ads.pof.com/2012/04/03/throw-everything-
you-know-about-ads-out-the-window-pics-inside/)

~~~
atondwal
Hmm, I didn't even notice the first ad, because I subconsciously scanned over
it as an ad. The second one looked liked content to me, so I saw that one, and
even felt an impulse to click and see what kinda game someone built with such
a campy art style

------
throwawayg99
I work with a dozen or so people who are involved in this sort of work. I
think it is very interesting to see how they rationalize and deal with their
moral compass internally.

One of the guys is the most caring, liberal, loving person you'd ever meet; he
justifies being involved in this sort of skeezy marketing work as "I can take
a small amount from a lot of people and amplify the result to do good with a
lot of money."

He genuinely believes this. A lot of the other guys simply try not to see the
"punters" (potential customers [1]) as real people, they are disconnected
through the impersonal nature of the internet.

[1]
[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/punter_2](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/punter_2)

~~~
MBCook
I saw lots of cognitive dissonance when I worked for a company that was
something of an advertising firm. Everyone hates pop-ups and spam... but it's
probably OK if we do it.

We can turn off the user's pop-up blocker right? What do you mean we can't get
around it? How are we supposed to get them to see our side offers if we can't
do pop-ups?

And the constant discussions about how to keep our emails from landing in spam
folders. Since we weren't running a scam, there had to be a way to get our
emails in the inbox right? Even though we don't know the person... bought
their address from someone (who bought it from someone)... sent them 3 emails
this week already...

I'm glad to not be involved in some of that any more.

~~~
corin_
Just to show a little balance - there are those of us in advertising who try
to do the best we can for our audience, and don't even need morals to make
that decision, since doing the right thing gives us better results than trying
to trick people.

~~~
nfoz
But there will still be people like me who consider any amount of advertising
to be an offense, something that is more desirable if it doesn't exist. You
can be as nice about it as you want or feel is appropriate, and I appreciate
that, but at the end of the day, your interest is antagonistic to mine.

~~~
corin_
If you find all advertising offensive then I think that's an issue with you,
not with advertising. If you want to look at or use something that doesn't
belong to you (whether that's getting on a bus, or visiting a website, or
watching a TV channel) then the owners should be allowed to show you
advertising if they wish. If you prefer not to see it, you can make that
choice and avoid it.

Is it more desirable if it doesn't exist? Perhaps - if you really hate it all
then fine, that's your opinion, but do you really hate it enough that you
would prefer every website that is financed by advertising to either bill you
for usage or shut down, every public transport subsidised by advertising gets
more expensive, every TV channel price goes up, cinema tickets, everything...

And as to my interest being antagonistic to yours, I disagree. I (personally)
want you to buy a laptop or a PC and I want you to, when you next need one of
these items, consider my brand. I target audiences very tightly to try and
ensure that people who see my adverts are likely to be interested, and do
rather a good job of it if I say so myself. If you end up being interested in
what I am advertising (as plenty of people who view them do) then great for
me, great for you. If you don't, then you can ignore my adverts, I don't buy
any that are overly annoying or evasive, so even without adblock installed
they won't cause you any problems, you can just ignore them.

End of the day, my goal isn't to trick you into buying something you don't
want, it's to make sure the people who do want to buy these things know about
them, and to avoid other people as much as possible. Feel free to hate bad
adverts - I do. Even feel free to hate all adverts, including mine, if you
wish, though I disagree with you on this. But don't go so far as to call them
offensive. They just aren't.

------
rogerbinns
> “Research on persuasion shows the more arguments you list in favor of
> something, regardless of the quality of those arguments, the more that
> people tend to believe it,”

[1] has some different research which claims that people average the arguments
made, rather than summing them up, which most expect. It won't make any
difference if you have a whole bunch of low value arguments, but will if there
a combination of strong points and weaker ones.

[1]
[http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/10/the_presentation_mistake_you...](http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/10/the_presentation_mistake_you_d.html)

------
username223
I'm sorry if this is trivial, but “what’s holding you back from the big penis
you deserve" has to be one of the greatest phrases ever written.

------
mistercow
>Why are the illustrations done by small children using MS Paint?

None of those images look like the were drawn by a small child. The ones in
the screen cap vary from "kind of crappy, but obviously done by an adult" to
"probably the work of professional illustrator".

------
cpeterso
Another "weird trick" sites use is to include numbers in headlines. The
sidebar of this very Slate article lists headlines for _" 7 of John Adams'
greatest insults"_ and _" 'A Different World': 12 Things We Learned"_. There
must some psychological lure that makes readers think "oh, that is such a
specific number that it must be a very important and definitive list!" :\

~~~
InclinedPlane
This is basically the entire premise of cracked.com.

