I've no real objections to advertising online, so for a long time I didn't use an ad blocker. However, in the last two or three years some adverts on sites which I visit often have been becoming increasingly offensive. Flashing animated images, pictures of the inside of people's mouths, and semi-pornographic ads are something which degrades my web viewing experience and if a technical solution to this problem exists then I have no hesitation about using it. For the foreseeable future it seems that ad blocking will remain necessary.
Perhaps the solution is some sort of code of conduct for advertisers. If ads are discreet and respectful of the viewer then I'd certainly be prepared to stop blocking them.
If ads are discreet and respectful of the viewer then I'd certainly be prepared to stop blocking them.
I can only speak for myself but a solution does not seem that far off (at least not to get me to see your ads). While I agree that some sort of code of conduct may be a good idea, I don't really see it working out in the long run what with everyone always being willing to sacrifice good will for a quick buck.
That said, I use NoScript in Firefox and I run it for other reasons than blocking advertisements and I don't have an ad-blocker installed. If I white list a website it means I made a deliberate choice to trust whatever it is going to throw at me. The most important thing here is that I did not allow any third party to serve me some random code (plain markup is fine). I have no way of telling whether the site I just white listed in fact knows what their external advertisers actually serve. And this is proven again and again by how site owners expect visitors to contact the site when they see an ad that is intrusive so that they can "nuke it". This to me makes it a no deal.
To kill two birds with one stone: Serve your advertisements from your own servers and if I want to read your content I have to make a choice whether to trust you and your webserver(s). If you violate my trust then I will go elsewhere and I am no longer a waste of your resources and you are not a waste of mine.
If I have for some reason decided to not let you run dynamic content on whatever device I am currently on you simply have to respect that or I leave. You still have the opportunity to serve me static ads, surely that's got to be worth something. You don't know my reasons for not white listing you (as this article states as well). What surprised me about this link was that I did not see a single advertisement on the page. This means they are all using JavaScript or Flash. Sorry, your loss. And eventually my loss as well since the website might not live to see another day due to lack of income.
Incidentally, easy white listing [of script execution] for sites is also the only thing stopping me from switching to Chrome today.
Advertisers are in an 'arms race' with users. Users become less likely to click on ads over time. Website owners have to increase the percentage of the first visible page over time to maintain the same income from ads. Adverts also become more visually distracting over time for the same reasons.
Witness Adsense, which started off with text only, but now has full flash capabilities.
What is the solution to the problem? I don't think there is one.
Perhaps the rise of the paid app will provide a way to reduce ads, just like cable tv has done, but this will only be a niche. (I'm speculating there.)
Well then don't go to the sites with ads you do not like. Just close your browser, or press the back button the moment you see an ad that disgusts you. And then don't go to that site again.
The way I see it, there is an implied contract between a website and a viewer. The website says, "well you get to look at my content for free and you will not have to pay for all the work I have done creating the content and serving it to you, but in exchange you should see and consider the various advertisements and deals we are offering."
Again you do not have to use the website, but if you do you should not block the ads.
The solution, (IMHO) is don't visit those sites any more. Vote with your feet.
Ad blocking means the market will never correct itself. You're cutting off the feedback loop.
If an ad annoys you, just don't visit that website again! Simple. It's not like there's a shortage of websites to visit.
edit: Yeah downmod me. It's a crazy idea! If you go into a shop, and the owner beats you with a bat, you'd resolve to wear full body armor when shopping from now on, and go right back there wouldn't you.
I won't use an ad-blocker as I think advertising is legitimate, and provides support for many great sites and potential for important startups.
I do use flashblock/click to flash (which has the side effect of hiding the most offensive video ads). But any site that becomes unbearable with ads, I move on, and don't go there again. I would suggest it is time to avoid those sites.
Host your own ads, that way they won't be in my ad-blocker's blacklist. If your adds become annoying, then they go in the blacklist.
I'm wondering if, between ad-blocking and tivo, separate ads and commercials will be going away soon. I'm perfectly OK with the judges of American Idol with Coke glasses on their desk, or a sentence at the bottom of a blog post: "This post brought to you by FizzBuzz.com". I also don't mind the ads at the front of some podcasts, spoken by the same people that narrate the podcast itself. http://ruby5.envylabs.com/ is a good example of advertising that I don't mind one bit. Similar to how old radio shows were "sponsored", and the sponsor got a mention a few times throughout the show.
