F*** those popups – signing up those who deserve it(thosefuckingpopups.tumblr.com)
thosefuckingpopups.tumblr.com
F*** those popups – signing up those who deserve it
http://thosefuckingpopups.tumblr.com/
142 comments
"I realize the price to pay for this is mildly annoying the other 98%."
To me this does not make sense, and is exactly the reason I avoid annoying users in my applications (advertising or otherwise). Because you definitely have numbers to back up the effectiveness of the popup (although I would argue it is not effective). What you don't have is of the 98% you annoyed, how many will not return because of the annoyance (by choice anyway).
Or to put in another way,
Would you implement a feature in your software that only benefitted 2% and annoyed the 98%?
Seems like this kind of approach hints at a deeper issue here and that's effective targeting.
To me this does not make sense, and is exactly the reason I avoid annoying users in my applications (advertising or otherwise). Because you definitely have numbers to back up the effectiveness of the popup (although I would argue it is not effective). What you don't have is of the 98% you annoyed, how many will not return because of the annoyance (by choice anyway).
Or to put in another way,
Would you implement a feature in your software that only benefitted 2% and annoyed the 98%?
Seems like this kind of approach hints at a deeper issue here and that's effective targeting.
My other comment in this thread addressed this, but basically, I think it's a filter for removing those site visitors unlikely to become customers, allowing a company to focus on people who are receptive to the medium (popup) as well as the message. These people are going to be easier to advertise to, because they don't get pissed off when you put an ad in front of them.
The software analogy is invalid, because those people are already your users or customers. In the case of reading the article, think of a popup as a criterion filter in much the same way as 419 scammers use poor english.
The software analogy is invalid, because those people are already your users or customers. In the case of reading the article, think of a popup as a criterion filter in much the same way as 419 scammers use poor english.
People have been mildy annoyed by adverts for decades: TV Commercials.
Just because it's mildly annoying, doesn't make them any less effective either. There wouldn't be millions spent on Super Bowl slots if they weren't effective (although the SB is an outlier with regards to adverts).
Except for really bad popups, I can find an x, click it and move on - or ever so occasionally actually sign up for something...
It hasn't been until recently that you could timeshift or torrent TV shows consistently to not see the commercials. They do show that mildly annoying can still be effective and profitable.
Just because it's mildly annoying, doesn't make them any less effective either. There wouldn't be millions spent on Super Bowl slots if they weren't effective (although the SB is an outlier with regards to adverts).
Except for really bad popups, I can find an x, click it and move on - or ever so occasionally actually sign up for something...
It hasn't been until recently that you could timeshift or torrent TV shows consistently to not see the commercials. They do show that mildly annoying can still be effective and profitable.
Your software and your blog have _very_ different audiences. I wouldn't risk annoying 98% of paying customers. People who randomly stumbled onto my blog from some Tweet, are not likely to be prospective customers, and are not likely to ever return again? Yeah, I'll take that chance.
If people don't want to see any solicitations at all then I guess they ought to pay for Web content, which they have pretty consistently proven unwilling to do.
How many of those 232 signed up because they want to receive e-mails from you, and how many signed up because they thought they had to in order to proceed?
If you put up a prompt saying "enter your e-mail address" then a lot of people will obey regardless of your reason for prompting. Most computer users don't really understand computers and have no idea when a site would legitimately require an e-mail address and when a site just wants it so they can send you spam. This is especially true when you use a popup that blocks access to the page. It would be easy to assume that signing up is required in order to continue reading the page.
If you put up a prompt saying "enter your e-mail address" then a lot of people will obey regardless of your reason for prompting. Most computer users don't really understand computers and have no idea when a site would legitimately require an e-mail address and when a site just wants it so they can send you spam. This is especially true when you use a popup that blocks access to the page. It would be easy to assume that signing up is required in order to continue reading the page.
For my case, I should clarify that I also have double opt-in enabled for my email list, which means someone doesn't _really_ get added to the list until they click a verification link in their email.
So if anyone did enter their email just to continue, they're not counted in that 232. I don't think that's likely, though, since the message was clear about what it is:
> Want more users?
> OK, that was a cheap trick. Of course you do.
> The real question is... Do you want to learn the hard way, or would you rather get battle-tested lessons and case studies about user acquisition sent to you about once monthly?
> [Yes, keep me updated](button)
I agree, though, that many companies are doing this absolutely wrong, and one of the ways to get it wrong is not being clear about the value of entering your email.
So if anyone did enter their email just to continue, they're not counted in that 232. I don't think that's likely, though, since the message was clear about what it is:
> Want more users?
> OK, that was a cheap trick. Of course you do.
> The real question is... Do you want to learn the hard way, or would you rather get battle-tested lessons and case studies about user acquisition sent to you about once monthly?
> [Yes, keep me updated](button)
I agree, though, that many companies are doing this absolutely wrong, and one of the ways to get it wrong is not being clear about the value of entering your email.
People willingly enter their credentials after clicking on links in obvious phishing e-mails that they have no idea why they received. Do you really think it's unlikely that people clicked your verification link without intending to sign up for additional e-mails from you?
It looks to me like you're suffering from the base rate fallacy. You're basically saying, it's unlikely to sign up by accident, therefore most of my signups are intentional. But because the number of people who signed up is very small compared to the number of people who visited, that's not how it works.
Let's say that people sign up by accident with a probability of 1%. (We might break that down by saying that, for example, 10% of people who visit think that entering their e-mail address is mandatory, and 10% of people who receive the verification e-mail click the link either by accident or because they think they have to somehow.) That might seem like a nice low rate and thus almost all of your 232 signed up intentionally. Not so! If 0.2% of people sign up by accident then that means that 118 people signed up by accident, giving you about 50% of your people who signed up doing so by accident. If the accidental signup rate is 2% then that means there are no legitimate signups at all in that 232. I have no real idea what the true rate would be, but 1-2% is plausible to me, and so I don't think you can conclude anything about how well this stuff works from this information.
