142

It seems more and more common, when you enter a page and start reading it shows a popup after ~10 seconds. Personally I just leave the page immediately and look for the content somewhere else. I can't imagine anyone likes being interrupted by some pushy message about subscribing or whatever. What is the intent with these things? Is there any reason to believe this is an acceptable "feature" to put on a website? Bonus: is there any data about number of people who leave the page right after the popup shows?

Sorry if this seems more like a rant than a question, but I'm really wondering why one would choose to include this on their website. I can't imagine any reason that outweighs the possibility of visitors getting annoyed.

Kevin
  • 1,734
  • 2
  • 12
  • 10
  • 74
    It's to get naive people onto their spam list. – André Borie Jan 24 '17 at 12:50
  • 13
    Note that there are also purely technical reasons this might happen (in other words, its a mistake): if the popup content is lazy loaded or it comes after a megabyte of JavaScript then its entirely possible that the rendering engine is just then getting around to displaying it rather than any deliberate design intention. – Jared Smith Jan 24 '17 at 12:50
  • 1
    In a nutshell, the code which runs these pop-ups is available for a dime a dozen https://winningwp.com/best-email-subscription-popup-plugins-for-wordpress/ so website owners will gladly jump on a bandwagon that promises more sales, conversions, etc... Any self-respecting business website usually wouldn't use this tactic because their content is more than copy+paste banter. – MonkeyZeus Jan 24 '17 at 13:43
  • 4
    Are you asking why websites use popups or why popups don't show up on sites immediately? – Janet Jan 24 '17 at 14:22
  • 24
    still can't believe folks are still using popups in 2017. s'all like I go to the shops and as I'm putting something into my basket some one comes along and grabs it out my hand and smiles and is all like "HEY LOOK AT MY PEARS!!" – colmcq Jan 24 '17 at 16:03
  • 4
    More and more, I'm seeing mouseout popups, where it only asks for subscriptions, etc, when your mouse leaves the page, but I'm the same way, if a site drops a popup, I leave and will likely never come back. – SethWhite Jan 24 '17 at 16:08
  • @kevin, I agree with you. They seem to be trendy right now, like “stop and read this card now!” often shading out the regular content as well. – JDługosz Jan 25 '17 at 07:05
  • @colmcq Except you're not in a shop but (usually) on a free website, and you actually have to look at their pears to get what you wanted. – Dmitry Grigoryev Jan 25 '17 at 13:07
  • 1
    @Janet Good question, to answer the latter - one of the reasons is that Google will punish sites that use annoying pop-up ads - so delaying them might be a way to workaround this. – rluks Jan 25 '17 at 14:28
  • 1
    I have a subconscious Ctrl+W reflex when those popups appear. One minute I'm reading some shitty blog and the next I'm like "where did the tab for that shitty blog just go..." – Mark K Cowan Jan 26 '17 at 00:04
  • It seems you are reasoning that delayed popups are annoying so sites shouldn't use them. But if the site really cared about visitors being annoyed they wouldn't be using popups in the first place. So in a way your question may be off-topic because those sites are not designed for user experience in the first place. – kasperd Jan 29 '17 at 01:10
  • I do wonder if anyone has ever subscribed to a website's newsletters via a popup shown to them within 10 seconds of landing on the page for the first time ever... – zigojacko May 28 '20 at 08:58

7 Answers7

76

It is about increasing the chance of the user having a look at the popup.

Task-completion mode

An American football player jumping over others

Users in task-completion mode are eager to fulfil their goal (eg, "Is the product/information/answer I'm after on this page?"). As such, they simply ignore anything irrelevant because it is an obstacle to their goal.

Obstacle placement

On-load pop-ups are typically dismissed because they show at the worse time possible - just when the user can start the journey to her goal.

Delaying the pop-up means some degree of progress towards the goal has been made (partial resolution, if you wish); so users are less likely to dismiss the pop-up.

Another strategy you may see is pop-ups that only show when you have reached the bottom of the page. At this point, you can make an assumption that the user has already concluded the relevancy of the page (full resolution) thus a pop-up is not quite an obstacle as it would be at the start or shortly after.

