A short paper about a few brands that utilize pop-up banner advertising online and why I think it sucks.

Pop-up advertising is annoying. Ask anyone. This was a brief paper I submitted on the subject.

To begin, I don't necessarily care for pop-ups and pop-unders and rarely click on banner ads. Although I see many of these ads during my online experiences, I seldom do anything to act on their messages. While I enjoy the amount of creativity these employ, I consider putting up with them a necessary evil.

Of these three types of web advertising, I feel the one that is the least obtrusive is the simple banner ad. For this paper, I have attempted to investigate all three types to determine if there were any major differences in how they completed their messaging.

The University of Phoenix
The first website banner that I clicked on was located on CNN Money (cnnfn.com). It was for an extremely popular web advertiser - University of Phoenix (UoP). I’ve seen UoP ads everywhere and they often use pop-unders that I’m constantly deleting. Upon clicking the banner I was immediately taken to the University of Phoenix web site. I landed on a page that was headlined 'The leading University for Working Professionals'. On multiple parts of the page were graphics and banners touting the university's Flexnet, a degree format that combines classroom and online learning. Initially I thought that this landing page was an interior page of the site. There was nothing on the page that gave me any point of reference. I attempted to return to the site's main home page by clicking on the site's logo. It was then that I determined that I was on the home page after all.

Overall, I found the site to be shallow - approximately 5 pages - and one that was designed to get users to 'Request More Information'. Basically a lead generation site. Beyond well-written introductory material, there was little information about the institution. You would expect that such a ‘large institution’ would have a site comparable to what other universities have.

In considering the nature of the banner ad, there was essentially no enticement offered to click-through on the ad, and the landing page as described above, did not offer any special information. From a consumer's perspective this might help the organization's credibility as it fosters the user to take the initiative. But I would think that this would lead to very limited response.

The UoP site was nicely done, but altogether too brief and lacking specifics. I came away feeling that anyone can write pleasing copy and build a small website. It didn’t improve my perception that the organization is a well-organized diploma mill. This may be a touch off base, but the organization should be providing a more robust public-facing presence. With almost all universities now offering electronic distance programs, this is more important than ever.

Verizon DSL
The next advertisement that I clicked on was for Verizon DSL. The ad appeared on another of my most favorite sites - The Drudge Report (drudgereport.com). The headline of the ad exclaimed 'Verizon Online DSL 3.0Mbps'. I clicked and was immediately taken to a Verizon landing page promoting a 'limited time offer'. But to see the latest offers in my area, I was required to enter a phone number. I obliged for the sake of this discussion.

After I entered my Verizon Wireless telephone number, I was greeted with a page that informed me that ' Verizon Online DSL Is Not Available', but that I could enter my first and last name and my email address for more information. The page also communicated that the Verizon network was 'continually being expanded' and that Verizon didn't want me 'to miss the opportunity to get a dedicated high-speed Internet connection...' From that point I was sort of stuck. There seemed no point in going any further. Verizon didn’t offer services in my area. Case closed.

Clicking back to the original landing page, I decided to venture around a bit. What I thought was effective was the information the company provided in comparing DSL to cable access. They presented a link to a JD Power Report on the company, as well as an interactive tool comparing Verizon with a variety of cable access providers. The tool presented a user selection list naming companies like Adelphia, Cox, Earthlink, AOL, Bellsouth and others. When you selected a competitor, their 'ratings' appeared next to Verizon's. As a skeptic of comparisons, the page highlighted that they were based on 'responses from thousands of consumers nationwide. The six categories below (cost, billing, image, performance and reliability, customer service, e-mail) were the factors found to have the greatest impact on customer satisfaction.'

When compared to the competition, Verizon faired extremely favorably. This may or may not be true in real life. Although the 'results' showed them being bested by certain competitors in specific categories, they were always superior in price. Although I was skeptical, I then visited the JD Power and Associates link they provided. The information they provided - namely a quick abstract of their 2004 Internet Service Provider Residential Customer Satisfaction Study - seemed more credible. This worked to buttress Verizon's claims. I thought this was an effective way for them to drive home credibility in their services and their survey results. It appeared to be consistent.

What I thought was most interesting about the banner may have been its biggest weakness. I consider myself a very savvy internet user that's extremely comfortable with technology and as a result of my professional work, probably have a better grasp of technology than most web users. Given this, I felt the ad's headline was confusing. What is DSL 3.0 Mbps? I understand 3.0Mbps, but I'm unsure if the average Internet user would. And besides, for this banner to appear on a site designed for low-bandwidth connectivity, I questioned why anyone would waste his or her time to investigate it. Last, after I clicked-through to the Verizon site, there was no other mention of this feature. This seemed to be a bit confusing. I’m sure the average user would have experienced similar difficulties.

The Online Reward Center - http://onlinerewardcenter.com/ [3]
The last ad that I viewed was a pop-under advertisement that appeared on my computer when I followed a news link from the Drudge Report regarding a tourist being shot on Broadway in New York City. The advertisement was designed to simulate an operating system 'System Status' dialog box that proclaimed that my 'urgent attention is required'. This type of ad epitomized the creative, yet sometimes rogue nature of some forms of modern web advertising. I clicked through only for the purposes of this discussion.

From a design perspective, the ad was well done, complete with authentic looking system features. It was only slightly discernable from a normal system. The copy of the ad stated that I had been chosen to 'receive a free* laptop PC' and that the offer was only available online and for a limited time. When I clicked, my browser opened up a new window and I was taken to the Online Rewards Center.

Upon arriving, three types of laptops appeared. These included a Toshiba Satellite, a Compaq Presario, and a Gateway Notebook. There was a form field that required me to enter a Zip Code to determine if the offer was available for my area. Beyond this information, there was clear information that stated that to be eligible for my 'free laptop' my information would need to be validated, I would be required to complete a user survey and I also be required to participate in the several ‘sponsor offers’. Further browsing uncovered customer testimonials, and more specific information regarding what 'sponsors offers' really meant. The information about what this entailed put me a ease somewhat. They stated the following:

" Examples of sponsored offers may include free trial offers, credit cards, free quote requests and other free or low-cost offers. Please note that there are typically a variety of offers presented for your selection - some offers require a small purchase, while others are free trials or free applications which does not require a purchase (and can be cancelled without obligation)."

I felt that this was adequate information and actually intrigued me. Beyond this, they listed other specifics of the program, along with some frequently asked questions. They stated that users could even monitor the status of their progress online. This was another plus.

Taking all of this information into account, I viewed the Online Reward Center in a different light. They seemed very credible. I was almost tempted to try it out, but thought otherwise when considering the time frame (90 days), and the administrative hassles of completing the necessary steps. But even so, this was a plus. I had a different perspective on the nature of the service.