It looks to me like you're suffering from the base rate fallacy. You're basically saying, it's unlikely to sign up by accident, therefore most of my signups are intentional. But because the number of people who signed up is very small compared to the number of people who visited, that's not how it works.
Let's say that people sign up by accident with a probability of 1%. (We might break that down by saying that, for example, 10% of people who visit think that entering their e-mail address is mandatory, and 10% of people who receive the verification e-mail click the link either by accident or because they think they have to somehow.) That might seem like a nice low rate and thus almost all of your 232 signed up intentionally. Not so! If 0.2% of people sign up by accident then that means that 118 people signed up by accident, giving you about 50% of your people who signed up doing so by accident. If the accidental signup rate is 2% then that means there are no legitimate signups at all in that 232. I have no real idea what the true rate would be, but 1-2% is plausible to me, and so I don't think you can conclude anything about how well this stuff works from this information.
If a person unknowingly does all this: Open blog about user acquisition --> Confuses message about "email updates" to mean they must enter their email --> Opens and clicks verification email clearly stating it's to receive updates --> Proceeds to open future emails about user acquisition and does not unsubscribe... Well, good thing for them that I'm not an African prince.
> People willingly enter their credentials after clicking on links in obvious phishing e-mails that they have no idea why they received. Do you really think it's unlikely that people clicked your verification link without intending to sign up for additional e-mails from you?
If people are entering their e-mails and clicking a verification link without wanting to receive e-mails it's absolutely their own damn fault and I don't care.
If people are entering their e-mails and clicking a verification link without wanting to receive e-mails it's absolutely their own damn fault and I don't care.
You may not care about spamming them afterwards (and I sympathize with that view... there's only so much you can do) but if it skews your numbers to the point where you can't determine whether your popups are actually effective, surely you care about that?
So the OP shouldn't use pop-ups because they'll skew numbers in such a way that he can't tell if pop-ups are effective?
It's a little more indirect, but yes.
Any time you prompt the user without their asking and they put up nothing of value, the false positive rate will probably be relatively high. If only a small proportion of people sign up, then a small false positive rate (compared to the total number of visitors) can dominate. Thus I don't think the numbers given demonstrate effectiveness, and you shouldn't use something that doesn't demonstrate effectiveness.
I'm a little surprised this opinion has turned out to be so controversial.
Any time you prompt the user without their asking and they put up nothing of value, the false positive rate will probably be relatively high. If only a small proportion of people sign up, then a small false positive rate (compared to the total number of visitors) can dominate. Thus I don't think the numbers given demonstrate effectiveness, and you shouldn't use something that doesn't demonstrate effectiveness.
I'm a little surprised this opinion has turned out to be so controversial.
If the costs of doing it are close to nothing and there's a pretty reasonable chance it is effective there is no reason not to do it. I also find your analysis less likely than the OP's.
The cost is in potentially scaring other people away because you annoy them too much. I think the potential there is fairly high.
But there are ways to get a reasonable measure of that, particularly if you at one point did not have them. Yeah, sure, it's probably not good enough to get into a peer reviewed journal, but little of the data you have when running a typical Web site is.
I've seen these be used effectively to solicit nonprofit donations, and no one is going to just start sharing their credit details and donation amount without some understanding of what they are doing.
I would dispute that (see 419 scams for example) but it ultimately doesn't matter, when measuring effectiveness of a donation, whether understanding took place. The real question there would then be whether the popups generated more donations than they scared away, which is tough to measure.
Actually it's very easy to measure and the answer is "yes."
Honestly, most of the time when I'm reading something and I get a half-way popup like that, or a popup after I click the 2nd page of a multi-page article, I just leave. I find it almost disrespectful to the user.
I don't say this to criticize anything you said, but to offer the perspective of a company.
If they produce content for the sake of conversions, does it really matter to them if you hit back as soon as you see the popup? You've self-selected to indicate you aren't interested in doing business with them based on their popup practices.
From their perspective, this could be a bonus. Not that server resources are that scarce, but sales resources can be. Now they don't have to have someone call you, don't have you in their denominator lowering their conversion-to-sales rate, etc.
Perhaps it's just a way for both reader and publisher to see if they're a match.
If they produce content for the sake of conversions, does it really matter to them if you hit back as soon as you see the popup? You've self-selected to indicate you aren't interested in doing business with them based on their popup practices.
From their perspective, this could be a bonus. Not that server resources are that scarce, but sales resources can be. Now they don't have to have someone call you, don't have you in their denominator lowering their conversion-to-sales rate, etc.
Perhaps it's just a way for both reader and publisher to see if they're a match.
I think one failure point of this thought process is that popup practices don't relate to the content or why the User clicked on the article to begin with. Popups that cover/interrupt the content aren't necessary and shouldn't be a "match" indicator for your company. Unless you're in the business of selling "annoying" products and you need people who are tolerant of that or enjoy being annoyed.
An interesting addition, thank you!
After considering your comment, I still think my original point stands. Instead of thinking about the product being sold, think of it like qualifying a lead based on their receptiveness to your advertising.
It would need to be tested whether that would be more highly correlated with conversions / profits, but I'd probably consider someone who is receptive to my advertising as a higher priority lead than someone who is interested primarily in my content.
After considering your comment, I still think my original point stands. Instead of thinking about the product being sold, think of it like qualifying a lead based on their receptiveness to your advertising.
It would need to be tested whether that would be more highly correlated with conversions / profits, but I'd probably consider someone who is receptive to my advertising as a higher priority lead than someone who is interested primarily in my content.
There's no way I finish reading anything that pops up halfway through. That's just more callous manipulation of my browser. I leave instantly. If the back button doesn't work, I kill it.
How many of those 11,848 people didn't finish your article? Do you care?
How many of those 11,848 people didn't finish your article? Do you care?
