Error 402: You Will Click On Internet Ads, Oh So Many Internet Ads
from the have-you-ever-hated-internet-ads?-you-will! dept
Last week in our Error 402 series on the history of web monetization, we covered how early paywalls for content almost universally failed. We’ll explore a bit more of the why later, but first we need to talk about internet ads. Because they basically sucked up all of the oxygen in the online monetization world. As this series pretty clearly notes, when the early web was being developed, the very fact that a 402 “Payment Required” status code was created and was slotted in before things like the much more well known 403 “Forbidden” and 404 “Not Found” shows that it was intended to be a core part of the web.
But that pretty much completely fell by the wayside. I find it somewhat hilarious that 402, which dates back to some of the earliest days of the web, is still described as “experimental” and “reserved for future use.”
It’s quite likely that a big part of the reason it was never really developed or standardized is that online ads basically changed everything when it came to funding content. And, yes, I know that everyone hates internet ads. I hate internet ads. But to understand this series, we need to explore internet ads and what happened with them.
The first web ad is generally credited to Hotwired (the online entity created by Wired magazine), which had the first banner ad (for AT&T!) in 1994. It played off of AT&T’s famed “You Will” marketing campaign in the early 1990s, in which Tom Selleck (!!) narrated TV commercials describing future things AT&T thought you’d be able to do (mostly online) as the technology got better. As Tim Lee noted a few years back, those ads were… actually amazingly accurate in retrospect:
And, in some ways, that very first banner ad was kind of prescient as well. “Have you ever clicked your mouse right HERE?” it asked? “You will.”

And while many of you will likely deny ever clicking banner ads, many, many people did. And, suddenly, money flowed. Content sites proliferated, as did banner ads. Of course, the actual performance of banner ads was mixed. The first one performed incredibly well. Perhaps because it was first. But also, as the guy who created it at the ad company admitted years later, it was actually part of a more thoughtful integrated marketing campaign, rather than just a random banner ad:
Almost 20 years ago, on 27 October 27, 1994, the first banner went live on hotwired.com. For over four months, 44% of those who saw it clicked on it.
Because I wrote that banner, I’m often asked why it worked so much better than today’s banners, which get clicked by only four out of every 10,000 people who see them. Expressed another way, why did that first banner generate more clicks with 10 impressions than the average banner today generates with 10,000? What have we done to destroy one of the most effective forms of advertising ever invented?
As you’ll see, that first banner had three advantages over modern digital ads: it was part of an integrated marketing campaign; it was a great experience (as opposed to being a mere message); and it was created with only good intentions toward consumers.
Rather than going back and more deeply exploring other monetization approaches, the focus started to turn to how to make more people click on ads. The incredible 44% click through rate on the first ad set up some ridiculously lofty aspirations which did not hold up. At all. But rather than exploring all that, people just moved on to experimenting with more annoying ways to get clicks, with the most annoying of all being the pop-up ad.
Ethan Zuckerman, who has spent many years trying to make the web a much better place (his projects are really cool), has also spent many years apologizing for creating the first pop up ad. How many of his modern really cool projects are penance for that earlier mistake… well, we’ll never know for sure.
To be honest, I find it amusing that so many of the pioneers in online advertising have gone on to try to make amends for their role in shaping an ad-dominated webscape. Beyond Zuckerman’s work, Andrew Anker, who was CTO at Wired and CEO of Hotwired when that first ad debuted, spent years trying to explore other forms of online monetization, including founding a company called Tugboat Yards that created what might be thought of as a (too early) Substack-like setup (which was eventually purchased by Facebook). But part of his thinking in creating Tugboat Yards was to try to help publishers make money in a manner that didn’t rely on the very internet ads he’d help invent.
Similarly, Brendan Eich, who created JavaScript and is sometimes blamed for building the enabling technology that allowed folks like Zuckerman to load up the internet with pop ups (and pop unders), eventually went on to found Brave, the web browser that tries to limits ads while also experimenting with monetization alternatives for sites.
