Apparently Internet advertisers get paid per click; that is
to say, they get money every time someone clicks on their ad/link. (I would
also assume they get paid for the ad that sits on the webpage annoying everyone
even if nobody clicks on it, but maybe they don’t, and that’s why so many of
them are so annoying.) Well, if this is the case, and they want more people to
click on the ads, why not devise a new strategy which guarantees lots of
clicks?
What would that be? Well, obviously, they would have to be camouflaged
as something else. So what they could do is have someone write fascinating news
story headlines, or perhaps make up some salacious news story, and provide a
link to this “story”; then when people clicked on it, it would just take them
to the ad, and they’d get all their clicks. I mean, sure, it’s deceptive, but
so are many advertising claims, so what’s the difference? And the Internet
surfers could just hit the back button immediately and go about the rest of
their day, so they only will have been distracted for a matter of a second or
two, which is less time than a TV commercial, so they’re really saving time
when you think about it.
Well, if the FTC decides to be a buzzkill about this
strategy, there’s always another direction to take. We all know about how many
Internet ads have annoying flashing lights or colors, or have dancing, moving
graphics that make them impossible to ignore but also give everyone a headache.
Well, this strategy can backfire, in making people mad. What might work better
instead would be to have the ad be normal-looking and unassuming, but with the
threat that if everyone didn’t click on the ad within 15 seconds, it would
start to flash and dance and blare loud car alarm sirens until people did click on it. This may seem like blackmail of sorts,
but hey: advertisers have to make a living too, you know.
And if this works, or doesn’t work because people don’t
notice the ad, or leave the page to avoid the annoying sirens and flashing
graphics, then they could always up the ante: threaten people to click on
the ads “or else”. The threat could be vague in nature, like saying “you’re
going to get it”, or “you’re in big trouble”, or it could be very specific,
like saying: “We have your daughter, and we’ll kill her if you don’t click on
this ad”, or else maybe: “We’ve secretly been filming you with your webcam
doing really embarrassing things; click on this ad now or we’ll compile the
worst parts and post them online”.
And if all else fails, there’s only one thing left to do:
build the link into every news story or desirable link on the entire Internet,
so that it goes to an ad first without warning people. This is pretty
underhanded, yes, but perhaps the ad could have a little button on the top of it
that allows the user to skip the ad after the first 15 seconds or something.
Oh, but I think they’re doing this on some content already, aren’t
they? So we click on the ad counter without intending to, the ad guys who subject us to this crap get paid against our wishes, and there’s nothing we can do about it? Those fiends! And on top of it all, making everyone mad like this might even build animosity against the products in the ads, having the opposite effect from what was intended, and they still have to pay for it.
Well, if they’re going to make everyone mad at them anyway, why not be even bigger jerks about it, and use the strategies I have formulated above? In fact, if the government mandated this type of Internet ad placement strategy, perhaps it would make the Internet so infuriating to use, everyone would stop using it so much and go outside and get active and get healthy and in-shape and interact with real people once in a while for a change. But that would be government oppression, man, so naturally I oppose it: especially if it’s beneficial!