That's a good question, and I do care. And because I know the HN crowd is less tolerable of these things, I actually had a filter to NOT show it to visitors referred by HN.
And now, as I mentioned, I'm experimenting with a different type of prompt that I hope will lower that risk.
And now, as I mentioned, I'm experimenting with a different type of prompt that I hope will lower that risk.
Wow, that's cynical. You want HNers to spread the word, so they get a sanitized version? That's borderline creepy. Now I recommend a site, and the people I recommend to are thinking I'm an idiot for recommending an ad-riddled site.
No. I'm slightly customizing the experience for a certain group of visitors.
Do you find web analytics creepy? Or A/B tests? Or cookies? If you think your browsing behavior isn't affecting what you're served on a site, then you're in for a surprise...
Do you find web analytics creepy? Or A/B tests? Or cookies? If you think your browsing behavior isn't affecting what you're served on a site, then you're in for a surprise...
You can pretend its not a cynical attempt to mislead a critical segment into recommending your site, though they wouldn't if they knew what it was really like. I'm an HNer. This is personal, so its creepy.
How many people stop watching Friends or The Walking Dead because of a commercial? How many sales are made because of the commercials?
I'm all for adblockers... but to say that ads can't be unobtrusive and effective is ignoring the fact that they are obviously worth the effort.
I'm all for adblockers... but to say that ads can't be unobtrusive and effective is ignoring the fact that they are obviously worth the effort.
Those shows are carefully crafted experiences, with breaks written into the action. The internet experience is nothing like that.
I did.
I pretty much gave up on TV because of the commercials.
I pretty much gave up on TV because of the commercials.
Oh no you have to press the escape button once. I wouldn't care, personally.
Don't be silly. They get more convoluted every day. Hidden close buttons, countdowns, close buttons in the wrong corner of the box, overlays that you can't dismiss without entering data. Every disruptive thing gets done, all with the rationalization that the customer really wants your product and you're doing them a favor.
You're conflating different issues.
How many people left the page before bothering to close the popup? That's the metric I care about (and usually my behavior)
We ran a test of info-gathering popups on one of my sites a little while back. We split tested using various triggers.
popup after 5 seconds:
- 73.5% left the page without closing the popup.
popup after 10 seconds:
- 75.8% left the page without closing the popup.
popup triggered when the user scrolled near the bottom of the page:
- 21.5% left the page without closing the popup.
The scroll trigger was pretty useless though because only 2.6% of users scrolled low enough to trigger it.
popup after 5 seconds:
- 73.5% left the page without closing the popup.
popup after 10 seconds:
- 75.8% left the page without closing the popup.
popup triggered when the user scrolled near the bottom of the page:
- 21.5% left the page without closing the popup.
The scroll trigger was pretty useless though because only 2.6% of users scrolled low enough to trigger it.
I'm curious... is that 75.8% a bounce rate from the entire site, or just navigating away from the page?
Navigating away from the page, although there was no interaction on the popup that would have kept them on the site so they left entirely.
It should be noted that the traffic to that site at that point was nearly 100% search traffic looking for a specific data point and the content on the page was tables of data, not an article. I would assume that a site with an engaging article would have a much smaller bounce rate.
It should be noted that the traffic to that site at that point was nearly 100% search traffic looking for a specific data point and the content on the page was tables of data, not an article. I would assume that a site with an engaging article would have a much smaller bounce rate.
subscribe for future updates about user acquisition
There is something about doing user acquisition on a blog about user acquisition that I find strangely amusing... and perhaps your visitors have already become desensitised to it, as this is what they're looking for.
There is something about doing user acquisition on a blog about user acquisition that I find strangely amusing... and perhaps your visitors have already become desensitised to it, as this is what they're looking for.
if a few (2%) slip through, it's better than 0 I guess. But why do they have to be in your face? Can't they just slide up on the bottom of the page and stay down there so you can at least finish the sentence you're reading? I'm asking this as a general question.
I was wondering the same thing so that's why I'm trying out a different version now.
[deleted]
How many of those 232 have generated revenue?
Do you have stats on how many users left the page when shown that prompt?
I don't. I can find out but not going to bother right now.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I'm not so concerned about people who left. If a small popup is enough to make them leave, then they weren't interested enough in the article to begin with. But still, if I find that the less-invasive method is just as effective then I'll be happy.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I'm not so concerned about people who left. If a small popup is enough to make them leave, then they weren't interested enough in the article to begin with. But still, if I find that the less-invasive method is just as effective then I'll be happy.
The worst type is the: "We would love to have your feedback" popup overlay upon entering a site.
I've just landed on your site! How am I supposed to have an opinion of it already? Well I do now, the first 3 seconds sucked big time!
Microsoft would ask if you wanted to take a survey when you were done with a site, then pop-under a window that would detect when you had closed the first one and start a survey.
Yes! The feedback/install our app/sign up for our newsletter popovers would be far less annoying (and, I suspect, considerably more effective) if they came at the end of the article rather than before.
With me, at least, there'd be some chance that I'd sign up in that situation, rather than no chance whatsoever.
I really wonder who these people are who will sign up before even seeing the site, and whether that group actually represents real customers. Maybe if your product is aimed at the terminally clueless?
With me, at least, there'd be some chance that I'd sign up in that situation, rather than no chance whatsoever.
I really wonder who these people are who will sign up before even seeing the site, and whether that group actually represents real customers. Maybe if your product is aimed at the terminally clueless?
I'm struggling with this now and I could use some insight.
I absolutely share OP's loathing of these pop-ups. On the other hand, I'm just starting to try to drive traffic to my physical-product website (through PPC ads, facebook marketing, etc).
I KNOW I need to try to collect some contact information. But I cannot find a way to do it that isn't appalling.
- Collect on landing page? How do they know if they want to sign up, they just got here.
- Put on Contact Us page? Nobody will see it.