But, for all of those later decisions to try to move the web content away from just advertising-based business models, none of that really mattered for the vast majority of the web, which became inundated with ads… in part because of the evolution we’ll discuss in next week’s entry in the series: the rise of Google and search ads.
Filed Under: banner ads, error 402, internet advertising, pop up ads, web monetization
Companies: wired


Comments on “Error 402: You Will Click On Internet Ads, Oh So Many Internet Ads”
Ads have been around since long before the internet. And they have been around that long IRL because they do serve a purpose and they do work.
In that context, having ads on the internet is no big deal, but trying to turn ads into your main form of monetization is just crazy.
Regardless of how successful the first banner ads were, there is really no excuse for not going back to explore other, more sustainable, approaches to monetization.
I guess by the time people figured out it wasn’t working, it was to late to do anything about it anymore?!?!?!
Re:
Don’t call us, we’ll call you.
Re:
The newspapers did that well before the Internet was dreamt of, and they are now in trouble because the Internet became the preferred way of advertising.
Re: Re:
Not exactly. Before the internet, most newspapers also charged a subscription. While they also charged for ads, I wouldn’t call them their main form of monetization. But, yeah, the internet seemed to do as much damage to the subscription model as it did to the ad model.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
e
The ad-only page...
I am old enough to remember the Million Pixel ads only page…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I was reading some old National Geographic magazines from the 1950s recently, and it was amazing how appealing the ads were. I wanted to buy every single product and service being promoted there!!
Beautiful, peaceful, respectable White families taking train trips, a clunky shortwave radio receiver that could connect me to Belgian diplomatic outposts in the Congo, a fancy land-yacht of a car with a convertible roof and no seatbelts being driven by a handsome ad executive and his pretty wife, Metropolitan Life Insurance explaining via an affluent WM subject why I should have a policy to protect my family in case my smoking and martini lunches gave me a heart attack…all really good, and really relatable, yet hardly seen anymore in today’s pro-degeneracy media market.
BTW, I block all ads, so I wouldn’t even know if TD blog hosted any 🙂
Re:
That feeling when you don’t know if someone’s posting satire, or actually pining for a racist, misogynist consumer fantasy…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
What’s racist about appreciating the success and historic achievements of one’s fellow White people?
And what’s misogynistic about appreciating an era of American life (and prosperity) when women weren’t scorned or degraded for putting their families first?
Re: Re: Re:
What part of propaganda do you not understand?
Re: Re: Re:
The pseudo-scientific division of people into “races” based on superficial physical criteria, and the treatment of some of them as “your people” based on that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Black Americans are genetically inferior to Whites. I don’t know why you think that’s controversial, or why you would deny me the right to freely associate with (and take pride in) my people: Whites.
Re: Re: Re:3
” I don’t know why you think that’s controversial,”
Of course you don’t. You’re not going to read anything that would contradict your present world view now would you?
That particular piece of bullshit has been thru the bebunker many times and it always comes out the same … you are wrong, according to the scientific and medical professionals which I’m sure you are not one of.
Re: Re: Re:3
There you are showing the smug superiority of an inferior person.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You seem like you’re being unfair to the OP, and I for one wouldn’t mind looking through some back issues of National Geographic, too, especially ones that featured in-depth photo essays on African tribes.
Oh! my god moment.
the first adverts werent to bad. WHAT got bad was the inserts and trackers to Monitor IF’ you saw that advert and how many times.
Then some idiot figured out “Wow, we can make the browser do what we want, NOT just click thru to the site”. And the war began to STOP this site from taking over the browser.
IF’ they had made the browser to Open a private window for the advert, and LOCKED it so things could not be inserted onto your computer ‘Anywhere’, it would have been nice, or at least reasonable. But no, they gave Full access to WHO ever adverted to you. Which is F’ing WRONG.
Adverts Should be simple Click thru, locked up adverts that do nothing more, then Advert.
But someone had to make them do Things we didnt like. Or even Popup 10 other adverts, and while you got rid of those 10, 10 more would keep popping up.