Izhaki
  • 32,595
  • 5
  • 66
  • 99
  • 6
    Good points on the delay. Other example is when the mouse cursor is going to reach the address bar. – Alvaro Jan 24 '17 at 10:21
  • 13
    It's all about engagement. If the popup comes immediately, I'll dismiss it (or navigate away). If I'm already engaged with the content, I want to stay on that page, so I tolerate the popup (or might actually interact with it if I'm that much engaged by the content). The only scenario that reeks of desperation is the mouseout one that @Alvaro mentions, which always makes me feel like the website is panicking that I'm about to leave. Unfortunately, it just makes me leave all the faster - especially if it was an accidental mouseout that triggered the popup in the first place. – flith Jan 24 '17 at 11:20
  • 8
    @flith "especially if it was an accidental mouseout that triggered the popup in the first place" which happens very often. – Alvaro Jan 24 '17 at 11:23
  • 6
    Indeed. Often I'm just going to switch tabs to cross-check some other information (while fully intending to return to the original tab) which triggers the mouseout popup. I have little patience for such fun and games, which means I will often close it out of disgust and choose to browse elsewhere. – flith Jan 24 '17 at 11:29
  • 11
    Personally, on-load popups get dismissed while on-load-with-delay popups turn me away from the website entirely. – Kevin Jan 24 '17 at 12:21
  • 2
    It enrages me how effective delayed popups are. But it is true... – ecc Jan 24 '17 at 12:41
  • 1
    @Kevin while that is true, that means you were not the target to begin with. Websites showing that kind of popup have a specific mass target in mind to which you (and me) don't seem to belong. – ecc Jan 24 '17 at 12:42
  • Is there any study that shows that people are actually more likely to to dismiss it? i'm always super pissed when such a popup pos up and either dismiss it immediately or leave the site, so some quantitave analysis would be great ;) – Polygnome Jan 25 '17 at 11:02
  • There are quite a few related studies; they generally carry the keywords "Interruptions, task performance". See, for example, "The Effects of Interruptions on Task Performance, Annoyance, and Anxiety in the User Interface." – Izhaki Jan 25 '17 at 13:30
  • @Alvaro Ugh I hate those. – micheal65536 Jan 25 '17 at 20:39
  • 1
    The ones when you scroll down are the worst for me. I'm getting into the meat of it about to finish the article then it pops up in front of me blocking off the rest. – JMac Jan 26 '17 at 12:18
  • I'm not any less likely to dismiss the pop-up if it's delayed, though. I think somebody's user studies might be outdated or misguided... what I do, and what I've noticed other people do, is I'm so used to on-load popups that I just dismiss them, but delayed ones while I'm in the middle of reading, esp. on mobile, not only are quickly dismissed but trigger a user to immediately just search for the info they want on a different site that isn't so obtrusive. It's especially problematic when the pop-up doesn't zoom or properly and so the "close" button is outside of a mobile site. – Jason C Jan 26 '17 at 22:56
  • Btw I always felt the reason for delayed pop-ups was actually different than the ones listed here, at least on mobile: To encourage accidental click-throughs to falsely increase the reported advertisement success rate to advertisement service clients. After the page loads you're likely to be scrolling or clicking a link. When the pop-up appears right under your finger you have an increased chance of accidentally following it. I don't know about you but that happens to me all the time. I just don't return to the site. Most sites like these contain info that is easily found elsewhere. – Jason C Jan 26 '17 at 22:57
  • (By "outdated" I'm referring to this sense that I personally get, which I have no evidence for at all, that all previous knowledge of things like engagement don't have as much place these days, because at this point advertising is ubiquitously ignored and not really tolerated. So the strategy now seems to be to "trick" users into following ads to keep that industry profitable.) – Jason C Jan 26 '17 at 23:01
  • Can you back up these claims with any research. It sounds like pure conjecture to me and a poor theory. If they are still on the page then they probably haven't reached their goal, as you put it. Any popup (unless relevant to that goal) is an obstacle to be avoided. IMO, these are only in place because of naive marketers who don't understand UX. And I will bet that in 99% of cases the developers begrudgingly put them in place because they are paid to, not because they believe they serve any useful function. – Octopus Jan 27 '17 at 22:15
18

They want you to subscribe.

Because subscriptions or email marketing gives pretty nice return on investment (ROI) most of the web admins use extreme measures to capture users attention to users can potentially subscribe.

Return on investment per 1$ spent for digital marketing

Pop ups work well for increasing email subscriptions

They may be annoying but surprisingly, they work very well specifically for gathering email subscribers. There is a huge controversy on how to best pitch your users to subscribe to a newsletter. Whether the popup should be displayed when the visitor enters the site, or when she leave's it, or when n amount of seconds has passed. The important thing is to display it at the right time when users are more likely to subscribe on your particular site. The best thing to do is do user tests and try to identify when users are most pleased with your site/app and then fire the pop-up.