- Pop up a window after 30 seconds, or three pages viewed, or whatever? I end up on thosefuckingpopus.tumbler.com, and for good reason.
- Don't do anything? Patrick McKenzie finds my house and draws rude things on my face while I sleep.
Has anybody come up with an acceptable design solution for collecting emails from people who are interested in being on your list?
I absolutely share OP's loathing of these pop-ups. On the other hand, I'm just starting to try to drive traffic to my physical-product website (through PPC ads, facebook marketing, etc).
I KNOW I need to try to collect some contact information. But I cannot find a way to do it that isn't appalling.
- Collect on landing page? How do they know if they want to sign up, they just got here.
- Put on Contact Us page? Nobody will see it.
- Pop up a window after 30 seconds, or three pages viewed, or whatever? I end up on thosefuckingpopus.tumbler.com, and for good reason.
- Don't do anything? Patrick McKenzie finds my house and draws rude things on my face while I sleep.
Has anybody come up with an acceptable design solution for collecting emails from people who are interested in being on your list?
I sort of like the Drip widgets (http://getdrip.com) and there exist numerous Javascript things which can do roughly the same.
I don't have much experience with physical products and am not sure this generalizes, but in SaaS, one of the best ways to get opt-ins with advertising is to:
a) Send the ad not to a landing page but rather to content pitched in the ad
b) Have a further incentive which takes the piece it's attached to and deepens it. Gate this one with an email submit.
c) You generally want to get to a state where you have N content pieces, M creatives for the premium (downloadable whitepaper or whatever), and P premiums, where N >> M >> P. Then you can start testing to find which ads/content/house ad creatives/premiums get you the best results. It works perfectly adequately with N = M = P = 1 though.
This works particularly well with retargeting. You get someone to visit your site once or a few times organically (your content was on HN or Twitter or what have you), you cookie them up, and some day when they're browsing Facebook your company (which they already trust to give them useful info) says "Hey, more stuff for you to read of interest to you." They come over, read for a bit, and hand over the email address semi-casually. Your marketing and sales processes now take over.
I don't have much experience with physical products and am not sure this generalizes, but in SaaS, one of the best ways to get opt-ins with advertising is to:
a) Send the ad not to a landing page but rather to content pitched in the ad
b) Have a further incentive which takes the piece it's attached to and deepens it. Gate this one with an email submit.
c) You generally want to get to a state where you have N content pieces, M creatives for the premium (downloadable whitepaper or whatever), and P premiums, where N >> M >> P. Then you can start testing to find which ads/content/house ad creatives/premiums get you the best results. It works perfectly adequately with N = M = P = 1 though.
This works particularly well with retargeting. You get someone to visit your site once or a few times organically (your content was on HN or Twitter or what have you), you cookie them up, and some day when they're browsing Facebook your company (which they already trust to give them useful info) says "Hey, more stuff for you to read of interest to you." They come over, read for a bit, and hand over the email address semi-casually. Your marketing and sales processes now take over.
Have a “Sign up to our newsletter” section below the main content on every page.
The two main mistakes that you must avoid at all cost are:
1. displaying an overlay on page load, forcing the user to make the decision before consuming any content,
2. showing the overlay while the user is reading the main content; nobody likes to be interrupted.
The two main mistakes that you must avoid at all cost are:
1. displaying an overlay on page load, forcing the user to make the decision before consuming any content,
2. showing the overlay while the user is reading the main content; nobody likes to be interrupted.
You find them annoying, but your customers probably wont.
Remember you are not the best case when deciding what is effective at capturing your audience. You are more "internet savvy" or whatever...
Popups, email marketing, retargeted ads, et al are very, very effective means of capturing an audience online.
Remember you are not the best case when deciding what is effective at capturing your audience. You are more "internet savvy" or whatever...
Popups, email marketing, retargeted ads, et al are very, very effective means of capturing an audience online.
Don't fool yourself. Everybody finds them annoying. Like the frog in the frying pan who sits as the heat is turned up, folks have begun to believe its the price of visiting the internet.
Well, it kinda is the price of visiting the internet. Because most content is free but ad-supported... doesn't that mean viewing ads is the price you pay? (At least in a large sense -- I'm intentionally ignoring adblock technology because as of right now it's just not that significant)
"Most of the Internet" is Netflix (by bandwidth). They charge for their services, and have zero popups or ads.
The rest of the Internet is pay-to-play like Steam. At least for me.
The rest of the Internet is pay-to-play like Steam. At least for me.
> At least for me.
You are not the average internet user.
Your biases do not apply to 99% of internet users. The things on websites that annoy you do not annoy 99% of internet users. The marketing antics that work for 99% of internet users do not work on you.
You are not the average internet user.
Your biases do not apply to 99% of internet users. The things on websites that annoy you do not annoy 99% of internet users. The marketing antics that work for 99% of internet users do not work on you.
Wrong. Netflix is the larger part of the internet. That has nothing to do with me.
In case you aren't just being argumentative, using bandwidth as the metric of choice when discussing lightbox-style page elements is sub-optimal. Or when discussing business models of websites that use those page elements.
A better metric is some sort of pageviews / site visitors / uniques / etc.
A better metric is some sort of pageviews / site visitors / uniques / etc.
Come on. Netflix is the single largest consumer of the Internet. Any metric you want to name. Consumer interactions being the most important. They beat other video-on-demand services by a large margin. And most of those others have popups (or forced ads injected into the content). And Netflix beats them all. You understand the argument.
You have honestly lost me. Not only am I unsure of any argument you set forth except "Netflix is the biggest consumer of the internet", but I can name many metrics by which they aren't top 10. Namely, pageviews, unique visitors, alexa rank, or just about any other metric that doesn't measure bandwidth.
Are you only discussing VOD sites? That's the only way I can make any sense of your arguments. (Also, what do you mean by netflix being a "consumer of the internet"?)
