They do it because it works. Many people on the internet are not tech savvy and they just assume that in order to view the content they must input their email. It doesn't help that the close button is sometimes barely visible.
I've gotten to the point where if a site displays a popup, I just close the page. If I had the ability to remove that source from all future searches I would.
Things break? I use a similar bookmarklet, but I only ever use it for reading articles which have zero need for any dynamic features. Give me the text, images, and get out of my way.
(function () {
var i, elements = document.querySelectorAll('body *');
for (i = 0; i < elements.length; i++) {
if (getComputedStyle(elements[i]).position === 'fixed') {
elements[i].parentNode.removeChild(elements[i]);
}
}
})();
They do it because they have been sold a story that it works. It's easy to show short-term gains, and hard to show long-term damage... and nobody gets paid today for showing damage months later. Short-term marketing incentives are horrifyingly destructive.
Does it work? In some areas, yeah, I believe it does. But most are cargo-culting a dark pattern that loses them what might otherwise be excellent customers, sold by people trying to justify their marketing position, and companies whose business incentives are perfectly aligned with selling snake oil.
It focuses far too much on numbers; in the case of newsletter signups, it's conversion rates. If interactions with newsletters is > 0, it's worth having a newsletter; if conversion for these popups is > 0, then it's worth having a newsletter pop-up.
It's like an often quoted thing; Linus Tech Tips was criticized for having "reaction faces" in their thumbnails, and they said that while they don't like it, they had the numbers to back up that it was effective... to boost numbers and therefore revenue, I guess.
In the case of my current employer, they focus on NPS, Net Promoter Score, a wooly abbreviation [0] indicating how good they are doing based on the question "how likely are you to recommend X to a friend". Number goes down in case of outages, number goes up in case of good service. That's the main thing they focus on, not individual stories, users, whatever, but NPS.
I stopped watching and blocked the linus channel (and may others) due to the faces.
But I guess I am only one and the many likes these faces for some reason.
It is also probably a failure of optimization where one started doing it and made a tiny bit more money than the other. Then the others had to do it to keep up, now all have the sucky faces and they all make the same amount as before while doing something they don't really like.
What they don't take into account is the secondary and tertiary effects of doing things like this. I stopped visiting channels that did the faces, LTT among them, and I also (usually) insta-close any video where the presenter is making a completely fake 'why don't you tell me about it in the comments' calls to action.
The things is that your numbers might go up and your audience might grow, but these tactics work because you are appealing to the trend at the time. People see stupid face and click and the trending metric goes up and you get more hits -- same thing with user interactions on comments.
However, two months later when someone is trying to find a video about how to hook up their AMD CPU De-hot-an-izer to a radiator and they see Linus making a Macauly Culkin Home Alone face they pass, and you lose a potential actual long-term subscriber.
Also, people with standards tend to be really happy when those standards are at least partially met, and tell other people about it. On the flip side, people looking for their youtube 'stupid faces video fix' tend to forget what they saw 10 minutes later.
At work, I deal with enterprise software, and I agree that the focus on numbers (and NPS) can drive things the wrong way.
In my personal time, I own an ecommerce company, and there it absolutely makes sense to be purely numbers-focused. The thing that matters is getting someone to buy, and getting an email address is almost universally the second most important thing, because it's the best road to getting someone to buy.
> It doesn't help that the close button is sometimes barely visible.
This particular dark pattern is nasty and unfortunately common across more than just newsletter popups. It doesn’t trip me up but I could see how others could fall victim to it.
If opting out is so strongly preferred by users that you have to try to hide the opt-out button for users to do anything else, maybe you shouldn’t be trying to do the thing they’re so adamantly opting out of.
In my experience, conversation rates were ~6% from a pop up timed to land when you were nearly done with the article (though on short articles, it was similar to what is described—I don’t have data on those two broken out). Subscribers stuck pretty well, something like 40% kept opening emails. For my relatively small newsletter, churn was extremely low. They’re basically warm leads if they make it to the end of an article, and email is extremely sticky.
Email pop ups are a very effective short term newsletter growth tool.
As someone who used to work in marketing, this. Anecdotal, but in my experience working in marketing it was often funny to me how little we had to validate the numbers we presented. My boss didn't care how many people actually clicked on the link in our newsletter, as long as we had a lot of subscribers we were good.
> it was often funny to me how little we had to validate the numbers we presented
Yeah, your clients expected you to be the expert, and honestly apply that expertise for their interests. In other words, they expect you to validate those numbers; if they wanted somebody they need to second-guess, they would just take opinions for free from a random web forum.
We didn't have any clients, it was a marketing department for a CPG company. I was just a peon; I didn't have any say in how things got done. Say all that to say, you would think that at some point VPs of other departments would want to know how all the money that got allocated to marketing was actually benefiting the company. I'm talking a concrete dollars to dollars comparison. I personally didn't get to scratch that itch until I moved into e-commerce.
Well, ok, I misunderstood that part. But the expectation of goal alignment is even stronger for an in-house department.
The people high up expected somebody on your department to validate your numbers and invest on the things that most benefited the company. For an in-house team, it's not rare that this expectation is so strong that nobody ever challenges it. So it's also not very rare that one team or another coast on it and don't deliver much value.
Obviously, none of that is ideal. But that doesn't stop it from being common. Anyway, if your department never checked anything, somebody up from you was doing a bad job, because it's literally their job, not really the random VP (but it is the VP's job to discover if the dept was doing their job) and really not of any other department head.
to be fair to your boss, you can't actually make me click on your link or read your newsletter. Delivering it is the only thing that you actually have control over, and you're probably delivering to one of those gmail purgatory folders anyways.
I definitely couldn't "make" anyone click on anything. But delivering it wasn't the only thing we had control over. The format and content of the email we had complete control over. This was years ago, but at the time I suggested trying to record and study which emails lead subscribers to actually click the link so that we could learn to produce content/offers that more people wanted to see. The idea was mostly shrugged off but I did it anyways. When the numbers of people actually following the links went up my boss never wanted to show anybody. My somewhat cynical guess is that he didn't want to introduce real accountability (proof that we were having an effect) into some of the data he was presenting to other departments.
This is why there's so many subscription services (e.g. streaming, apps, etc) as well; they don't care about viewers or happiness, they (and the stock holders) care about subscribers, because subscribers = fixed and predictable monthly revenue, as well as loyalty (if they don't unsubscribe) and inertia (forgetting to cancel).
I've often wondered about that. Spotify has never failed to have the music I wanted to listen to. Though their app interface has always been a little painful for me to use.
Marketing thinks "OMG, people subscribing the newsletter are returning to the website way more often than regular ones". Then by showing this newsletter pop-up down everyone throat, they successfully get X% more subscribers. Much engagement, much success, poor UX, annoying for everyone.
Maybe people subscribing to that newsletter are the most interested and you shouldn't bother everyone with it for the sake of few subscriptions.
Adding people to your email list surreptitiously, via frustration or because of some incentive (like 10% off) is a great way of building a high number of subscribers but I doubt this does anything to your bottom line. In the case of discounts for sign-up it's almost certainly negative.
If they are relying on fooling people into thinking you have to enter your email address to read the article... why don't they actually try to require you to enter your email address to read the article (perhaps after reading the first few screens), instead of just implying it to those who can be fooled? They could do this, right?