Kristiyan Lukanov
  • 11,482
  • 3
  • 30
  • 58
  • 5
    Can you put a source to your graph? – hd. Jan 24 '17 at 13:17
  • 56
    The "Direct Marketing Association's" data says that direct marketing has the highest ROI -- what an amazing coincidence – Daniel Beck Jan 24 '17 at 13:31
  • From Direct Marketing Association - which are a research institution, like Gartner. – Kristiyan Lukanov Jan 24 '17 at 13:47
  • 2
    But are popups the best method to get more subscribers? – Janet Jan 24 '17 at 14:24
  • @Janet You cannot say which method is better. That's why I said there is a big controversy on how to pitch users to subscribe. – Kristiyan Lukanov Jan 24 '17 at 14:41
  • 1
    @KristiyanLukanov, marketing automation platforms track which channel subscribers are coming from. So yes, you CAN find out which is the best method to get more subscribers. – Janet Jan 24 '17 at 15:04
  • @Janet You can even find out without marketing automation platforms. However, I wanted to say that you cannot give a universal answer that works perfectly in different contexts, niches, and situations. – Kristiyan Lukanov Jan 24 '17 at 15:24
  • 38
    Why are keyword ads mentioned on two bars with totally different numbers? – Palu Macil Jan 24 '17 at 20:43
  • 5
    The user is likely never pleased, just more or less receptive. My advice, sign up rate be damned, is to place the subscription box somewhere prominent on the site, and then give incentive to use it such as an initial discount coupon for your products. – Ben Jan 25 '17 at 05:47
  • 11
    @PaluMacil: Because they'd be second best if combined, and somebody hates them – Mark K Cowan Jan 26 '17 at 00:05
  • 2
    Ironically, and despite probable good intentions, one that I find most annoying is MSDN's instant "Did you find this article useful?" Well, I might, but I haven't had time to read the $%@#!! thing yet, thank you very much! Now back off, please! – MickeyfAgain_BeforeExitOfSO Jan 26 '17 at 18:26
  • 2
    @DanielBeck while that is prima facie reason to be suspicious of the claim, it is not evidence of untruth. if it is truth, it is in the interest of the company selling such services to state it, just as it may be providers-of-other-advertising-modes' interest to downplay that 'fact'. entertaining though it may be, a comment investigating the truthfulness pf the claim would have been helpful while pointing out the very weak suspicion is of very limited va,ue. – atk Jan 26 '17 at 23:06
  • 1
    @PaluMacil You misread the graph. That is actually Keyword acls. The font is just really close together and looks like a 'd'. Maybe a marketing guru can tell us what an acl is. – Chris Schneider Jan 27 '17 at 17:50
5

Generally when sites include such popups, on behalf of good user experience, it's because they achieve their goals, which are lined up with subscriptions. Users that stay, even if they don't subscribe in that moment, know that there is a subscription newsletter.

Even if most users go away at first, some stay and from those some subscribe later. So in the end they get those few subscriptions although they lost most users, which might not be potential subscribers anyway.

Alvaro
  • 16,799
  • 7
  • 43
  • 67
5

Because most such websites have nothing to lose. They are typically free and don't get any money when someone visits them, only when someone subscribes. Observe:

  • A user who didn't want to subscribe is annoyed and leaves: $0 loss
  • A user who didn't want to subscribe is not annoyed, or is annoyed but subscribes nevertheless: $0.1 earned (or whatever they charge their customers to send you their spam)
  • A user who wanted to subscribe is annoyed: why would he be? Anyway, he'll subscribe nevertheless, after all, that's what he wanted in the first place.

Things change drastically on websites which earn money elsewhere, and use subscriptions to promote their own products. Anecdotally, I just booked an airplane ticket with a company I never used before, and instead of the usual subscription e-mail I got a mail stating that I'm not subscribed to their promo mailing list, but there was a button to click right there if I wanted to. They sure lost a subscriber, but they did earn themselves a rather loyal paying customer.

Of course, the above could only happen if the word paying is present.