[http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/netflix.com]
Are you only discussing VOD sites? That's the only way I can make any sense of your arguments. (Also, what do you mean by netflix being a "consumer of the internet"?)
[http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/netflix.com]
You provide one example of a single website out of millions that does not use a popup, and claim QED?
Like stated before... you are letting your personal bias creep into a pseudo-fact.
Like stated before... you are letting your personal bias creep into a pseudo-fact.
'A single website' that is the largest single fraction of the entire internet traffic, yes. And what's with the 'pseudo' slam?
I honestly don't know what you are trying to debate anymore. Netflix might account for the largest bandwidth consumption, sure, but it's not even in the top 50 websites by users/pageviews. Your analogy falls down hard; we're talking about a common tactic to collect email addresses... to my knowledge Netflix does not have a newsletter they send out. Does that mean nobody should collect email addresses and run a newsletter campaign? Absolutely not.
> And what's with the 'pseudo' slam?
You are making up facts to support your skewed and biased view. You don't like popups that ask for email addresses, therefore you assert they are ineffective and annoying to all users. This is absurd, and provably false.
You assert Netflix has the most consumption of bandwidth for a single service on the internet, and they don't employ a popup to collect email addresses... and therefore conclude that nobody should use a popup to collect email addresses. This is equally absurd.
> And what's with the 'pseudo' slam?
You are making up facts to support your skewed and biased view. You don't like popups that ask for email addresses, therefore you assert they are ineffective and annoying to all users. This is absurd, and provably false.
You assert Netflix has the most consumption of bandwidth for a single service on the internet, and they don't employ a popup to collect email addresses... and therefore conclude that nobody should use a popup to collect email addresses. This is equally absurd.
> Don't fool yourself. Everybody finds them annoying
I don't believe that's true. What we see here is an exhibit of the False-Consensus Effect[1]. You believe they are annoying, and many on HN believe they are annoying, therefore they (popups) must be annoying to everyone. This logic ignores the fact that 99% of web users are not technical, and view the web in an entirely different light.
On ecommerce websites, popup forms are incredibly effective at capturing customer email addresses later used in direct email marketing. So effective, there is an entire industry built around providing the technology and controls to target certain customers with the popups (viewed 6 pages but did not add anything to cart yet, sat on a product page for 2 minutes, etc...).
For a lot of popups, an incentive is offered to the potential customer. Give us your email address and we'll give you 5% off your next purchase. We're basically buying the right to email market to you... understanding full well that some customers will be annoyed with the popup, and some might even provide fake details. But for the majority of customers, we just bought their loyalty. They will make a purchase with their new 5% off coupon, and will likely shop the site again when we email them promo offers later on.
If you visited one of my sites, and got annoyed by the popup, then I'd be OK with that... you were not my target. But if your parents or grandparents visited my site... chances are they'd fill out the popup. They are my target.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect
I don't believe that's true. What we see here is an exhibit of the False-Consensus Effect[1]. You believe they are annoying, and many on HN believe they are annoying, therefore they (popups) must be annoying to everyone. This logic ignores the fact that 99% of web users are not technical, and view the web in an entirely different light.
On ecommerce websites, popup forms are incredibly effective at capturing customer email addresses later used in direct email marketing. So effective, there is an entire industry built around providing the technology and controls to target certain customers with the popups (viewed 6 pages but did not add anything to cart yet, sat on a product page for 2 minutes, etc...).
For a lot of popups, an incentive is offered to the potential customer. Give us your email address and we'll give you 5% off your next purchase. We're basically buying the right to email market to you... understanding full well that some customers will be annoyed with the popup, and some might even provide fake details. But for the majority of customers, we just bought their loyalty. They will make a purchase with their new 5% off coupon, and will likely shop the site again when we email them promo offers later on.
If you visited one of my sites, and got annoyed by the popup, then I'd be OK with that... you were not my target. But if your parents or grandparents visited my site... chances are they'd fill out the popup. They are my target.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect
I think somebody is fooling themselves, and I think it isn't me. Its self-serving to stick a dialog box in somebody's face, then spend 100's of words defending that choice by denying the obvious.
All the arguments above are about the site, not about the visitor. "capturing customer email", "Buying the right to email market" are not about the visitor gaining value by reading a blog entry. And those who object to the process are "not my target". Very convenient. Perhaps I was a whale with a blank check, reading the blog entry to find out more. One popup and now I'm gone. You'll never know, since you've already convinced yourself this is all ok.
All the arguments above are about the site, not about the visitor. "capturing customer email", "Buying the right to email market" are not about the visitor gaining value by reading a blog entry. And those who object to the process are "not my target". Very convenient. Perhaps I was a whale with a blank check, reading the blog entry to find out more. One popup and now I'm gone. You'll never know, since you've already convinced yourself this is all ok.
> Perhaps I was a whale with a blank check, reading the blog entry to find out more. One popup and now I'm gone.
You don't run websites (especially ecommerce websites) hoping and praying for a "whale" to come along and bless you with their deep pockets... just like you don't play baseball hedging on hitting only home runs. That's a recipe for failure.
> Its self-serving to stick a dialog box in somebody's face
Yes, that's the point. I want their email addresses.
> then spend 100's of words defending that choice by denying the obvious.
Frankly, you cannot argue with the effectiveness of popup email collection. Every time we blast our 150,000+ email marketing list (mostly gathered via the popup as well as other means), the websites are almost crushed under the traffic load. 1 email can generate $10's of thousands in revenue... so yes, collecting emails is of very high importance for us, and many similar ecommerce companies.
> are not about the visitor gaining value by reading a blog entry
You are certainly right -- it's more about the company gaining value, however, a great many of our customers gain value by seeing deals on products they are interested in. That is a win-win for everyone.
> And those who object to the process are "not my target".
If you aren't buying something from my site, or clicking an ad, then you are not my target. Instead you are just consuming my company's resources and ultimately won't convert into a sale. To be frank, we don't want those types of visitors on the website, although it's unavoidable (ecommerce generally considers an average 3-5% conversion rate to be good).