------
arnehormann
If you have to watch the video for 15-30 minutes, I think it's not the
persuasion aspect but probably loading different sites in an iframe to defraud
advertisers: [http://www.behind-the-enemy-lines.com/2011/03/uncovering-
adv...](http://www.behind-the-enemy-lines.com/2011/03/uncovering-advertising-
fraud-scheme.html)

------
corwinstephen
The culmination of this article was just as obvious and unsurprising as the
very ads it describes.

------
Havoc
I like how one of the stories in slate's sidebar is "The Secret Ingredient
[...] will blow your mind"

~~~
MartinCron
Spoiler: It's Mint in your iced coffee. I'm eager to try it now.

~~~
derefr
Mint facts! The reason people say to put toothpaste on a bruise or a hickey is
that toothpaste is traditionally flavored with mint. It's really the
peppermint oil they're after, which is a strong vasodilator.

For this same reason, peppermint oil is, at high doses, an abortificant.

~~~
stuaxo
TIL I learned a new word ... it sounds kinda cute..

I'm sure there's a pretencious band name in there somewhere :)

------
callmeed
Scams aside, it would be interesting to use some of these techniques on
landing pages for _legitimate, valuable_ SaaS apps.

"One weird trick to improve your SEO/conversions/customer satisfaction/whatver
KPI" which links to a page with a crude, long-form, un-pausable video. After
that, you could probably at least get them to create a trial account.

Has/would anyone try this?

~~~
username223
"Scams aside", your scam would work as well as theirs.

~~~
corin_
It's not a scam because of the way they hook users, it's a scam because the
end product doesn't work. If callmeed has a genuine, decent product at the end
of it then his version wouldn't be a scam, even if he marketed it the same way
as these guys.

~~~
king_jester
It's a scam because it deliberately attempts to undermine the reader's ability
to determine if the product being sold is factually able to do what it says.
These techniques take advantage of distorting information literacy in order to
make a sale, regardless of the effectiveness of the product.

------
D9u
_Conquered the internet?_

I don't think so. I've never clicked on any of those ads, and I'm sure that
millions of other users of Ad Block, etc, have never even seen these ads.

Of interest to me was the author's reluctance to click on links due to malware
threats.

Even when I used WinXP, years ago, I never have been infected with any
malware, but then, I'm not the average PC user.

~~~
ToastyMallows
What, you don't want free animated smilies?

------
sokrates
> You've seen them.

No. AdBlock.

~~~
mindslight
It's truly amazing the amount of mental energy people will apparently spend
dwelling on advertising, even worrying that if they accidentally click it
their life could be forfeit to a scam, but yet they won't spend the five
minutes it would take to simply install Adblock.

~~~
vacri
I use flashblock instead of adblock. Advertising pays for much of the
internet, so I feel it's reasonable to let some of it through. Flashblock
kills the worst offenders, and given I also run noscript (which isn't for
everyone), the rest of the bad ones are taken care of as well. Simple images
are allowed through, and these kinds of ads aren't particularly distracting.
In the rare case there is a bad animated .gif, hitting 'esc' stops them
cycling.

Adblock just feels like bad faith to me - there is no 'give and take', it's
just 'take'.

~~~
mindslight
Advertising wasn't always the norm, and I would personally _love_ to return to
the days where people published because they actually had something to say.
How many search results these days are from those extremely valuable sites
with one person geeking out on everything they know about a topic, versus the
sheer number of content farms regurgitating the same simplistic crap just to
get page views and ultimately waste your time?

In fact, I'd been waiting until the next DuckDuckGo thread came up to throw
out the idea that DDG could further differentiate itself by having an option
to only return results from sites without advertisements. I would love such a
feature, even using Adblock, because I think the quality of the results would
go up immensely.

~~~
caryhartline
Advertising pays for a lot of very legitimate content-focused blogs/news
organizations as well.

People can't afford to pay for every single blog or bit of news they read and
authors can't do anything substantial or meaningful without making it a
job(and needing money to do it).

