PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Another one bites the dust
January 23rd 2001, 09:11 CET by Morn

Another big gaming site is shutting down: <a href="http://www.barrysworld.com">BarrysWorld</a>, a popular UK based gaming portal offering the usual mix of gaming news, fan site hosting and a game server farm, has run out of money and is shutting down in less than two weeks time. Here's their <a href="http://www.barrysworld.com/news/">announcement</a>:

<quote>BarrysWorld are to cease all operations from 5 February 2001, and have already gone into voluntary liquidation. Basically, we have run out of money and, with the current state of the market, have been unable to secure sufficient alternative funding/revenue.

We are all devastated by this situation and despite our best efforts to secure some sort of deal to keep the business alive, we have been forced to pull the plug before someone pulls it for us. You can read Ted's statement on the situation in <a href=http://www.barrysworld.com/content/pr_ted.htm>this press release</a>.

We would like to thank all of our registered members and clans, the many people who have hosted sites with us, our many thousands more occasional visitors and of course the hundreds of community volunteers who put their free time into BarrysWorld, its leagues and related sites, for their help in building the best gaming service in Europe, and possibly the world.

It's been a fun four years and we would have wanted to carry on getting bigger and better. Unfortunately that decision is no longer in our hands. Go check out <a href=http://www.barrysworld.com/content/pr_ted.htm>Ted's statement</a> and then comment in the <a href=http://forums.barrysworld.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=71>BarrysWorld Forum</a> if you want. You can also checkout the <a href=http://www.barrysworld.com/content/pr_official.htm>Official Press Release</a>.</quote>
There's also a <a href="http://www.tornado-insider.com/news/Article.asp?id=2221">story about this on Tornado Insider</a>, where you can also find <a href="http://www.tornado-insider.com/news/Article.asp?id=2176">this interesting story</a> about German gaming site <a href="http://www.gamigo.de">Gamigo</a> successfully securing first round financing from two venture capitalists, Berlin based bmp and AS (Axel Springer) Ventures. <i>They</i> seem rather confident that the online gaming market is actually healthy and alive:

<quote>"Online games belong to the most interesting markets of the future, said bmp chairman Oliver Borrmann, in the statement. The company cited figures predicting that the number of online PC players in Western Europe will triple over the next two years from about 8.4 million to about 25 million.</quote>
BarrysWorld is (was?) also hosting <a href="http://www.planetarion.com">Planetarion</a>, a populer web-based space strategy game that, according to a recent interview, currently generates roughly 180 million page impressions (!) per month.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Another one bites the dust

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Morn"
2001-01-23 09:11:59
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
Oh my gawd, I've posted a story.

- Morn
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#2 by "None1a"
2001-01-23 09:19:01
none1a@home.com
<b>Morn</b> (#0):
<quote><I>They</I> seem rather confident that the online gaming market is actually healthy and alive:
</quote>

I'd say they think the online gaming market could be in for a major comeback in a year or two, and want to get in while it's battered down.

<b>Morn</b> (#1):
<quote>Oh my gawd, I've posted a story.
</quote>

And it's not the one we where expecting, shame on you :)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#3 by "Hambone"
2001-01-23 09:26:51
Cosmando@homestead.com
Nice story Morn, it seemed to lack something though. Oh yes, bias and slander. Maybe Andy can help you with that?
#4 by "DevPac2"
2001-01-23 10:07:10
devpac2@hotmail.com
'Tis a sad day for British gamers, as BW pretty much started the online gaming scene here. To my mind BW were primarily an ISP (or GSP) which got overtaken by the rise of broadband and more significantly all the 'free' internet access deals that have recently been made available in the UK. People would rather play on a slightly slower connection for free than pay for the best connection available. I'm curious as to whether this means that this sort of business model doesn't work and we'll all end up paying for game server access soon, or if they'll still be used as a good reason to use a specific ISP.

Dev.
#5 by "Durzel"
2001-01-23 10:07:57
durzel@barrysworld.com
Dammit I was just about to "Submit" this story! :)

If BarrysWorld's untimely demise proves anything, it's that non-subcription based gaming is no longer a viable business model.  BarrysWorld was given a substantial amount of money (substantial in the context of what most "hobbyist" sites are given to play with), ploughed it into expensive equipment and server farms at no cost to the consumer, and paid the price for their compassion and "community spirit" by going into voluntary liquidation a mere 9 months after the initial wave of funding (allegedly 1m).