The point is, you are annoyed by popups, and choose to punish sites that employ them. Just like some choose to punish sites that provide free content but pay the bills with ads. It's a strong bias to impose on the rest of the internet users... especially when you are in the minority percentile.
You don't run websites (especially ecommerce websites) hoping and praying for a "whale" to come along and bless you with their deep pockets... just like you don't play baseball hedging on hitting only home runs. That's a recipe for failure.
> Its self-serving to stick a dialog box in somebody's face
Yes, that's the point. I want their email addresses.
> then spend 100's of words defending that choice by denying the obvious.
Frankly, you cannot argue with the effectiveness of popup email collection. Every time we blast our 150,000+ email marketing list (mostly gathered via the popup as well as other means), the websites are almost crushed under the traffic load. 1 email can generate $10's of thousands in revenue... so yes, collecting emails is of very high importance for us, and many similar ecommerce companies.
> are not about the visitor gaining value by reading a blog entry
You are certainly right -- it's more about the company gaining value, however, a great many of our customers gain value by seeing deals on products they are interested in. That is a win-win for everyone.
> And those who object to the process are "not my target".
If you aren't buying something from my site, or clicking an ad, then you are not my target. Instead you are just consuming my company's resources and ultimately won't convert into a sale. To be frank, we don't want those types of visitors on the website, although it's unavoidable (ecommerce generally considers an average 3-5% conversion rate to be good).
The point is, you are annoyed by popups, and choose to punish sites that employ them. Just like some choose to punish sites that provide free content but pay the bills with ads. It's a strong bias to impose on the rest of the internet users... especially when you are in the minority percentile.
Have you done user-testing?
I haven't but I've seen non-nerds get irritated by popups. Heck, given that their primary complaint about computers is that they're confusing, the last thing they want is for popups to confuse them further.
[EDIT] Here's a study that agrees with me:
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/most-hated-advertising-techn...
I can't find the actual source, though, if a source even exists.
I haven't but I've seen non-nerds get irritated by popups. Heck, given that their primary complaint about computers is that they're confusing, the last thing they want is for popups to confuse them further.
[EDIT] Here's a study that agrees with me:
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/most-hated-advertising-techn...
I can't find the actual source, though, if a source even exists.
If "everyone" finds them annoying why are they clicking the links or giving their e-mail addresses?
9800 out of 10,000? That sure sounds like pretty much "everyone"
I don't usually engage such popups but I also don't find it very hard to dismiss them if I want to read the article. Reading an article takes at least a few minutes, depending how long it is. Dismissing a modal takes seconds.
I think that depends on your audience, target market. Some audiences loathe the intrusion, other audiences feel it's par for the course, so maybe try to determine who your core audience is and what methods they find acceptable?
Collect on landing page? How do they know if they want to sign up, they just got here.
Put the form at the bottom of the content. Presumably those who have read through and like it will then sign up.
Put the form at the bottom of the content. Presumably those who have read through and like it will then sign up.
How about pop-ups that only come up when the user is about to close the browser tab? The user is free to continue to close the tab if the pop-up doesn't interest them.
Some demos:
- http://www.popupdomination.com/
- http://optinmonster.com/features/exit-intent/
Some demos:
- http://www.popupdomination.com/
- http://optinmonster.com/features/exit-intent/
That's obnoxious and will not help with someone who's going ot use the back button or go to a different page.
The answer to this question is the same as the answer to all business questions on HN: copy how patio11 does it. http://www.kalzumeus.com/blog/
If they scroll all the way to the bottom then have a bottom bar that appears.
Excellent; now 98% of users will never see it.
If they didn't read to the bottom, they probably aren't interested in the product enough to sign up for an email.
That's just not that true. People rather frequently do things like share articles they only bothered to read half of on Facebook; there's no reason to think they wouldn't want a newsletter or a product. c.f. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/06/...
> Schwartz’s data shows that readers can’t stay focused. The more I type, the more of you tune out. And it’s not just me. It’s not just Slate. It’s everywhere online. When people land on a story, they very rarely make it all the way down the page. A lot of people don’t even make it halfway. Even more dispiriting is the relationship between scrolling and sharing. Schwartz’s data suggest that lots of people are tweeting out links to articles they haven’t fully read. If you see someone recommending a story online, you shouldn’t assume that he has read the thing he’s sharing.
> Schwartz’s data shows that readers can’t stay focused. The more I type, the more of you tune out. And it’s not just me. It’s not just Slate. It’s everywhere online. When people land on a story, they very rarely make it all the way down the page. A lot of people don’t even make it halfway. Even more dispiriting is the relationship between scrolling and sharing. Schwartz’s data suggest that lots of people are tweeting out links to articles they haven’t fully read. If you see someone recommending a story online, you shouldn’t assume that he has read the thing he’s sharing.
Well good counterpoint, but there's got to be something better than forcing me to close a popup.
You know, the age of ACTUAL pop-up windows really sucked, and it was amazing when browsers rendered them largely obsolete by limiting how websites could launch another window but at least all of those had the X in the SAME EXACT PLACE.
The new crop of lightboxed modal popups that are now ubiquitous are 100 times worse since they:
- are modal
- often work poorly on mobile
- have as many different dismiss mechanisms as there are popups
- web marketers love them
The new crop of lightboxed modal popups that are now ubiquitous are 100 times worse since they:
- are modal
- often work poorly on mobile
- have as many different dismiss mechanisms as there are popups
- web marketers love them
The crucial usability difference is that lightbox style "popups" are all gone instantly when you close the page/tab.
I saw a particularly impressive one the other day which watched for mouse events on document.body, and when your mouse left the page in the "up" direction, it triggered a "Wait! Don't switch tabs! Check out this offer we have for you!" popup.
