Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well • Hacker News Board

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#211

Post by ig1 » Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 5:01 PM UTC

sssparkkk wrote: post #164

ig1 wrote: post #41

Warning: This type of behaviour may be illegal. For the US see the FTC guidance: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20635261/FTC-Guides-Concerning-the... (the FTC has bought prosecutions on this topic recently) It's also illegal in the UK and presumably a lot of Europe. You can't make an ad look like an legitimate endorsement, it's as simple as that. In this case the small "sponsored placement" text could easily be taken to b…

What about when some site is raving about a product, and pointing users to the product's website using an affiliate link. No disclosure at all. Is that also illegal? Because I think it would be great if it was.

Yes. That's a clear violation of the FTC guidelines. If you're presenting a review as an independent opinion without disclosing the fact you're making money from it, that's pretty much exactly what the FTC guidelines are designed to tackle.

If you're just providing links without specific endorsement it's probably fine.

Here's an easier read analysis of the FTC guidelines by the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10...

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#212

Post by ig1 » Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 5:06 PM UTC

bdonlan wrote: post #189

ig1 wrote: post #41

Warning: This type of behaviour may be illegal. For the US see the FTC guidance: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20635261/FTC-Guides-Concerning-the... (the FTC has bought prosecutions on this topic recently) It's also illegal in the UK and presumably a lot of Europe. You can't make an ad look like an legitimate endorsement, it's as simple as that. In this case the small "sponsored placement" text could easily be taken to b…

It should be noted that the author of the article has moved to Japan; this may complicate any enforcement action, unless his company is incorporated in the US.

American law is unusual in that's it globally binding. If you violate an American law while abroad, even if it's legal in the country you committed your actions in, you can still be prosecuted in the US.

It's how Dmitry Sklyarov was prosecuted even though his actions were perfectly legal where he performed them in Russia. More recently foreign nationals involved in operating non-american gambling websites have been arrested while in transit through US territory for violating US anti-gambling law.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#213

Post by gujk » Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 6:23 AM UTC

Timothee wrote: post #28

seiji wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about things like outbrain? http://www.outbrain.com/getwidget They have more deceptive ad units at publishers: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/23/world/africa/egypt-protests/ (Scroll to pre-comment-box or search for "From around the web")

For the lazy, the "From around the web" section looks like relevant articles on other sites and is styled exactly like the links that CNN recommends, but it's actually paid content. A popup under "What's this" gives the following info: "Paid Distribution An Outbrain customer paid to distribute this content. We do our best to ensure that all of the links recommended to you lead to interesting content. To find out more…

Outbrain ads specifically put the nail in the coffin on seattlepi.com's long slide from legitimacy. It is sad, because seattle PI used to be he leading real newspaper for Seattle.

I would say the same for CNN, but CNN became a worthless organizationon before Outbrain showed up.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#214

Post by gujk » Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 6:30 AM UTC

aamar wrote: post #74

aclimatt wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand I want to say it's "evil" because we've grown up in a place where ads != content. And even though I feel as if I should object to ads being "hidden" among normal content, I don't. The purpose of going to a website is to seek out a certain type of content. If somebody then paid to have that content delivered to you, what makes it inherently more "evil" than any other content? If it fulfills your need, what…

A good and fair question. Generally telling the truth to strangers strengthens society. If someone chooses to lie to strangers, society properly should brand that person as not worthy of business and maybe worth imprisoning for fraud. Because future lies are potentially costly, it makes sense for us to watch for (and sometimes punish) lies harshly even when that lie is itself not very costly. Beyond the straightforwa…

You are basically right, but when you are talking about a website that is designed and promoted as a sales catalog, you have to be more open to the notion that is OK to have advertising. Unlike a movie, commerce is the visitor's reason for going to the site.

In all these subtle ad cases, anti-ad people can avoid the ads, and people who honestly don't care will ignore the distiction and click the ads. How much coddling can we insist a site do for its mentally-laziest non-paying users, possibly acting against their willingness to view ads?

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#215

Post by lhnn » Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 6:57 PM UTC

jbigelow76 wrote: post #73

lhnn wrote: post #22

Typically, when a site pulls that kind of thing, I cease to use the site. I'm not interested in buying anything, and by distracting my eyes from legitimate content with your "get a foot in the door" ads, you earn a big red X from me.

The site owner is probably grateful for that mindset. Development time, servers, bandwidth, these things all cost money. Neither your page view nor your "screw your costs where's the free shit?" attitude pay the bills.

Bah. I pay for the Economist, and I've paid for LWN in the past. I think a subscription model for premium content is more respectable than deceptive advertising.