By Cia Romano, CEO and Founder, Interface Guru™

Is there a widening chasm between online advertisers and Web users? A recent study of magazine readers online, conducted in a formal usability lab setting, answers with a resounding yes. A broad sample of users was recruited, spanning age groups, educational and income levels, and Web-use proficiency. Conclusion: The Three Rs of user attitudes towards Web advertising -- resignation, resentment, and resistance - are pandemic. Every user test supported what many usability experts see as a crisis for content producers: As advertisers ramp up the barrage of banners, popups, and overt cross-selling, users are fighting back with a growing level of sophisticated detection. The result? They walk - or click -- away.

They are on to us, and how

The results of this study, conducted for a group of prominent content providers, surprised even the usability experts who had already identified misuse of screen "real estate" for advertising. All users tested recognized the difference between content and promo-speak. The acuity of test subjects in identifying (and ignoring) the "sell" -- even without visual cues -- is a serious problem for Web publishers and the advertisers. Many users quickly picked out marketing phrases within a simple block of copy, making a clear distinction between useful information and a sales pitch.

Ads and the Web: Can this marriage be saved?

Content publishers who understand user experience have already begun moving obvious ad banners to the right of the screen - a notable example is the recent redesign of weather.com. But for every one enlightened Web publisher, there are ten others that continue to pepper their users with a bewildering volley of intrusive ads and confusing branding. Hucksters beware: Every single user in the online-content test closed popup ad windows as fast as they appeared.

They never complained before, so what's the problem?

We've grown up enduring commercials on TV, billboards on the highway, the renaming of venerable public facilities after commercial interests, and corporate logos on everything else. So why are Web users fighting back by denying advertisers those oh-so-valuable eyeballs?

Because the unique context of Web interaction turns the traditional, passively-received "push" model on its head. Since we have known and understood the format of conventional advertising vehicles for many years -printed magazines, television shows - our usage of those vehicles is not impeded by the aggressive presentation of advertising. (Well, maybe our aesthetic experience has been impeded, but that's another story.) We do not fail to understand how to enter a stadium and find a seat because the stadium used to be called Candlestick Park and is now called 3Com Park. The affordance - meaning self-evidency - of finding that seat, locating an article in a magazine, or learning which channel is showing this week's episode of The X-Files is not impacted by intrusive advertising, because we have context. We know the route.

Why Web users resist the "push," and why they can

Web users, who are faced with the perpetual problem of context switching, don't have the luxury of knowing the route. Because navigation standards are still emerging, users going from site to site are forced to relearn on every new property they visit. Even big-buck brands such as Newsweek challenge their users by presenting not one, but two primary navigation bars on the site, in this case cross-selling MSNBC. Did they want to read Newsweek's content, or did they want to be confused by which navigation is most prominent? The difference between buying a copy of the print version of Newsweek and visiting Newsweek.com is that online, users can find equally interesting content with a click or two. And if we annoy them, they will be gone.

The human-factors problem: Web users struggle to get where they are going

From screen flicker to browser inconsistency to the plain and simple human limits of simultaneous comprehension (about seven items at once), Web users are already forced to constantly problem-solve. In this dynamic, wildly varying environment, users concentrate on a goal - the reason they visited the Web site in the first place - and will not be distracted from that goal until they reach it. Imagine driving down a busy street in an unfamiliar city on your way to an important meeting. Will you be distracted by an appealing storefront, or will you file it in the mental "maybe later" file while you concentrate on finding your destination? If you are really in a hurry, you won't see that storefront at all.

Such is life for the Web user. Advertisers who want to reach these desirable consumers must recognize that on the Web, push strategy is going to fail, and permission marketing will succeed.

Rethinking screen real-estate

All advertisers are familiar with the "prime placement" model - a page-three ad, a Super Bowl commercial. What content publishers and their ad partners must understand is that the Web presents a new paradigm. "Prime placement" on a Web site starts in the upper left corner of a screen. A banner ad at the top left says to your user, "You are a marketing target." Even the most profit-oriented of print publishers avoids an ad on the cover. Why? Because they know the cover is the brand.

We must understand that users have a reason for coming to our Web sites, and we must understand that this interactive medium must respect its audience in order to succeed. By giving the user what he wants first, a savvy content provider creates a positive experience-increasing trust and loyalty. As we learned in the online user test, it is only then that we can present advertising with the permission and acceptance of the user. Or we'll to lose them to a more user-centric site. It's our choice.