Sounds nice. Just yesterday I saw another version of not too intrusive popup - it came after about 20 seconds at the bottom right, not obscuring the content, but noticable (some animation, don't remember exactly), and in the popup the headline was "Hey, at least it's not centered" or something like that. I actually smiled at that, so it got a positive initial impression. I didn't sign up because I wasn't that interested in the content of the site, but still nicely done.
They are not worse. They're totally self-contained. Do you not remember trying to chase down multiple pop-up windows which themselves would spawn more pop-up windows when you went to close them? In the absolute worst case with modals, you can just hit back or close the tab.
I really wish there was a way to globally disable all lightboxes without having to disable JavaScript entirely.
Maybe a Machine Learning model to prevent scripts from executing if the classifier indicates it will spawn a lightbox...
Maybe a Machine Learning model to prevent scripts from executing if the classifier indicates it will spawn a lightbox...
Something as simple as checking that nothing dynamic blocks too much text would detect most of them currently.
But it quickly turns into a cat-and-mouse game.
But it quickly turns into a cat-and-mouse game.
That would stop any drop-down menu navigation bars from working though.
Love this idea. Would like to add that I'd love to block any fixed topnav that stays on the screen as you scroll down.
I, too, wish there were a feature that would break Web applications that use modals for marginal benefit.
I hate when they have an |X| in the corner to close it, but that |X| is just part of the popup, so it takes you to the other page, as though you wanted to click the ad.
I've definitely noticed a trend in technical blogs/ newsletters (some of which have been featured on HN) throw up a "like this article? Sign up for our newsletter" popup after you start to scroll down the page.
"I don't fucking know if I like this article, you're interrupting me while I'm still in the middle of reading it!"
"I don't fucking know if I like this article, you're interrupting me while I'm still in the middle of reading it!"
Is it popping up halfway through or when it thinks you're mousing over to close the tab? Sudden upward mouse movements trigger some of those javascript retention popups, even though you were just moving to the scroll bar or something.
But while we're on the topic, the recent trend of "No thanks, I don't want to get all this awesome stuff" or "No, I don't want to become a master in subject X" buttons are very condescending.
But while we're on the topic, the recent trend of "No thanks, I don't want to get all this awesome stuff" or "No, I don't want to become a master in subject X" buttons are very condescending.
I have seen that, but some of them pop up partway down a page or even on a timer.
The tragic thing is that getting that email address to spam you is the primary purpose of the page, and the actual content is just a sort of bait.
Which is why the popup is actually a timesaver to tell you the content isn't worth reading.
Sadly, sometimes it IS worth reading.
I love when it s a persistent bar that occupies 30% of the device screen and can't be dismissed. Saves me a lot of time o would have wasted on reading the page, I just close.
When I'm forced to provide an email address to access wifi but the email address doesn't have to be valid, I typically use something like pr@ or press@ the responsible organisation's mail domain.
I've never understood this design. Someone came to your website to do something. Why is the first thing you do is give them a bad experience?
Because it works.
I had a small deals aggregator site which got most of its traffic from Google. When users landed I knew they were interested in the content, and I showed it through a semi-transparent background and forced them to enter their emails before being able to click through. I remember conversions going from 10-20 new emails per day to over 100 emails per day.
I had a small deals aggregator site which got most of its traffic from Google. When users landed I knew they were interested in the content, and I showed it through a semi-transparent background and forced them to enter their emails before being able to click through. I remember conversions going from 10-20 new emails per day to over 100 emails per day.
Do you have data on whether those additional email addresses actually resulted in more sales than you lost from people who hate popups?
Ok fair enough. But, if I were you, just to be 100% excited about this strategy, I'd ask myself these questions:
1. Am I measuring the quality of the email addresses before an after the introduction of the popup?
2. Am I measuring the number of visitors who abandoned my site (closed my page) immediately after I interrupted their visit with my popup?
Ultimately, the question ought to be: what am I really measuring? Is it the number of new rows in my emails table or the impact on brand perception and ultimately bottom line?
1. Am I measuring the quality of the email addresses before an after the introduction of the popup?
2. Am I measuring the number of visitors who abandoned my site (closed my page) immediately after I interrupted their visit with my popup?
Ultimately, the question ought to be: what am I really measuring? Is it the number of new rows in my emails table or the impact on brand perception and ultimately bottom line?
As a web marketer, I am paid to generate leads, not revenue. Revenue is someone else's problem. Yay non-owner employment.
.. but how many of those were valid, and how many actually made some use of the emails you sent them?
@ak39, @waqf, @pjc50
I never got around to emailing the leads, but I know the lock screen did not stop people. Assuming 50% were invalid, that is still an additional 50+ new leads daily.
I think we (people similar to the HN crowd) care about things many people don't care about. Things such as Design, UX, etc...
I never got around to emailing the leads, but I know the lock screen did not stop people. Assuming 50% were invalid, that is still an additional 50+ new leads daily.
I think we (people similar to the HN crowd) care about things many people don't care about. Things such as Design, UX, etc...
This mentality has to go. "Because it works" is not a reason to punch your users in the dick. We all agree this is awful and hateful; we should stop doing it for that reason alone, regardless of its purported efficacy. "Because it works" yields the Duggars on TLC and other heinous abuses.
[deleted]
I'm ok with those as long as they react to ESC key .. otherwise it's instantly close tab
What I hate the most are those install alerts, during page load, which then ends up being a phonegap/cordoba of SAME site (!)
..or to be redirected to "m.example.com" because they think that an special diminished experience best fit for my perfectly capable phone
What I hate the most are those install alerts, during page load, which then ends up being a phonegap/cordoba of SAME site (!)
..or to be redirected to "m.example.com" because they think that an special diminished experience best fit for my perfectly capable phone
[deleted]
As much as I hate this tactic - and I dont use it - it's really attractive because it works _so_ well for collecting emails / signups / likes / whatever.