When it comes to ads online, though, isn't the right cliché "the cat's out of the bag?" For years before ad-blocking became widespread, the more tech-savvy users complained and warned that the more aggressive ads became, what with popups/unders, talking ads, etc., the more likely they would be blocked. (I seem to remember we were poo-pooed by the marketers saying that "real users don't care," though this may be a nerd-chip-on-shoulder revisionist memory.) But, here we are.
It's unfortunate that there's the collateral damage that affects non-obnoxious sites; and, while I whitelist the sites I frequent, and many here may as well, I'm sure we're the minority.
That being said, here's about as close to a real-world analogue for my thoughts as I can get: in NYC, I'm sure there are people in Times Square trying to gain signups for Greenpeace and other "ethical" purposes mixed in with the other people hustling CDs, comedy club tickets, and the like, but I just ignore everyone as I walk by, wholesale, because stopping and seeing what everyone's about will turn a brief walk into a pain in the ass.
I'm not sure what the answer is; perhaps the various adblocking technologies could make whitelisting a site even more obvious? With AdBlock Plus, you hit the drop-down and choose Disable on foobar.com, but it requires an active interaction to seek that out. GlimmerBlocker for the Mac is even more buried (as it's a proxy, it's in System Preferences.) Maybe switching to putting placeholders where the ads would be with a short message and a single click to whitelist would make it a little easier for users to both see how many ads a site's pushing as well as whitelist the site with the minimum amount of effort? I donno.
A better phrase, especially in connotation, might be "the well has already been poisoned". After abusive ads have prompted you to install an ad-blocker you're not likely to look back. Nor are you likely to have sympathy for a site like Ars Technica that admits they serve abusive ads ("sometimes we have to accept those ads").
I'm not sure sympathy is an effective business model. If the ads are annoying enough to make lots of people block them, maybe there's something wrong with the ads, not the people.
If you install adblock "Fingers in ears" (ignore everything), you're not even giving websites a chance. You're not even giving them the benefit of the doubt that they could ever provide you useful advertising. You're assuming they're going to annoy you, so you're sticking your fingers in your ears.
You can sort of see why that's disheartening to people who are trying to provide useful advertising.
I personally think installing adblock is a crappy move. It's like walking into a conference with hands over your ears incase someone tries to sell you something. You just look like an idiot, and lose out.
It's sort of common courtesy to not assume someone is going to irritate you when you meet them. That's why, when we meet new people, we don't cover our ears, we extend them goodwill, and assume they're going to be nice.
Sadly, adblock users (Ones who block everything) don't seem to have any common courtesy.
Exactly. There is a major opportunity lurking here. Online ads suck, actually ads in general suck, but how does one fix them? Sounds like a good challenge.
The most important thing to sustain an ad-supported business model, above and beyond anything else, is the quality of the ads. Ads that pay well but drive your userbase to block them or leave will no longer pay when the impressions drop, but ads that look nice, aren't intrusive, and are relevant to your audience will keep people coming back.
Look at sites on The Deck's network. They each have one ad, targeted to creative and tech professionals. The ads tend to look more like something the Iconfactory would put together than the average "1 rule 2 a flat belly" dreck. They give both the site and the ad an ethos of premium quality.
Well, if websites stop serving their ads via centralized servers tracking my every move across the web, I might consider not blocking them anymore (provided they're not animated and/or huge).
If you don't like it, don't consume the resources of the site serving the adds. This idea that your entitled to the content, without actually 'paying' for it (you pay by giving up a bit of privacy to heighten the value of the ads) is just wrong in my world view.
It's not stealing. It's not piracy. It's just the wrong thing to do.
Also if you're using whitelists, they will only track you on the sites that you're choosing to whitelist, so it's not as if whitelisting Ars will immediately allow them to track all your moments.
Neither of these are perfect solutions to your concerns, but I thought they should at least be mentioned.
This is considered a valuable comment? A site is telling its readers that their actions are hurting its ability to produce content they enjoy. Believing that they should find a different source of income is a perfectly valid position, but if you just don't care that content you enjoy might stop being produced, as your comment suggests, then you're unreasonable.