Not counting trackers for all the adverts, which were stupid in the first place, as the Companies would have to check HOW many time 1 million computers had seen the SAME advert, over and over and over.. EVEN after you went and bought something FROM the site. OTHER data was being grabbed and sent to them. And all of a sudden, we were getting Spam emails. So, NO REAL privacy of any kind.
Still no real privacy, as we inserted a good amount of our Info into Windows and the browsers.
And the worse thing is the gov. wasnt doing much about Loosing Privacy. Then we get the gov. TRYING to chase down all these spammers. But why? Mostly cause they arent working for the Advert companies or Any companies at all. They arnt going after the ‘Legit'(LOL) companies.
they catch a Spammer, and charge them, they goto jail for 1-2 years, and have to pay back a SUM of money, to who? How do you make money as a spammer? MORE spam? OR goto work for the agencies, or even the gov. as you have learned how to BACKDOOR the system.
Even now, how many trackers are on yur computer?
How many sites WONT let you on, if you dont allow Cookies?(its not a tracker if you let them do it)
Who has gone to a site(and there are some) that have so many Adverts ont he front page, that it takes Time ot load the WHOLE THING? Many sites Now scan the adverts(yea). Most still dont. But most have settled with only 1 for the Few proven corps that do the adverts, and NOT direct adverts of spamming from a bunch of small companies.
It has been so much fun, not really. And even Now they wish us to drop Shields, and let them hit us Hard.
Sitting on YT, as they Allowed blockers again, I watch my Adblock COUNT UP the adverts it blocked. After it hit about 1800, I stopped watching. And that was on 1 page, with 1 video, i forgot how long it took.
But, i still want my $0.03 per advert for the spamming they were doing.
Re: PS
I would not mind watching on YT, 1 advert per 15 min or per video..
Really I would allow it. But I Wish Sites would post on the front page, that If Im infected by THEM or a 3rd party advert and could prove it was from them, that I could SUE THEM.
I asked long ago, from the browser makers, IF they could label/note Where a advert had installed something on my computer, Like the trackers. Where they came from.
they said NOPE, not possible. I do remember from my programming days that Progs Could be noted. I dont knwo what has changed.
Re: Re:
Browsers don’t allow sites to install things onto computers. If somehow that happens, it’s by definition a deficiency in the browser which is therefore in no position to “take notes” about it.
Re: Re: Re:
“Browsers don’t allow sites to install things onto computers.”
cookies has entered the chat
Re: Re: Re:2
Cookies are stored, but not “installed”. And the name of the site that asked the browser to store one is always stored alongside it.
Re: Re: Re:3
The electronic circuitry involved in your ‘storage’ or ‘installation’ of ones and zeros cares not what you call it.
Websites indeed write data on to your hardware via the browser, that is a fundamental function of the web.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, it’s not fundamental, as “Incognito” and “Private” modes demonstrate—nevermind that the web existed for years without cookies. Some sites won’t let you in if you don’t accept cookies (which may violate certain privacy laws), but I’m not aware of any that require those to be written to permanent storage. The same goes for “web storage”; and all of these are necessarily associated with the site that caused them to be stored, and some browsers allow such abilities to be blocked from or allowed only from certain domains.
I suppose one could say every site “installs data to hardware”, such as the text of the page being in RAM, but that’s splitting hairs. No programmer would refer to that as “installation”.
Re: Re: Re:5
“I suppose one could say every site “installs data to hardware”, such as the text of the page being in RAM, but that’s splitting hairs. ”
I suppose so. It is fundamental to the functioning of the web.
“I’m not aware of any that require those to be written to permanent storage. ”
What do you mean by permanent storage? The browser uses both ram and hd, which one is permanent?
“No programmer would refer to that as “installation””
Possible differences between stored and installed; execution permissions, links to dynamic libraries and possibly some d/l java update. Regardless, websites write data to your machine as that is how the web works. You do not need licensing for the copy of website data that is stored upon your hardware for your viewing pleasure.
so yeah – whatever
Re: Re: Re:6
Hard-disk drives and solid-state drives are considered “permanent”. It’s not literally true, but that data could last years or decades even without power, whereas RAM won’t last seconds without power (at any reasonable room temperature).