Travis
  • 103
  • 3
Dmitry Grigoryev
  • 2,256
  • 12
  • 19
  • 5
    What is also possible: A user who didn't want to describe is annoyed, leaves and never comes back even if they are made aware of an article on your site that might be of interest to them, costing you ad revenue: 0.01$ loss. – Nzall Jan 26 '17 at 12:10
  • 4
    @Nzall But the next time you're googling for related articles, will you really avoid going back to this domain? Or will you click the link with the promising headline in search results, and not realize it's the same domain until after you get hit by the same annoying ad a second time? As far as the advertisers are concerned, the latter is still mission accomplished. – Steve-O Jan 26 '17 at 15:27
  • 3
    @Steve-O After a couple of bad encounters, I would probably add the domain to Ublock origin so it warns me when I try to go there. – Nzall Jan 26 '17 at 15:35
  • @Nzall Thanks, I'll dig that addon up. Apparently, ABP is not the best thing out there anymore. – Dmitry Grigoryev Jan 26 '17 at 16:05
  • 1
    @DmitryGrigoryev I cannot recommend Adblock Plus to any users anymore. They have an "acceptable ads" system that effectively just comes down to extortion and accepting bribes. – Nzall Jan 26 '17 at 17:36
  • 2
    @Nzall If everyone used ABP, then everyone would have to pay to visit websites in some way. Ads make the internet work, and ABP admits that it is a bad program for the internet and actively shows its trying to improve the internet as a whole with acceptable ads. Also, they allow you to turn that off and block the ads anyway if you really want to screw over even the good websites you like that don't have subscriptions/donation methods. – Ryan Jan 26 '17 at 20:32
  • 3
    @Ryan blocking ads for me is purely a UX and security concern. On one hand, advertisers have resorted to increasingly drastic measures to show ads, with such gems as redirecting me from a T-rated game fansite to a fake App store page showcasing adult content, showing ads on videos that are longer than the video itself, and hiding the content I want to see behind a popup that doesn't have a close button. On the other, ads have been used to spread malware, ransomware and similar nasty things. Until ad companies only show responsible ads, I will keep blocking ads. – Nzall Jan 26 '17 at 20:49
  • 1
    @Ryan I stopped worrying about that very same thing when I realised that nobody is obligated to give a damn. – user253751 Jan 27 '17 at 00:48
  • 1
    @immibis obligation or not, Im sure you like being able to comment such things without paying $5-10 a month. Someone has to pay for it. Even a medium sized website can cost hundreds a month, and that's not including the people maintaining or updating it. I hate ads as much as the next guy, But if done right (like Stack Exchange), Then I don't care at all. I actually like the idea of Stack Exchange existing in the future, which it seems is a foreign concept to people who block all ads regardless. – Ryan Jan 27 '17 at 16:38
  • 2
    @Ryan Suppose that hypothetically ads were illegal (this is the worst case scenario possible for ads). Do you think Joe Random will pull down his blog to save $10 a month or will he just leave it up without ads? – user253751 Jan 27 '17 at 23:54
  • 1
    @immibis And how much do you think it costs Youtube or a even moderately popular Stack Exchange site to run a month. How much do you think it costs the company to flat out power that server Joe is renting (which is probably running 24/7), and how much they pay for business class internet access, DNS, and even the domain name. Forbes says the internet costs over 100 Billion a year to run right now (100-200B in the article). Right now, advertisers are fronting most of that bill. Googles number one revenue is their Ad service. Who do you want to take over paying that bill? – Ryan Jan 29 '17 at 02:43
  • @Ryan I have a subscription to YouTube. I'd quite possibly also have a subscription to Stack Exchange. But it's up to them, not me, to decide how they want to make money. For all I know maybe they could make enough money selling T-shirts and rubber duckies. – user253751 Jan 29 '17 at 07:43
4

Just thought I would drop in some info on the last/bonus part of your question, to do with data, as the other parts have been sufficiently answered already.

On a subscriber-supported blog I am involved with, we saw a first-month increase of 42.3% interactions (that includes just immediately closing the popup, pretty much anything other than straight up closing the page/tab as soon as the popup appears) when swapping to a 60-second delayed subscribe popup from an immediate load one, and an 8.9% increase in conversions (subscriptions entered directly into the popup).

Chris O'Kelly
  • 163
  • 1
  • 7
3

Google just started penalizing some of these types of pop ups. So I think you will be seeing lees of them, or seeing them in another form.

The penalty is a lower page ranking, and therefore a lower placing in the search result. Which is something web designers have to respect if they want users to find their site.

https://wptavern.com/google-to-penalize-pages-with-intrusive-popup-ads-starting-january-2017

Anders
  • 1,108
  • 2
  • 10
  • 17
2

Delayed pop ups are mostly used nowadays in blogs and websites which has a lot of articles. If you really like the content in the website, as you reach the end of the article, a pop up pops out asking you if you'd like to receive their newsletter. In this case, it is quite useful as your intent to follow the website is only if you like the articles published. You can also close it Incase you didn't like the articles. Pop-ups has to be used where it is more tolerable unlike how we see in most websites.

Aravind JR
  • 103
  • 3