The argument here is that even if the user never would have responded to any of the ads anyway, the website loses money when users don't view the ads. I call bullshit.
An advertiser is going to pay as much for ads as they can profit from them. At the end of the day, the advertiser wants to spend less on ads than they make in profit from running those ads - they don't care about # impressions, # clicks, or whatever. If an advertiser can make $1.01 profit for every 1,000 random ad impressions, they'll pay $1 or less for those 1,000 impressions. If I can identify half my audience that will never respond to the ad, I'm essentially making $1 for 500 impressions instead of 1,000. I'll happily pay $2 for 1,000 of those more effective impressions.
I don't care if you get paid CPM, CPC, or CPA. You aren't making money of the users who don't respond to the ads.
As someone who works on a site largely funded through banner advertising, I can confirm that this is true; CPM is tied directly to CTR. A higher CTR means not only a higher CPM but also higher quality ads, so it is in everyone's best interest to not show ads to users who won't click on them.
The question then, for a for-profit site, how do you monetize the freeloaders? I thing the answer is:
1. Try to get them to upgrade to a paid subscription.
2. Create highly targeted ads based on the content, and integrate them with that content (ie not from ad servers). Unfortunately, this is only a cost-effective option if you get a high volume of traffic).
3. Restrict freeloaders from using your most expensive resources. I don't imagine a site like Ars is very bandwidth intensive, but if an adblocking user is costing them a lot in bandwidth for some reason, they could provide the content without the images, for example.
Sites also should consider how important it is to monetize every user directly. How much of your cost is fixed vs goes up per user? If most of your costs are fixed (paying writers for editorial content, for example) and the cost of providing content to users is low, it may be better to try to maximize readers aven if some of those are freeloaders; users talk and share information and links, so user A with adblock installed, whose visits cost you almost nothing, might result in users B, C and D who don't have adblock installed visiting your site.
My thought exactly. The difference here is analagous to the difference between a late night show and an "industry" show. Take Jon Stewart as the first. Nobody in the world has any reason to want his show out there every night because he is not generating any sales. He is also not charging for his show. Thus his show is artificially coupled with ads to support it. This us an unnatural relationship and in order to compensate, he has to be really good to get really high ratings.
On the other hand take Martha Stewart. A number of industries such as cutlery makers, wineries, home decorators, etc. are benefitting from her show airing. She can be sponsored by any company in any industry and never has to mention them once since she is already bringing them sales. Another example of this are home improvement shows -the directly benefit Lowes and Home Depot.
Until recently, I refused to use adblock on principle, because I wanted to support ad-supported websites, even if I didn't like the ads.
Then PDF and flash player exploits started showing up in ads on high-traffic websites. After a couple close calls (only averted thanks to my particular system configuration), I installed AdBlock and FlashBlock. I blacklist both ads and flash content by default.
Websites I can trust to serve me ads that aren't going to try and root my machine get whitelisted so that all their content shows up. All ads based on Project Wonderful fall into this category, since they only serve text and images. Google Ads would have also fallen into this category, but they're not safe anymore since I've seen them serving up Flash.
I'm perfectly happy with sites not liking my approach. They can show me a message asking me to turn off my ad-blocker (and I might, if I'm willing to give them a chance and I'm interested in their content), or refuse to serve me content entirely. That's fine.
If content providers are upset with the current state of things, maybe they should think about how we got here: ad networks are, in general, a wild west in which you serve up unknown advertisements to your visitors without any knowledge of its content. Content providers that care about their customers tend to block any advertisements they get complaints about - which is great - but by using ad networks that run on a 'blacklist only' system, they're knowingly putting their visitors at risk in order to generate ad revenue. By the time a flash exploit makes it onto your advertisement blacklist, your customers have already been hurt.
I definitely get a degraded experience from blocking ads. Missing content (e.g. images) and broken layout, and time spent having to work out how to block ads. But it's better than flashing pictures in the corner of the screen.
Absolutely. I've heard talk of some sites degrading entirely for users who are using adBlock.
I would expect that to be met with a pretty harsh backlash, though. Even though it's a small minority of people who use adBlock, they are a vocal and persuasive minority.