If you take the cookies sent by sites and write them only to RAM instead of disk, basically everything on the web will work just fine (except you’ll need to log in again if you close the browser and re-open it). That’s almost exactly what these “private” modes do, and thus they prevent storage-based tracking between sessions. IP-based tracking will still work.
More than that, executability matters (Windows, when I last used it about 15 years ago, gave all files execution permissions by default, though most were not executable). People don’t talk about “installing” photos from their camera to their computer, or “installing” some text via Notepad; those are just copying and saving.
Re: Re: Re:7
“If you take the cookies sent by sites and write them only to RAM instead of disk, ”
afaik, the user (browser) is not offered that option by the OS. RAM is a limited resource under high demand, therefore swapping occurs and your data ends up on backing store .. disk, whatever you use.
Re: Re: Re:8
It can happen, but won’t help websites track you. Once you close your browser, the next browser you run has no way to read that “junk data”, even if it’s still technically on the drive somewhere.
RAM’s not all that limited anymore—it’s often practical for the administrator to disable swapping, and it may improve the user experience. Otherwise, swap space can be encrypted with a throw-away key (the Debian crypttab manual has an example; I don’t know about other systems).
Re: Re: Re:9
“Once you close your browser, the next browser you run has no way to read that “junk data”, even if it’s still technically on the drive somewhere.”
Are super cookies still a thing these days?
Do websites still use local shared object, aka flash cookie?
What is the status of persistent cookies?
“t’s often practical for the administrator to disable swapping, and it may improve the user experience.”
This is correct. In addition, administrator has a huge budget.
“swap space can be encrypted ”
Yeah sure, if you want to slow things down a bit.
How does that help with a lack of ram?
Re: Re: Re:10
Private modes, in theory, inhibit all built-in forms of persistent browser storage (“evil” plug-ins remain a concern), and I assume Flash cookies went away with Flash. The Electronic Frontier Foundation have a page relevant to your questions; note the “test your browser” link.
Must be nice. I don’t have a “huge” budget when building the home computers I administer, but I learned decades ago that RAM is just about the worst thing to cheap out on: a lack of RAM will hurt me way more than a CPU that’s a few steps below what I’d prefer.
Swap space helps with a lack of RAM, and whether it’s encrypted or not makes little difference—the encryption header might occupy a few kilobytes, and CPUs are so much faster than SSDs and disks that you’re not gonna notice the speed difference (CPUs have had crypto acceleration for upward of 10 years, and the “enterprise” ones can even encrypt RAM without much slowdown now). Swapping’s gonna suck, regardless.
Re: Re: Re:11
“not gonna notice the speed difference ”
Depends upon what one is doing.
Re: Re: Re:12
You might be able to measure a slowdown in swap performance, but I’m very sceptical any human being could notice it during interactive use. AES takes about 0.7 cycles per byte on modern processors, and talking to an SSD takes a hell of a lot longer.
Re:
Yeah… Banner ads aren’t bad. Nobody would care if there was just a banner advertising something at the edge of a website. The problem is with everything else. The tracking of every site you visit to determine which ads you see. The pop-ups and pop-unders. The video ads, especially when they autoplay with sound and there’s more than one on the same page (I’m still glaring at you, Techdirt from years ago.) The attempts to get people to click accidentally. The scams and outright malware distributed by major advertising networks.
Pop unders
To this day, I never understood how pop-unders make money. If the point is to open a new window behind the browser, how will people see the ad to click on it? How does it drive traffic to the ad company website?
Or did companies make money by counting how long the ads was open?
Re:
They’ll close the window eventually. In the days before tabbed browsing, it happened more quickly.
Re:
Pop-under adverts register impressions, not click through.
I know: I’m rare…
I actually want to support things I like with payment. I click on relevant adverts. That’s part of why I have tracking on and don’t block or delete my cookies or history.
We’re all going to be stuck paying arbitrary amounts of cash for everything as long as people don’t click th advert. So when the next site you use adds a paywall, blame yourself people! That’s the way you made the internet. Freeloading has consequences. Sites will charge or go out of business.