The response to this by the members of this community is very interesting. On the one hand, there have been many calls and support for micropayments for content. Here is a publisher offering access to their articles for a low cost. The response? People want to "fix" the issue, instead of respecting the publisher. They are offering low cost way to view the content mostly ad-free. Isn't this what we should, as readers, hope for? An alternative to ads that is low cost, and still supports the publication? What am I missing here?
Should I reveal my identity to these publishers? If yes then no deal from me.
Anonymous micro payments would be very welcomed though .
I do not think that we should give media more power to manipulate people individually (block content or speech, show differently biased content for different individuals etc).
Disclaimer: I do not use ad-blocking but I have noticed that ads have become more and more intrusive and aggressive and Internet is becoming more and more like TV where you could not read or watch something without constant interruption (the main purpose why people actually choose Internet over TV). This means that I am more and more willing to use some ad-blocking solution or I just do not visit places with intrusive advertising tactics.
So possibly the real solution is less and less aggressive ads and especially no ads after payment (no there is no excuse for that beside publisher greed).
Publishing written content is not a good business to be in these days. Just as a decade ago the music industry faced a cultural shift now the publishing industry is transitioning. The gist is that this kind of looked at as an entitlement not a service worth paying to have. Basically, the fourth estate is a zombie about to be put down unless something drastic happens.
> In one case, using Chrome with AdBlock on, the Post had a dialog box redirecting users to enter their email for a free six week subscription. The anti-AdBlock measures don’t seem comprehensive just yet — we were able to view articles after clicking through from a search results link in Firefox with the ad blocking software turned on. But when we clicked through to another article on the site, the redirect screen popped up.
War indeed. Well, since AdBlock introduced me to that addictive clean-browsing crack, I can't go back.
I don't read Bild but as I've said before, most content I view online falls under entertainment anyway. So, being blocked on sites as an AdBlock user (like Forbes now does) can only cut my procrastination time short, which isn't a bad thing.
Plus, ads are not the only way to make money online. So, if it isn't working for a company, then it's time to pursue another business model.
Agreed, when I click through to a site and see the content is blocked I just click back and move on, and 10 seconds later I've probably forgotten what I wanted to see there in the first place. I'm personally a fan of both adblocking and of sites rejecting people who use it (my personal line is that adblockerblockerblockers are going one step too far; if sites want to explicitly say "enable ads or don't view the content" I'm happy to play along). People simply going elsewhere in droves will perhaps spur more work into micropayments, which the ad-and-tracking model has sadly diverted attention and resources from, and perhaps more interest in user-created content with some sort of micropayment-based hosting cost recovery.
So, if it isn't working for a company, then it's time to pursue another business model.
For most businesses that isn't actually an option. You can only try something else if you have the necessary capital to fund a pivot, and few businesses do. The majority of sites you use won't try something else; they'll close down instead.
That's fine, it happens to a large percentage of businesses, and they'll be replaced by new businesses trying new ideas. I'm pointing out that "Try a new business model" is rarely an option. "fail fast" is a startup maxim for a reason. If you don't discover what isn't working quickly you'll just plain fail.
I'd like to see a comprehensive history of adblocking. from webfree to adblock [0] to wherever we are today, because it seems like we're stuck in a cycle. Time and time again i see the web and it's users going through the same motions [1] [2]. It's the same arguments and the same experiments being tried, whose success and failure are as predictable as ever [3]. Today is just another day under the falling sky.
Fair play to them for trying, but this approach will only work for sites that host or create original content.
If it's a site that just runs Reuters feeds or press releases with some 'editorialisation' then they'll likely feel the impact of the back-button.
Recently I tried searching for details of the new Light.co camera. The first two pages of Google results were filled with exactly the same release, regurgitated on dozens of websites. None of them were useful to me, but it shows how much competition there is for eyeballs.
Without confronting the massively pro-adblock crowd here head on, I just want to ask what the statistics are for Adblock use Internet-wide. Is it 10% of users or a much smaller figure?