I could personally ramble on at length about this subject, but someone has kindly already penned an excellent messageboard article about it, which can be read here.
#6 by "the_reformed_pianist"
2001-01-23 10:17:05
pianist@canada.com
6th!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#7 by "Hambone"
2001-01-23 11:22:27
Cosmando@homestead.com
I liked BarrysWorld, this sucks. Maybe if Warren Marshall had given a better <a href="http://www.barrysworld.com/content/interviews.asp?Article=66&Page=1">interview</a>, this never would have happened. I'm not saying it wasn't a good interview, just not good enough to save the company. =P

I played Wheel of Time yesterday, you guys weren't kidding, those levels are creepy.
#8 by "SteveGibson"
2001-01-23 12:44:06
smiles@shugashack.com
barrysworld was more important to the euro scene than anything over here in the USA. its a huge loss over there. non-subscription is still viable though in a number of cases. just not for barrysworld, meccaworld, and the many other places that are closing up shop.

millions of people viewing advertising in an interactive environment holds a hell of a lot of value. advertisements and websites need to evolve past the standard 468x60 banners to get that value. the 468x60 banner on its own still retains a bit of value, the industry click % average has dropped quite a bit, but people still click.

if i put out a banner that says "copy of duke4 for $39.95" and 0.3% of the people who view it actually click it (a reasonable click rate right now) i would anticipate maybe 1 out of 3 of those people actually purchase the game. 0.1% or 1 out of every 1,000. banners i put out result in a sale for me, and oh $3 to $9 or so net profit. would i be willing to buy some ad space on some duke nukem and FPS oriented websites the month or two leading up to duke4's release? if i had to pay about a buck or a few per 1,000 banners yur damn right.

the problem is the click-through and awareness of 468x60 banners has dropped from 1.0 to 1.5% range to 0.2 to 0.3% range over the years. thats a drastic impact on the value of banners, and ad networks and advertisers werent watching those numbers close enough.

if a web page can manage to kick out 10million or so banners per month, and at worst case get $1 per 1,000 banners. they are still pulling in a gross of $10,000 per month. not bad, even in a shitty market. this is of course not even considering the evolution of advertisements beyond the typical banners. whatever comes up next as the industry standard, im sure will be better than a 0.2% user interaction rate, and in turn will hold a higher value for the advertisers. which all trickles back to the website owners.

the reason so many pages are closing up shop is that they were operating at a budget that was 2-4X what they were suddenly hacked down to. say that 10million banners a month website was pulling in $30,000 per month. they setup topline servers, staff, etc etc all on that budget. word comes in one day that banners are way overvalued and you just got your budget hacked down to $10,000 per month. doh? you're fucked unless you were lucky/smart enough to be operating a website that has a fairly low burn rate/overhead.

obviously my hypothetical numbers could be off a bit, but hopefully you guys get the basic idea. websites just need a heck of a lot more traffic and lower burn rates to stay in the game now. hope i make it :)

holy shit thats a long post, damn 6 minute heating time on my lasagna!
#9 by "Dethstryk"
2001-01-23 12:49:00
jemartin@tcainternet.com
<b>SteveGibson</b> (#8):
<QUOTE>holy shit thats a long post, damn 6 minute heating time on my lasagna!</QUOTE>
Sometimes I wonder about the <i>real</i> motives behind some posts. ;)


--
Dethstryk<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#10 by "Morn"
2001-01-23 13:34:50
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#8</b> "SteveGibson" wrote...
<quote>if a web page can manage to kick out 10million or so banners per month, and at worst case get $1 per 1,000 banners. they are still pulling in a gross of $10,000 per month.</quote>
One (big) thinking mistake there: you only earn money if someone actually <i>buys</i> banner impressions. If you have 10 million total monthly banner impressions, it doesn't automatically mean that you will be able to sell all of them. This is the big problem; if you have too few impressions (ie you're too small), people won't be very interested in advertising with you; if you're too big, you'll have trouble finding enough advertisers to buy your inventory. Look at <i>any</i> large site network and you'll see that most banners are used for internal advertising.