You might piss off one person, but 10 more sign up. You decide if it's worth it or not.
You might piss off one person, but 10 more sign up. You decide if it's worth it or not.
> You might piss off one person, but 10 more sign up. You decide if it's worth it or not.
The current top post says he has a 1.96% success rate.
So it's more like "piss off 98 people, sign up 2". I'm not convinced that's worth it.
The current top post says he has a 1.96% success rate.
So it's more like "piss off 98 people, sign up 2". I'm not convinced that's worth it.
Yep. I hate these too, but I see the competition using it. Since we are bidding on the same advertising channels, if the popup means they can convert a bit more people down the line, then I don't see how I can NOT do it.
Are there any good pop-up blockers for ads like these? I know one of Firefox's original USP's was having a built-in popup blocker because popups were so annoying back then, so why not for these?
I'm not sure, because some of them are actually used to log in to sites. You'd have to have an exhaustive blacklist, or some heuristics that block common copy-and-paste versions but wouldn't block all of them.
If you only care about the text on a page, Readability will pull it out and show it to you in a plain style. https://www.readability.com/ Safari already has this built-in, and it's in Firefox Beta so it should be in the next shipping version.
If you only care about the text on a page, Readability will pull it out and show it to you in a plain style. https://www.readability.com/ Safari already has this built-in, and it's in Firefox Beta so it should be in the next shipping version.
Because those are not pop-ups. They are simply area of the websites positioned with CSS along with some JS for the fadeIn/fadeOut on page load and on click of the "x" button.
Such popups are not distinguishable from any other part of the page, so only sure way to get rid of them is to burn everything with NoScript.
You have to do it either on a per-site blacklist or heuristically.
Though I'm waiting for something like NoScript that allows JS modification to remove annoyances like this.
Though I'm waiting for something like NoScript that allows JS modification to remove annoyances like this.
The only pop up window I really hate is Quora's, because in order to remove it without signing up for an account I have to go into the developer tools and delete its enclosing div. Quora, I don't want to sign up for your site, and I don't want to "complete" an account I don't have. I just want to see the answer to the question you were somehow the top search result for.
Tack on "?share=1" to the end of the url which will let you read the article without all that nonsense.
If the google search result isn't readable,google intends to delist the page. File feedback.
or just add ?share=1 to the URL
As the parent poster is complaining about "completing" an account, I think he's in the state where he once said "fine, I'll log in with Google to make this popup go away", at which point it asks for pages of additional personal information and will not let you back out.
Not even if you leave the site and come back. Not even with share=1. You have to ban it from using your Google account to regain control.
Not even if you leave the site and come back. Not even with share=1. You have to ban it from using your Google account to regain control.
Yes -- this is what happened to me. I will try deauthorizing it from Google to see if that fixes my problem, actually.
Edit: So I revoked access through my Google Account, and it's still doing it. Emailed [email protected] to see if they can help.
Edit: So I revoked access through my Google Account, and it's still doing it. Emailed [email protected] to see if they can help.
I get the impression some of these only pop up when I move my mouse to my tab/address bar. Am I right or is it just in my mind?
Is there enough commonality in the way these popups work that would make it easy to kill them automatically?
The problem is this is likely to cause problems for image light boxes. I hate those too (I would prefer a slideshow on a separate page) but unlike stupid popups they are necessary for the working of the site.
The problem is this is likely to cause problems for image light boxes. I hate those too (I would prefer a slideshow on a separate page) but unlike stupid popups they are necessary for the working of the site.
I was just thinking about these annoying popups - funny I ran into this thread!
I manage a host file that redirects any site I run across that gives me a popup back to my home page. I refuse to visit these sites - even if the popup is a one-time-only thing (which it isn't for those of us who clear cookies)
I manage a host file that redirects any site I run across that gives me a popup back to my home page. I refuse to visit these sites - even if the popup is a one-time-only thing (which it isn't for those of us who clear cookies)
When I get these, I use [email protected]. It seems if we can generally agree on which one we all pick (or some small number of choices), we might have a chance of making a dent when the postmaster starts getting effectively self-spammed.
...and this is another one of the reasons why I keep JavaScript off by default.
So long as they keep working, those popups aren't going anywhere.
Idea for a browser plugin?
I don't see why Dropbox is on there. That's just a sign in/register window for a service that requires an account.
Not so. If somebody generates a link to a file on their Dropbox account, then you'll see that popup when you click that link. A Dropbox account is not necessary to view such links (thus the "No thanks" button at the bottom of that screenshot) but they use it as an opportunity to market to you anyway.
When you try to download the software, they try to make you sign up or log in for no reason.
IIRC on the old versions the installer had your login data attached so you did not have to relogin inside the app once installed. But I believe this does not work anymore since code signing.
Well the software isn't going to do anything useful before you log in, so may as well log in beforehand, or skip the trip.
Here's a real example:
In March I added a delayed popup to my blog to invite people to subscribe for future updates about user acquisition. It was on a delayed timer so that the reader has a chance to at least get part-way through the post. Also, if you closed it out once then you wouldn't see it again for something like 30 days.
Since then, it's been seen by 11,848 people, of whom 232 (1.96%) signed up.
Most blog readers come for the article, not for the blog or the company. They read the article then carry on with their lives, even if the article was very helpful or interesting to them.
Here's how I see it: I now have 232 people who are actually interested in learning about user acquisition, and gave me permission to send them more helpful posts. I wouldn't have this if I never asked them to enter their email. I realize the price to pay for this is mildly annoying the other 98%.
With that said, I'm trying to minimize that annoyance. I'm now experimenting with a less invasive prompt; a thin bar at the top of the screen, that also hides when you're scrolling down (presumably reading). If it still gets subscribers _and_ is less annoying to the others, then I'll keep it.
tl;dr - Companies know and don't care that popups are annoying, because they're effective. Some companies care a little and try to make the popups less annoying to those who wouldn't have signed up anyway.