One of the major reasons people use pop up blockers or switch to browsers like Firefox which have built in pop up blockers is to, no doubt, block pop ups. Serving pop ups is one thing. Ignoring people’s preference to avoid them as a whole different animal. Companies that circumvent a consumer’s choice to block pops by deploying anti-pop up/under blocking software are scum in our book. We use Firefox. Until recently, the past year and a half or so have been blissfully pop-free. A month or so ago, we have seen the resurgence of the pop while using Firefox. We don’t like it.
Today, while visiting Dictionary.com, we were presented with a pop under. We forget the advertiser but we do know Advertising.com serves on-page banners to Dictionary.com. It’s known that pop ups and unders do not always emanate from specific sites but from behavioral profiles built up over time so we aren’t sure Dictionary.com or Advertising.com had anything to do with the pop.
Later today, while loathe to do so, we found it necessary to visit DrudgeReport. Sure enough, two pop unders appeared. This time, we paid more attention and saw that Tribal Fusion served the pop for Emode’s Tickle. The other pop was one of those obnoxious flashing banners, this time, for travel site Travasaurus. We can’t confirm who served that one but we sure like Drudge a lot less now that we did before.
Respect for peoples choice to opt out of seeing pop ads seems like a no brainer. It’s sort of like answering “yes” to a waiter after he’s asked if you’re finished with your meal only to have him scrape what food might be left on the plate and jam it down your throat. It’s just not a nice thing to do. Why is it so difficult for companies to grasp that concept? And we’re not buying that whole argument that pops, like telemarketing work so they must be a OK. Times are changing. People aren’t going to stand for this shit. Advertisers and sites should not stand for it either.