- Morn
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#11 by "SteveGibson"
2001-01-23 14:21:24
smiles@shugashack.com
Morn,

ah yeah, apologies for not mentioning that. i generally leave that out when im talking averages and just include the $0cpm % of inventory into that average.

i was lucky enough to get a very close look at ugo's number recently, and of course get monthly sales reports. the going rate for banners right now floats anywhere between $1 and $8 per 1,000 banners, for the 468x60's, at least for the gaming market.

sell about 50% of your inventory at an average of 2cpm of sold space (which a lot of pages on ugo are doing right now) and it averages out to 1cpm overall. kick in the bonus revenue for extra buttons etc and its still a nice chunk of change. the hardware related pages are actually doing a heck of a lot better than that. (ask kyle from hardocp) for obvious reasons.

excellent point about being too big or too small though, maarten and i were actually discussing that a couple weeks ago.
#12 by "AshRain"
2001-01-23 14:46:07
ikhier@wish.net
No-submission gaming is keeling over. Which is good. You know why?

Advantages submission:
- you have a much better chance on a decent connection
- players are way more localized(less servers)
- players who pay are players who really want to play rather then being a llama
- you can count on improvements/upgrades to be made
Disadvantages:
-It's not free

When you look at free gaming you have the same list as above only then the advantages are the disadvanteges and vica versa.
I feel sad that barrysworld has to close. They had decent/fast servers.
#13 by "Whisp"
2001-01-23 14:59:55
whisp@vt.edu
I've always been puzzled by advertisers' fixation on click through.  Why do some advertisers think this is the only measure of an ad's success?  No other media expects this level of immediate result. It should be considered added value, but it isn't necessarily a failure if no one clicks.

-Whisp<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#14 by "Apache"
2001-01-23 15:17:24
apache@stomped.com
pretty shitty news about barrysworld, I didn't really read them a lot but they had nice game servers and stuff. I mean, when you can get good pings from across the Atlantic ocean, you know they were doing something right. :)
#15 by "Morn"
2001-01-23 15:35:20
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#12</b> "AshRain" wrote...
<quote>Disadvantages:
-It's not free</quote>
Yep, but it's really a bigger problem for them than it is for us users. I bet most of us would (theoretically) be perfectly happy with paying a small monthly fee for a quality product (which, for example, could be being able to play on some fast servers with cool people). But there will <i>always</i> be free alternatives (even if most of them never live too long), which will make the majority of the market walk away from the commercial, professional "suppliers".

While on one hand this is pretty cool, on the other hand it's also pretty sad because this way we won't be seeing any professional, pay-per-use gaming networks anytime soon. (Don't misunderstand me -- I'm not in favour of a complete commercialisation of the gaming web site scene/community/market/industry; I just generally dislike mankind's tendency to use the cheapest product available, no matter how <i>bad</i> it is.)

- Morn
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#16 by "Apache"
2001-01-23 15:45:38
apache@stomped.com
whoa, it's Planet S[andy]:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/planetsandy/

hehe
#17 by "PainKilleR"
2001-01-23 16:44:05
painkiller@planetfortress.com
<b>Morn</b> (#15):
<quote>Yep, but it's really a bigger problem for them than it is for us users. I bet most of us would (theoretically) be perfectly happy with paying a small monthly fee for a quality product (which, for example, could be being able to play on some fast servers with cool people). But there will <I>always</I> be free alternatives (even if most of them never live too long), which will make the majority of the market walk away from the commercial, professional "suppliers".
</quote>

The other thing, at least with gaming servers, is that they tend to be run by members of the community, and in many cases the admins are willing to make sure there are enough people out there with rcon to their servers to keep it well monitored. The commercial servers (ie GameSpy servers and the like, not servers you have to pay to play on) tend to have fewer people monitoring the servers, simply because they do have a corporate name to consider. There will always be a number of great free servers out there, it's just a matter of filtering out all the crap, first.

All that being said, Barrysworld had some of the few UK/European servers that gave a nice ping from the west coast US. It's sad to see them go, because they've done a lot for various communities in a short time, but people need to learn how to keep their businesses afloat.

-PainKilleR-[CE]
#18 by "webrunner"
2001-01-23 17:44:33
046105s@acadiau.ca
I thin the main problem with Banner Ads over conventional print, TV and other ads... you can't make a 468x60 graphic that COOL.  It needs to be a GOOD ad to be worth crap, and next to NO banners are good ads!  Print ads in magazines are often enjoyable to read, and there were entire shows devoted to the worlds best TV commercials.. but BANNERS suck.  They take all the life out of advertising and become advertisements against the product (Mr. Q. Public: Bah,  xxx has a cooler ad on tv, i'll just get xxx)
Shockwave flash is promising, but popups just annoy people, and 99% of all flash in existance has a grainy 2 second repeating music track that has been linked conclusively to brain explosions, or at least it should be.

