Adding the ad


Different points of views




Ads are no longer just ads. Actually it's more misleading not to differentiate. Stumbled upon this debate, decided to follow the trail further:

Visually deceptive
advertisements
in web design

"The insidious problem

 of visually deceptive advertisements in web design, where advertisers fool users by displaying what appear to be user-control dialog elements but which really are links to their voracious marketing engines... But even more troubling is advertising that entices by offering bogus controls (i.e., combo-box pulldowns, text edit/entry fields, "Help" buttons, etc.) These advertisers should be barred from qualifying for usability design awards. Furthermore, major content providers (i.e., AOL) should establish guidelines to refuse to host content designed to mislead." - John G. Tylers, November 2007.

"Yes, ads that masquerade

 as dialog boxes or other useful user interface elements are deceptive and probably unethical. But they are also self-defeating: sure, you can trick the user into clicking on an ad in the belief that it is a dialog box, but that user's first reaction upon arriving at your site will be one of disgust - and an immediate click on the Back button.

Deceptive ads

 can increase click-through, but they will not increase sales. On the contrary, they will incite users to dislike and distrust the advertiser. All current marketing literature promotes the concept of customer relationships and the necessity of looking at the long-time value of customers who give you repeat business. It is beyond me why anybody would think that it is a good way to start a long-term relationship by cheating the customer." - Jakob Nielsen, November 2007

"A man is never more truthful

 than when he acknowledges himself as a liar. Often the surest way to convey misinformation is to tell the strict truth. Truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economize it." - Mark Twain

Degrees of deception


The full spectrum of lies




The full spectrum ranges from complete innocense to obvious guilt. When in doubt, in my opinion, intention determines degree of deception. Example: if you say something, before I've thought of anything, then you have promoted one thing, and recessed the rest. Potentially manipulative, only if one abuses it, which require an intention. Harmles by it self, since promoting certain ideas are what we all do all the time in conversation. Normally conversation leads to conversion, but on equel levels it's usually only constructive...

There are 3 kinds of deception
but only the last kind is illegal:

Mild manipulation
'Always going to the line'
Outright fraud

Mild manipulation happens when things are arranged in a certain order. This is never illegal because eventually you know the whole story. Not like keeping something in the dark, rather to add spotligth on a normally lit scene; all is visible but one object just easier to see, so you look at that first. Eventually every detail can be seen, one at a time, but the first will get the most attention, and the last the least. As time goes on impressions accumulate and attention drops accordingly. Morale: even when you show all your cards, it still matters in which order you display them...

"Always going to the line" does just that. Never illegal, but always close. Straigth to any line, only an inch from crossing. The position is legal, but the intention isn't. Too bad, laws are often too binary, black or white in gray zones of real life. Certain acts may be yet unconvicted, yet already morally corrupt. Like a bankrobber having planned and prepared, but not yet physically run with the money. Morally the point is not peoples present positions, but where they'd go if law vanished.

Line crossed. Here both intention and action are present. This is both morally and legally forbidden. No doubt, no longer any discussion. At a basic level this is even universally true. Consider this: Even when you lie, you'd still insist everybody else to remain true. Even a swindler would prefer people that can be trusted. Even a thief must insist upon private property, otherwise anyone could take her stolen goods. Even a murderer must insist upon his own life. And so on...

I think it was Kant that first presented this synthesis of law, morale and philosophy...

Mads Dam, November 2007.

4 different cases


What do you think?




Ads without advertising



Some years ago I remember strange posters hanging in Copenhagen. Large images that bore all the signs of commercial advertising, but one thing was missing, the product.

By removing the product, they bared the promotion. These posters were in a sense pure anti art = pure ads. See them here...

Google



In an age suffering from 'portalitis' Google made a virtue of only having a single offer: search. (They later differentiated a lot, but that's a secondary story...)

They even pleased our eyes by abandoning all ugly banners. Nor more blinking symbols, dancing logos or singing avatars. Only a single column of plain text, ads always to the right, and discreetly emphasized by a very light hue. Ads can hardly become less unobtrusive...

Then again, it's never been harder to tell the difference at first glance, searchresults and ads look almost alike. A bit closer they'll fuse.

Google is not always so logical, an example could be the wellknown "I feel lucky" button. If all users used it all the time, Google would get no ad revenues and go broke. So why keep it?

Facebook



Users complain: Facebooks marketing program is publicizing their purchases for friends to see. Then again, they never noticed a small box on a corner of their Web browsers following transactions at Fandango, Overstock and other retailers. It says that information will be shared with Facebook, unless they click 'No Thanks'. It disappears 20 seconds later, then consent is assumed.

You get a second chance next time you log in, but what if you miss it by checking mail, visit friends pages or surf around? Read more!

And you can't really complain, read the TOS: Facebook "may terminate your membership, delete your profile and any content or information that you have posted on the Site... for any reason, or no reason, at any time in its sole discretion, with or without notice."

It's no longer binary, public or not:
How much do you want to share
with who and how and when,
and finally why not..?


Phishing



These are examples of outright fraud online.
If you want to see specific phishes, there's plenty to catch here: www.phishtank.com

Here's the present situation, latest news:

One unique phishing scam is launched every two minutes. (More than 700 every day...)

18 percent of all verified phishing websites were hosted on just three IP addresses.

U.S. telecoms are hosting more phishes than telecoms in any other country.

Read more: www.phishtank.com/blog