jpeg/gif only (no flash) adverts

I had a quick search and couldn't find a post like this.

I was just wondering, would it be possible/financially viable to not put flash adverts on bit? So only have static images or animated gifs. I'll state now that I have no idea how your adverts are chosen and served since the dennis take-over, but I know the majority of users would greatly appreciate this if it could be done.

I'm sure there are many users on here that, like me, have no problem with ads and will click them if they're interesting, but hate this recent influx of flash ads, and the way they can really bog down a browser.

Or maybe restrict it to only one flash ad on each page?

Just I thought, I'd love to hear what the powers that be think.

 

No

 

Man of many words, half expected the thread to be closed after a response like that.

NO FFS, ''slams the door''!

 

haha

i for one would like bit-tech to keep going and the chances of that happening when they are the only site on the net that wont accept flash ads is fairly slim

 

Flashblock, my friends.

Hiren: Look at it this way. Right now, I don't see many of the ads on the site. If you had a still image alternative, I would.

P

 

^ QFT

 

Please don't use flashblock on this website - it is solely supported by adverts, blocking them doesn't do it any good.

 

Am I the only one who thought that was a bit rude? Surely a couple of extra sentences to explain the situation wouldn't have hurt.

As to the OP, Flash adverts are better than jpegs, etc, because they can tell a lot more information in a much smaller space. So the space is worth more, etc, etc. More monehs for Dennis Publishing.

 

There is no "extra" money in Flash ads, just sales to be lost by not having flash. In the real world no one would ever book ads with a website that did not support Flash or Javascript. It's all industry standard.

 

...and Dennis Publishing...

 

...which makes its money from adverts. Unless you think any magazine is able to do anything better than maybe break even (in the best case scenario) just from its cover price.

 

Well obviously the companies already booking gif ads would, which was kinda my point. Maybe I didn't word it well enough, or you just went into instant advert defence mode, either way, what I was trying to say originally was would you be able to survive on just the companies using gif adverts, or even survive on one flash for every two non-flash ads.

I think you got me wrong, I'm on your side. I don't ever use ad blockers, it seems immoral to me. If I'm getting great browsing from a site, how could I justify blocking its source of income? (I run some ad supported sites as well)

As I write this all three ads are flash, I think my suggestion of setting a flash / gif ratio (even if its 2/1) is a valid one, worthy of a discussion as opposed to a straight up "No", don't you?

 

Well how do you think Dennis makes its money, and we get paid, and you have something to read

Hiren is just very short of patience because the ones you actually see on the site *work*. Most he receives are the wrong size/massive file size/annoying/don't work. What we put up are the best versions of what agencies and companies want to run.

No commercial entity these days will ever get gif adverts and never, ever a static one. It's just not how the industry is run now. You're thinking 2005.

It could be far worse if we pandered to all their requests - you'd have green plague, popups/unders/rollovers...

 

erm:






To name 3, or am I misunderstanding? I tend to find one out of 3 on bit will be gifs

 

Those are Dennis Publishing adverts.

 

All 3 are from Dennis Publishing ie Bit-Tech's overlords.

EDIT: Ninja'd by staff... sigh...

 

I thought I was being straight to the point. I didn't mean to cause any offence.

Yes we do run GIF ads, but no advertiser in my experience is ever going to willingly downsize to GIF from Flash. None of the big players will ever consider another other than Flash / Javascript.

Finally the chances of the convincing the overlords of the suggestions suggested by the OP are virtually zero. Because it's just not feasible in the way advertising is sold or managed in the current climate / foreseeable future.

Heck it was hard enough just getting rid of that green text rubbish

Edit:// Let me explain most of the time advertisers that use GIF do so because they do have the resources to create Flash. But almost all of them would prefer to use Flash / Rich Media if they could. It's a bit like when print advertising went from black and white to full colour.

bit-tech has always had a pretty good policy on what is and is not acceptable. I'm not *that* involved with the commercial aspect of bit-tech any more so what was once in the past may not necessarily translate in the future.

 

That may be true (I'll admit I hadn't noticed that) but right now I'm seeing a gif ad from misco. Anyway, I think this thread has gone in completely the wrong direction.

I think bit does a great job with their ads, my original post wasn't meant as a complaint, I just asked a question that seems to have hit a nerve

 

Cheers, thats what I was after

 

Ooops you posted whilst I was editing. See my updated post for some clarification.