As i'm typing this above this page is a "SHOP HERE" amazon.com ad.  Now, think about TV or print commercials to Amazon.com.. they're much much MUCH better at selling A.C then "SHOP HERE!" and a list of products.
#19 by "PainKilleR"
2001-01-23 17:51:16
painkiller@planetfortress.com
<b>webrunner</b> (#18):
<quote>Shockwave flash is promising, but popups just annoy people, and 99% of all flash in existance has a grainy 2 second repeating music track that has been linked conclusively to brain explosions, or at least it should be.
</quote>

Actually, flash can do really well for people, it's just not made for banner ads, and I wish people wouldn't use it for that. It takes a long time to load up flash on a slow connection, and it's one of the few things that ever holds up my cable connection (java is another one that makes you sit and wait, and shockwave). The worst, though, is when a banner ad server is slow, and when the page waits for the banner to load before displaying the rest of the page, it makes me want to actually look at the banner and remember not to have anything to do with the advertiser.

-PainKilleR-[CE]
#20 by "SteveBauman"
2001-01-23 18:31:51
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com
Animated ads (Flash or animated .GIF files) distract you from your whole purpose of being at a page, which is generally to concentrate on something else. Until that issue is addressed, they will continue to be tuned out.
#21 by "paul"
2001-01-23 19:01:39
pbullman@webhitzone.com
Here are two alternatives:
1. tv ad style for 5 to 10 seconds on the browser then after the ad the page loads.

pros: focusses on the ad itself
cons: people will ignore the ad and possibly click on something else while the page loads.

2. Audio ads which play as soon as someone goes to the site.

pros: great for people who are not deaf
cons: people may turn off their sound
#22 by "WarrenMarshall"
2001-01-23 19:37:20
warren@epicgames.com
Hambone (#3):
Nice story Morn, it seemed to lack something though. Oh yes, bias and slander. Maybe Andy can help you with that?

ROFL

Hambone (#7):
I liked BarrysWorld, this sucks. Maybe if Warren Marshall had given a better <A href="http://www.barrysworld.com/content/interviews.asp?Article=66&Page=1">interview</A>, this never would have happened. I'm not saying it wasn't a good interview, just not good enough to save the company. =P

Hey, hits from my interview is what kept that site alive for the last 6 months!!   ;)

AshRain (#12):
- players who pay are players who really want to play rather then being a llama

Yeah, but this could work against you as well.  You might not get as many people who just want "to have fun".  You may end up with people who are there to WIN, and end up jumping the entire time, screaming at people when they make the slightest mistake, etc ... those people are just as bad as the llamas if you ask me.

SteveBauman (#20):
Animated ads (Flash or animated .GIF files) distract you from your whole purpose of being at a page, which is generally to concentrate on something else. Until that issue is addressed, they will continue to be tuned out.

That's so true.  Several sites I like to visit have an "Image of the Day".  I always look at it in case it's changed.  Why?  Because the image is usually something cool, and I'll click on it to take a look (www.flipcode.com for example - programmer site).  They don't flash, animate, sing or dance.  They just sit there and look interesting.  I wish more ads would do that.

paul (#21):
1. tv ad style for 5 to 10 seconds on the browser then after the ad the page loads.

pros: focusses on the ad itself
cons: people will ignore the ad and possibly click on something else while the page loads.

DIE!  :)

2. Audio ads which play as soon as someone goes to the site.

pros: great for people who are not deaf
cons: people may turn off their sound

I've already run into a few talking banner ads and let's just say I was NOT amused.

---

Warren Marshall
Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill
Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#23 by "GhostinmyShell"
2001-01-23 19:43:08
ghostinmyshell@triad.rr.com
paul (#21):

1. tv ad style for 5 to 10 seconds on the browser then after the ad the page loads.

pros: focusses on the ad itself
cons: people will ignore the ad and possibly click on something else while the page loads.