I manage a consumer website with 4-5 million unique visitors a month, monetized solely via ads. About 25% of our desktop users use an ad blocker. The site's desktop audience is 56% U.S., 8% India, 7% UK, 5% Canada.
When we detect the use of an ad blocker, we show a small appeal at the bottom to either whitelist the site or make a donation. Total donations received in the last 1 year: $0.
>“Whoever does not switch off the adblocker or does not pay cannot see any content on Bild.de, as of now,”
uBlock origin with default settings seems to load their "content" fine and without ads. If that changes, I'm sure one of the optional filters like "anti-adblock killer" will be updated accordingly
I'm more than happy to pay for high quality content. For example, I pay for a subscription to LWN. But there are some things for life you'll take (in small doses) for free, but would never pay for - for me, tabloid journalism falls into that category.
You are sorely mistaken. The Bild is "the best-selling non-Asian newspaper and has the sixth-largest circulation worldwide." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild)
A LOT of people give a shit about the Bild.
The German people are also very technologically capable and highly privacy minded. The linked article cites that 30% of German users have some sort of adblocking software installed.
Should be interesting to see what Google makes of this; it seems to be flirting with crossing the line into "showing different content to visitors than the crawler", if the anti-adblock script runs for a Google referer.
My gut tells me that by the holiday season we'll see more major sites blocking ad-blockers.
And, of course, we'll just use different tools. Or better yet, change our browser signatures. After all, it's a courtesy to content providers for consumers to tell them what kinds of tools they're using. That courtesy can be rescinded.
This entire spy vs. spy scenario makes me sad. I'm very sorry that the internet thought that folks walking by a storefront looking at your sales copy was a monetizable event. It is not. It was simply a fluke of the way the default technology was constructed.
And now I fully expect to see large, well-funded players enter the fray -- on the side of content providers. That's also a bad thing. Going to be a lot of pain before this gets sorted out.
Firefox with Noscript: big sign suggesting I switch Javascript back on.
Terminal with w3m - all text visible including the 'skip to content' accessibility link at the top of each page. Appears to be full text of articles (my German is sadly quite limited).
Yes, I agree, some kind of arms race will no doubt commence.
There's a huge world out there most people have never heard of most things. One could say "Beatles? I've never heard of them? Or AFX? Never heard of him" but that wouldn't make them unimportant.
Megabyte songs, gigabyte videos, and games in the tens of gigabytes flow freely. And these guys think they're going to control how a couple kilobytes of text is viewed.
An easy way to detect is to see if an ad div is visible and > 0px tall.
Edit: Clarification: Most ad blockers collapse the divs where ads would have appeared. That's the tell I use to detect ad blockers. There are other, more sophisticated techniques but this is easy and works a good % of the time.
[+] [-] JacobJans|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eveningcoffee|10 years ago|reply
Anonymous micro payments would be very welcomed though .
I do not think that we should give media more power to manipulate people individually (block content or speech, show differently biased content for different individuals etc).
Disclaimer: I do not use ad-blocking but I have noticed that ads have become more and more intrusive and aggressive and Internet is becoming more and more like TV where you could not read or watch something without constant interruption (the main purpose why people actually choose Internet over TV). This means that I am more and more willing to use some ad-blocking solution or I just do not visit places with intrusive advertising tactics.
So possibly the real solution is less and less aggressive ads and especially no ads after payment (no there is no excuse for that beside publisher greed).
[+] [-] godzillabrennus|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r0s|10 years ago|reply
To the ad-hating, legitimate fans of the publication, there's probably minor difference. That's the group this plan is targeting.
[+] [-] danso|10 years ago|reply
http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewzeitlin/the-washington-post-b...
> In one case, using Chrome with AdBlock on, the Post had a dialog box redirecting users to enter their email for a free six week subscription. The anti-AdBlock measures don’t seem comprehensive just yet — we were able to view articles after clicking through from a search results link in Firefox with the ad blocking software turned on. But when we clicked through to another article on the site, the redirect screen popped up.
