The unethical site might very well make money faster than ethical site, but would these people be leading happy, productive lives? Or would they wind up eventually with their sites closed down, perhaps in prison, with their money seized and so on? Would they be able to live with themselves or would they consume vast amounts of alcohol and drugs to cover up pain they were feeling for pain they were giving out?

In this example, both sites do communicate (and well) with their target audience. The unethical part is communication that spilled over to people who may not desire it or who may not be entitled to receive communication (underage for example).

Another, more obvious statement, is that you don't want to scream fire in a crowded theater, unless, of course, there is indeed a fire.

Are popups, unders and so on unethical? It depends on how they are used. If popups are blended with site well so that they help deliver communication to target audience, then they do serve a purpose. If they are controlled so they do not FORCE communication upon people who do not desire it, then they are ethical.

In other words, if I visit your site I might expect to see one popup (or under) informing me of an opportunity or giving me some other communication. I should be able to close this without fear of additional popups opening up. The popup should be related to site somehow (otherwise it is an interruption, which is considered rude in most conversations). Under some conditions (the ad for camera which appears all over place, for example), I should be able to opt-out, and my privacy should be protected. There are certainly additional ethical considerations to be taken into account.

By being ethical and communication well, I am delivering my viewpoint to target and not offending non-targets. That means non-targets may return at some time and become targets of communication. In addition, they are less likely to become offended or even become enemies.

That's my 2 cents (well, perhaps my quarter).

So, these are some of good ad elements. For ads that didn't fare so well, Juniper survey found that many included following.

And The Raspberry Award Goes To Ads That...

*Presented information as a pop-up box. Now, pop-up effectiveness continues to be debated. In survey, 69% considered pop-ups a negative, calling them annoying and intrusive; just too aggressive.

Within this 69%, 25% stated that they would avoid sites they knew featured pop-ups in future.

Yet, on flip side, there are those successful marketers who firmly insist that pop-ups are an effective way to present an offer; that people respond to them.

The only way to determine if pop-ups work for you is to track how your prospects and customers respond to them. If people don't sign up for free information offered on pop-up pages, if traffic goes down, reconsider their use.

If, however, people sign up for information displayed, and traffic numbers remain stable, then pop-ups aren't hurting business.

Always test and customize based on your own situation.

*Combined many products in an offer, leading to information overload and confusion.

*Forgot their target audience. If you're marketing to corporate business owners, presenting an ad in a 'fun' contest format won't work. However, if your target is younger, a contest or game-type ad might be very effective.

Keeping above tips in mind will help ensure that your ads are readily received...not automatically deleted!