2. Audio ads which play as soon as someone goes to the site.

pros: great for people who are not deaf
cons: people may turn off their sound


1. Um no I wont go there again...
2. Um no, they were on the shack and by god did I stop going to that page for 3 days until they were gone...
#24 by "szcx"
2001-01-23 19:46:21
nedocze@hotmail.com
www.flipcode.com

Flipcode is awesome.  Whenever I hit a wall, I can always find the answer on MSDN, Flipcode, or CodeProject.

The IoTD comments are starting to get a little ShugaShack though :(
#25 by "fyrewolf"
2001-01-23 22:28:14
csweitzer@intellution.com
Anyone else notice that CNet is testing out some new types of ads?

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4573419.html?tag=unkn

You may have to refresh it.  Sometimes it comes up with the normal banner ad.
#26 by "palutke"
2001-01-23 22:43:51
kcpalutke@tasc.com
Wow, slick.  Better than a popup, anyway.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#27 by "Glock"
2001-01-23 23:04:59
glock17@tampabay.rr.com
Indeed.  Macromedia has been leading an effort to have Flash as the new standard of net advertisement.  Flash grabs people's attention a lot more than just a regular popup ad or a banner ad.
#28 by "The_Joker"
2001-01-23 23:08:41
joker@junkextreme.com
<b>#16</b> "Apache" wrote...
<quote>whoa, it's Planet S[andy]:

<A href="http://forums.somethingawful.com/planetsandy/">http://forums.somethingawful.com/planetsandy/</A>

hehe</quote>


OWNED! :)

Joker.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#29 by "Ergo"
2001-01-23 23:16:43
stu@dsl-only.net
<b>#16</b> "Apache" wrote...
<quote>whoa, it's Planet S[andy]:

<A href="http://forums.somethingawful.com/planetsandy/">http://forums.somethingawful.com/planetsandy/</A>

hehe</quote>

Looks like Lowtax is engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#30 by "SteveBauman"
2001-01-23 23:35:51
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com
Ugh, if that CNet ad animated (and you can bet they will be if they're done in Flash) it's a terrible idea. It'll make the article practically unreadable; you won't be able to focus on the text with some dumb-ass animation playing above, below and alongside it. And I find it interesting that you can get "information that is relevant to you," and "rich technologies deliver more in-depth content."

They're ADS. They're not content. Sheesh. They're acting like advertising is some wonderful benefit to the reader instead of a necessary nuisance. Aside from the Super Bowl, how many people get excited when commercials come on the TV?
#31 by "Atma"
2001-01-24 00:24:37
dweller@gmx.net
31!!!!!!!! while listening to Fandango USA's Charanga
#32 by "None1a"
2001-01-24 02:13:57
none1a@home.com
<b>SteveBauman</b> (#30):
<quote>They're ADS. They're not content. Sheesh. They're acting like advertising is some wonderful benefit to the reader instead of a necessary nuisance. Aside from the Super Bowl, how many people get excited when commercials come on the TV?</quote>

There are a few rare times when I'll find a TV ad amusing out side of the superbowl. But Tv has one advatage here, you can create an entertaining ad and not distract from the program, after all they aren't running at the same time.

<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#33 by "Vengeance"
2001-01-24 02:18:58
rhiggi@home.com
I was listening to the radio the other day and the disc jockey started talking about thier "miricle" weight loss experience.  It took me a second to realise it was an ad instead of some type of psycosis.  You hear those types of ads quite a bit on the radio, here at least.  Where the host will pretend to have actually use a product and say how wonderful it is.  Sometimes its even hard to distinguish true stories from the ads.

Any chance this would work on web pages?  Has it been tried already (I don't go to many sites unless I have a specific interest)?  I'm thinking that would be more effective than a banner or popup.  You risk pissing off your fans if thier new 3D card sucks, but it seems to work pretty well for radio.



V<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#34 by "None1a"
2001-01-24 02:29:32
none1a@home.com
<b>Vengeance</b> (#33):
<quote>Any chance this would work on web pages? Has it been tried already (I don't go to many sites unless I have a specific interest)? I'm thinking that would be more effective than a banner or popup. You risk pissing off your fans if thier new 3D card sucks, but it seems to work pretty well for radio.</quote>

Sort of, there content based ads. Take a look at DailyRadar's stuff and marval at the fact that the buy online section in the side bar changes to the product your looking at. The problem is that it's hard to get people to pay for them for each view rather then a % of sales.

