Attack of the Killer Ads   

Obnoxious, intrusive advertising is a growing problem on the Internet.

"LOOK AT THIS thing! Have you ever seen one of these? It's attacking me!"
I spun to catch my colleague Jeff spastically shaking his computer mouse. While surfing a popular sports site, his cursor apparently had been ambushed by a feral ad--a vicious little icon that gave literal meaning to the term "sticky." The ruthless thing would not release its grip until he clicked to its mother site.
Later I visited the same page and waved my pointer aimlessly for several minutes. Instead of snagging another Web goblin, I was treated to a full-screen pop-up movie promoting Nike running shoes. On a subsequent visit, I snared a strobing banner ostensibly programmed to produce hypnosis or seizures.
We shared the URL with a few co-workers. The response from the sales department? "Annoying but effective." Click-through accomplished.
All well and good for the advertiser--but what about the editor whose page becomes a virtual hunting ground?
Unlike newspaper plugs that merely compete for a reader's attention, Web ads can literally force a visitor to stop reading, even if only to close a pop-up window. And unlike broadcast ads, which run in clear-cut clusters and regular intervals, Web banners can be set to pop up every few seconds or every few clicks. Today's cutting-edge ads are more than distracting flashes and fake dialogue boxes; they howl, prowl and pounce.
It's all part of advertising's experimental growth. Vendors are scrambling to figure out how best to grab the attention of visitors. They are on a mission to push the boundaries of patience, even if that means clicking off a few surfers in the process. They can afford to be annoying.
And let's face it: It's easier to be annoying than brilliant or informative in a 600-pixel box. It's also easier to experiment with aggressive tactics when sites will bend over backward to sell inventory.
But some of us in the editorial shop are genuinely concerned that "click-or-die" ad strategies can undermine the integrity of a site as much as despised "advertorials" and advertising links that are intentionally paired with certain stories. Anyone who's been on the whipping end of visitor feedback knows writers often get blamed for obnoxious ads that so much as touch their stories, let alone tromp all over them.
So far, most earnest news sites have avoided the more obtrusive advertising tactics described above--but that tells you nothing about what the news reading experience will be six months from now. After all, it was not long ago that some online editors railed against front-page ad banners. They feared it would compromise their integrity, make it look like they'd sold out.
Today the Web sites of the most reputable of old news organizations--from the New York Times to the Washington Post--boast prominent front-page ads. It's an embarrassment to have empty inventory.
Many news sites also insert ads in e-mail subscription services, which send users the day's top headlines and story links. The next leap will be to tag the exchanges between online reporters and their audiences. Imagine how a visitor might feel to receive an e-mail that said: "We appreciate your feedback. How would you like to receive 200 minutes of free long-distance?" It's not far away.
What other ad tactics are coming to a news site near you? In addition to "pushed" ads in mail lists, some sites will sell banners between paragraphs of news stories and at the beginning of digitized video clips. Ads will slide in and out of vacant screen space and jump up between pages.
The march of progress is inevitable. The Internet--like radio, television and print--must share space with advertising to survive. Short of subscription-based models, there don't seem to be alternatives. If we need to carve up cyberspace, so be it.
But journalists and editorial management should be worried about losing the turf where visitors should expect to browse in peace. Would it be unreasonable, for instance, to draw boundaries that prevented ads from slipping between paragraphs of stories, forcing viewers away from content? Or to bar vendors from barging into private correspondences?
Concern about online advertising normally focuses on blurred lines, crumbling walls and gray areas. We worry over sponsored sections, paid links pegged to stories and ads that masquerade as "consumer tips." We haggle over proper ad size, placement and labeling.
But just as menacing are these ads that make no pretense--that knock visitors over the head and wrestle them to the ground.
Should we be bracing today for tomorrow's battle? You bet your banners.