~~~
fishpi
I'm not sure that "can't afford" is the right conclusion. The amount of money
a site makes off each person by showing ads is miniscule, so almost anyone
could afford to pay at least as much for the content as the adverts make.

I think it's more likely that the mental overhead of choosing whether to pay
for something (which is roughly constant, even for small amounts of money)
adds enough friction to the process that charging small amounts never works.

------
Agathos
How this stay-at-home mom used one weird trick to conquer the internet! Click
here!

(And yes, that's how I parsed the link title at first glance.)

------
RyanMcGreal
Once again I give thanks for AdBlock.

------
runn1ng
Well... I excepted the article to go deeper. Investigate who actually pays
these ads,,where does the money go, why are they allowed to basically lie in
the ads.

Instead the author just clicked on the ads and watched the videos. Well, I can
do that too.

------
interject
What actually happens when you hand over your credit card details? Do you get
an eBook or something? The article doesn't actually say.

~~~
stonemetal
The last paragraph hints at it. It appears two were pills and one was a
pamphlet, the cinnamon for diabetes one isn't clear probably a pamphlet or
ebook.

------
timcederman
Reminds me a lot of the X10 ads that used to be everywhere in late-90s/early
2000s.

~~~
rhizome
It was more recent than that, and there was a great deal of overlap with
Netflix's popunder ads (which still persist to this day).

~~~
vidarh
X10 came online in '96, and their most aggressive campaigns peaked around
2001. They filed for chapter 11 in 2003:

[http://news.cnet.com/2100-1014_3-5095260.html](http://news.cnet.com/2100-1014_3-5095260.html)

I don't know if they emerged or if the remains were bought, but the "current"
X10 never got anywhere near as aggressive as their pre-chapter 11 self.

------
talmand
I once worked for a company that operated along these lines. It wasn't quite
as bad as those mentioned in the article due to the fact that the industry in
question had several government agencies watching almost everything they do
but it was an interesting learning experience.

There's likely two reasons why so many follow the same pattern. It's possible
that many did enough A/B testing to determine the best direction that provided
the best results. More likely one person came up with the pattern, the rest
decided that it seemed a successive effort, and they all copied that one
person's pattern.

I can't tell you how many times I created a landing page and/or email that was
built in one specific way that originated with one guy that the rest perceived
as the most successive guy in their type of marketing. If he said it, then it
was gold. It was a tad disheartening as there was no real design involved.
"Copy is king!" was the mantra and a nice design was not necessary. Even a
decent design that made the copy easier to read was not considered worth the
time. This was typically the type of landing page that uses the funnel method
of long, sensational text with call-to-actions sprinkled down the page leading
to a short order form at the bottom.

This insistence of copying everybody else because of perceived success, no
data to support that perception of course, made for interesting conversations.
"We're doing it this way." "Why?" "Because that's how they did it." "Why
should we do it because they did?" "If they're doing it then it must work."

Although it was always fun to introduce a new kink to the marketing pattern
and watch everybody else copy you. Especially when we hadn't yet decided if
the new method even worked or not.

My favorite story that shows how locked into a pattern they would be until
something shattered their illusions involved one sales email. For the longest
time it was the rule to use as few images as possible in emails. The reasoning
being because modern email clients do not automatically download images so you
don't want things hidden from the potential customer before they interact with
the email. I fought that quite a bit using legit companies like Apple and
NewEgg as examples in that they successfully sell stuff and use images quite
frequently through their emails. No dice. So one day I design a new email
template that did use images heavily, our products were displayed in a grid
that looked like stickers placed on the email. That meant that the copy
listing details and pricing of the products were in the images, which was a
no-no. I didn't tell anyone I did this knowing that all of them had their
email clients downloading images automatically that came from us. The email
was approved and sent out. A few weeks later I asked how that email did, "Best
money-making email we've ever sent out!"

I then confessed to what I had done to their totally shocked confusion. After
that I was able to actually design stuff that looked nice instead of the
scammy look they insisted upon. And of course most of those newer designs, not
all mind you, made more money. Interesting that I didn't see many other
companies copying the new pattern. I guess it broke the mold enough to not be
perceived as successful.

Anyway, even with the occasional moral problems, it was a good learning
experience. Almost everything I know about SEO, ads, email, marketing,
analytics, customer relations, and much more came from this company. Kind of
gives me a somewhat unique perspective at my new job at a more traditional
agency.