A product endorcement isn't going to happen, how many people trust a web guy enough to buy a product simply because they say it's good. Not many you'r going to need to supply backup info on the product performance wise. That means it changes from a simple endorcement to a review (and that'd just be paying for good reviews). <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#35 by "BloodKnight"
2001-01-24 03:17:44
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
<b>AshRain</b> (#12):
<quote>- players who pay are players who really want to play rather then being a llama</quote>

Damn you haven't played EQ have you?<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#36 by "BloodKnight"
2001-01-24 03:21:13
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
The only real advertisement I see that would actually work is ones without shit load of banners and the ads are actually focused on the target audience.  Look at pcgr.com for example of how it should be done (my opinion of course)

<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#37 by "BloodKnight"
2001-01-24 03:23:02
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
<b>WarrenMarshall</b> (#22):
<quote>I've already run into a few talking banner ads and let's just say I was NOT amused.
</quote>

"Want hot teen porn?"

at least talk right you fucking slutty bitches
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#38 by "BloodKnight"
2001-01-24 03:24:07
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
<b>fyrewolf</b> (#25):
<quote>Anyone else notice that CNet is testing out some new types of ads?

<A href="http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4573419.html?tag=unkn">http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4573419.html?tag=unkn</A>

You may have to refresh it. Sometimes it comes up with the normal banner ad.</quote>

wtf?  Can it be?  A good square banner ad?
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#39 by "Desiato"
2001-01-24 03:52:16
desiato_hotblack@hotmail.com
I love banner ads, in fact what I love even <b>more</b> is the ability to turn ads on and off like water from a faucet.

For example -- amazon can go bite the big one, so I pretty much keep that ad from appearing in my browser when I'm here. But -- over at a site like <a href="http://www.somethingawful.com/">SomethingAwful</a> I'll keep the ads coming and even clickthrough a few just for good measure.

One ad scheme that really irritated me was over at hotwired. They had a FULL PAGE scrolling ad that eventually made way for the news stories and whatnot. Extremely slow and highly annoying. I make it a point to keep my adfilters on when I'm there.

So what is this magical ability to filter ads? Well, you could do it the hard way and define a local hosts file with a loopback (127.0.0.1) ip for every adserver out there, or you could go to <a href="http://www.webwasher.com/">Webwasher</a> and download their free client. It pretty much kicks ass. You can use it with a proxy at work, or just adjust it to run behind your firewall at home. It's flexible enough to operate well enough in both environments.

But enough of that -- as far as BarrysWorld is concerned, the gamers got what they deserved. Hey - they didn't even try to save it, so what the hell....too late to cry about spilt milk at this stage. Besides, with BT's stranglehold on the local telco market, its just a matter of time before most ISPs either suffocate or raise their prices to the point of shattering their user base.

God I'd hate to be there right now.

Viva DSL!!

Desiato
#40 by "Topaz"
2001-01-24 05:25:13
smith_mt@hotmail.com
I just hope this trend of big annoying adds that prevent the page from scrolling don't catch on

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-4579337.html?tag=unkn

that's a sure way to turn off readers imho
#41 by "superion_"
2001-01-24 05:55:53
dildotron@hotmail.com
www.naviscope.com smashes down webwasher, also helps on other misc http things too...
#42 by "DarrenD"
2001-01-24 06:04:12
darren@sofnet.com
Something I've been wondering about...are page hits (in terms of ad revenue) strictly based off the number of times an .html file is requested from the server, or do they actually do a filter to make sure that the advertisement was also requested along with the .html file?

If companies do filter out their statistics for hits w/o ad request, it would be interesting to find out how high this number is.

Desiato,
Yeah, that ability to turn off ads is pretty damn nice :)  I've been using AtGuard for at least 2 years now--no eye sores on my screen!
#43 by "Dethstryk"
2001-01-24 06:21:00
jemartin@tcainternet.com
<b>BloodKnight</b> (#38):
<QUOTE>wtf? Can it be? A good square banner ad?</QUOTE>
I think one of the biggest problems of advertisements is that everyone was stuck on doing a 460x80 (or whatever) banner ad because it supposedly is the "only right way" to do things. I subconsciously do not look at images now that are in the form of a banner, because I know they are an advertisement.

All we need is some unobtrusive originality.


--
Dethstryk<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#44 by "SteveBauman"
2001-01-24 06:33:30
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com
All we need is some unobtrusive originality.