[+] [-] Geekette|10 years ago|reply
I don't read Bild but as I've said before, most content I view online falls under entertainment anyway. So, being blocked on sites as an AdBlock user (like Forbes now does) can only cut my procrastination time short, which isn't a bad thing.
Plus, ads are not the only way to make money online. So, if it isn't working for a company, then it's time to pursue another business model.
[+] [-] zem|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onion2k|10 years ago|reply
For most businesses that isn't actually an option. You can only try something else if you have the necessary capital to fund a pivot, and few businesses do. The majority of sites you use won't try something else; they'll close down instead.
That's fine, it happens to a large percentage of businesses, and they'll be replaced by new businesses trying new ideas. I'm pointing out that "Try a new business model" is rarely an option. "fail fast" is a startup maxim for a reason. If you don't discover what isn't working quickly you'll just plain fail.
[+] [-] equil|10 years ago|reply
[0] http://adblock.mozdev.org/
[1] http://www.zdnet.com/article/browser-makers-warned-against-a...
[2] http://web.archive.org/web/20071011004456/http://whyfirefoxi...
[3] http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-d...
[+] [-] facetube|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dingaling|10 years ago|reply
If it's a site that just runs Reuters feeds or press releases with some 'editorialisation' then they'll likely feel the impact of the back-button.
Recently I tried searching for details of the new Light.co camera. The first two pages of Google results were filled with exactly the same release, regurgitated on dozens of websites. None of them were useful to me, but it shows how much competition there is for eyeballs.
[+] [-] theoh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] putlake|10 years ago|reply
When we detect the use of an ad blocker, we show a small appeal at the bottom to either whitelist the site or make a donation. Total donations received in the last 1 year: $0.
[+] [-] JabavuAdams|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sigmar|10 years ago|reply
uBlock origin with default settings seems to load their "content" fine and without ads. If that changes, I'm sure one of the optional filters like "anti-adblock killer" will be updated accordingly
[+] [-] arghh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skissane|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mo3|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arbitrage|10 years ago|reply
A LOT of people give a shit about the Bild.
The German people are also very technologically capable and highly privacy minded. The linked article cites that 30% of German users have some sort of adblocking software installed.
[+] [-] Animats|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] al2o3cr|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|10 years ago|reply
My gut tells me that by the holiday season we'll see more major sites blocking ad-blockers.
And, of course, we'll just use different tools. Or better yet, change our browser signatures. After all, it's a courtesy to content providers for consumers to tell them what kinds of tools they're using. That courtesy can be rescinded.
This entire spy vs. spy scenario makes me sad. I'm very sorry that the internet thought that folks walking by a storefront looking at your sales copy was a monetizable event. It is not. It was simply a fluke of the way the default technology was constructed.
And now I fully expect to see large, well-funded players enter the fray -- on the side of content providers. That's also a bad thing. Going to be a lot of pain before this gets sorted out.
[+] [-] keithpeter|10 years ago|reply
Terminal with w3m - all text visible including the 'skip to content' accessibility link at the top of each page. Appears to be full text of articles (my German is sadly quite limited).
Yes, I agree, some kind of arms race will no doubt commence.
[+] [-] coldtea|10 years ago|reply
There's a huge world out there most people have never heard of most things. One could say "Beatles? I've never heard of them? Or AFX? Never heard of him" but that wouldn't make them unimportant.
Springer is huge in its business.
[+] [-] zebpowel|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Canada|10 years ago|reply
Game on.
[+] [-] detaro|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] igl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boyter|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] putlake|10 years ago|reply
Edit: Clarification: Most ad blockers collapse the divs where ads would have appeared. That's the tell I use to detect ad blockers. There are other, more sophisticated techniques but this is easy and works a good % of the time.
[+] [-] rhabarba|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iolothebard|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoshMnem|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hoers|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]