Being obtrusive is sorta the point of advertising. Not literally, but you need to grab a person's attention, and if you're reading something the last thing you want is something trying to distract you from what you're trying to pay attention to... (this is why magazine and web layouts, assuming they're intended to be read, shouldn't be obnoxious).
#45 by "Dethstryk"
2001-01-24 06:39:18
jemartin@tcainternet.com
<b>SteveBauman</b> (#44):
<QUOTE>Being obtrusive is sorta the point of advertising. Not literally, but you need to grab a person's attention, and if you're reading something the last thing you want is something trying to distract you from what you're trying to pay attention to... (this is why magazine and web layouts, assuming they're intended to be read, shouldn't be obnoxious).</QUOTE>
That helps make my point even better, Steve. The web is a new media for people to advertise on, so they have to get it right. People think that all of this advertising stuff is just the end of making money on the web through advertising... it's not. It's just the way it has been done so far isn't working out as well.

I understand exactly what you're saying.


--
Dethstryk<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#46 by "SteveBauman"
2001-01-24 07:38:09
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com
The web is a new media for people to advertise on, so they have to get it right.

I find it bizarre that so many people embrace an ad-filled web. Do we get excited by network TV adding more commercial breaks just so we can keep getting free TV? No, we bitch and moan that baseball games are too long and network shows are getting shorter.

But anyway, web advertising is a completely different beast and may be doomed, not so much because it doesn't work but because it's contrary to the entire way you work with computers. You're in control, you're not passive. You're focused on something you actively decided to see; you're not a passive observer letting the warm waters of commerce wash over you. Whenver something's forced on you online it's jarring and distracting and you're more likely to tune it out.

Maybe ad-supported websites were a bad idea from the get-go... who knows? I'm probably wrong. Some genius will figure it all out and we'll safely be force-fed more and more advertising. Should we really be happy about that?
#47 by "Dethstryk"
2001-01-24 07:46:13
jemartin@tcainternet.com
<b>SteveBauman</b> (#46):
<QUOTE>Maybe ad-supported websites were a bad idea from the get-go... who knows? I'm probably wrong. Some genius will figure it all out and we'll safely be force-fed more and more advertising. Should we really be happy about that?</QUOTE>
The reason I'm all for advertising, is because I want people to be able to make a living because of a website. The greatest sites out there are run by people getting paid by advertisers, and it keeps this whole, awesome machine running. I don't want to see it break down.


--
Dethstryk<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#48 by "toadwarrior"
2001-01-24 08:20:35
toadw@uplink.net
Iwon.com is implementing a new, TV like ad system on some pages. What happens is it loads everything, including the ad. Then when the page is done, the window changes to the ad screen for about 1 second and goes back. Since it's already loaded, it can't get lagged and stuck on the ad while waiting to get back to the page. It's basically like ads on the TV. A one time thinng you can't avoid and it doesn't get in the way.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#49 by "None1a"
2001-01-24 08:52:43
none1a@home.com
<b>SteveBauman</b> (#46):
<quote>But anyway, web advertising is a completely different beast and may be doomed, not so much because it doesn't work but because it's contrary to the entire way you work with computers. You're in control, you're not passive. You're focused on something you actively decided to see; you're not a passive observer letting the warm waters of commerce wash over you. Whenver something's forced on you online it's jarring and distracting and you're more likely to tune it out. </quote>

I think people will get more and more accustom to the idea of ad supported web pages. It just the current use is trying to hard to be in your face, and not hard enough to target to that sites visitors.

I don't mean trying to target the visitor exclusively or focus the ad really tightly, I mean things like trying to get gameing servaces or online stores to advertise on them, heck even advertising for their compatision (print mags) could work on some sites. The banner companies are failing in their job of getting these companies in. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#50 by "Needle"
2001-01-24 09:04:15
mrklp@hotmail.com
[#47] Dethstryk,

The greatest sites out there are run by people getting paid by advertisers, and it keeps this whole, awesome machine running. I don't want to see it break down.


What makes you think the internet will break down without funding from advertisers?  There was an internet long before there were people advertising on the internet, and there were websites run as websites before they were run as businesses.  

I can't help but laugh every time another .com goes belly-up, because they always post some BS statement about how the internet is doomed unless we collectively figure out a way to make internet advertising more effective.  There was no shortage of websites before internet ads, yet suddenly nobody is able to run a website without them?
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Another one bites the dust

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]