The problem with this is that in reality you will be missing the "ShowDonationOptions();" and the "offerDegradedExperience();" will be "offerNoExperience();". Plus, adblockers will likely find a way around "user.usingAdBlock()". Ultimately, you can't force someone to consume your propaganda unless you physically restrain them and pin their eyes open.
"Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that? Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads."
Then I'm going to run an ad blocker. I visit how many sites a day? What percent at any given time are in their "sometimes" phase?
You run annoying ads, I get annoyed, I do what I can to stop being annoyed. Don't run annoying ads, I don't get annoyed, I don't take action to avoid the thing that isn't annoying me. Done.
The fact that you picked a business model that relies on me being willing to be annoyed isn't my problem. Stop serving me content if it bothers you so much - I'll survive, I promise.
I have many ad servers blocked at DNS mostly because of cross-domain tracking. Browsers (by default) allow third-party cookies, and while I don't mind if a site runs ads, I do think cross-site tracking and profiling has to be more controllable by users.
The firefox extension "requestpolicy" http://www.requestpolicy.com/ is a fascinating view of the web. It's too strict to use every day, but is much more an "opt-in" view that everyone should try for a day.
I use RequestPolicy every day. I'm amazed that no browser provides this functionality built-in. Blocking all third party resources by default offers some strong protection against XSS and tracking sites. That it blocks ads and causes pages to render more spartanly is merely a bonus and exposes poor designs. Since everything that's blocked is accessible with the click of a button, I don't find it that inconvenient. I just wish more sites would serve all of their content from within their domain (including ads).
I don't actively use AdBlock anymore. I keep it installed just in case I need it but it's usually disabled. Banner/text ads don't bother me. I don't even notice them. Click2Flash is my preferred weapon of choice. I have no guilt blocking Flash ads. They're annoying, invasive, and make my browser slow. Just not willing to make that sacrifice.
"We made the mistake of assuming that everyone who is blocking ads at Ars is doing so with malice."
How'd they do that? Ads are annoying, and many people I know never click on internet ads. For us (perhaps a minority, I don't know) ad-blocking leads to a better internet. We're probably the ones referred to in the article who are happy to help a website out if they ask for it in another way.
On a different note: Maybe car windshields could someday block billboards...
Ads are annoying, and many people I know never click on internet ads.
Addressed at the start of the second paragraph:
"There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis."
What we need is some sort of voluntary rating system for ads. Tag the massively annoying (sounds, movement etc) or horribly disgusting (rotting teeth etc) ones as such and I'll happily use adblock software that only blocks those. It could kind of work, there'd need to be a way to block adnets/sites that lie about the type of ads of course and... well maybe it wouldn't work but it would be a good start.
But no, I'm not going to disable adblock while there are still so many ads that clearly cross the line of what is aceptable. Sure I feel bad about it but that's just the way it is given that the other options are a) not using the internet or b) constantly seeing pictures of other peoples yellowing teeth.
Advertising is a risk, and always has been. I'm tired of advertisers (and content providers that depend on advertising) trying to shift responsibility to the consumer. If you spend money on a campaign and it delivers results beyond your initial expenditure, then the campaign was successful. There's no guarantee against failure, and it's absolutely certain that the majority of consumers simply won't care about your ads. It's part of the game. Accept it, or look for alternatives.
There seem to be two schools of business; one that tries to beat customers over the head with things, and one that tries to respect the customer as much as possible.
Historically, most web ads seem to have the first view. "Why, of course! All I have to do is treat the visitor like crap: store 75 cookies, throw up new windows, flash some animations, play loud noises, and trick them into clicking on things. Then they'll surely want to shell out cash for my products!"
The problem is, after seeing a few of these, I'm not going to spend time weeding out the good from the bad: it's like junk mail, after awhile it's just thrown away, and it doesn't even matter anymore if there might be a hidden gem.
I can only assume that a scam is being pulled: that there are ad managers who create annoying systems to meet artificial quotas, and then show their employers how many "millions of clicks or page views" they received. That way, they can demand huge sums of money for all the "exposure"; in reality, I'd be surprised if the ads do much good. If a site is "dying", it's not because visitors block ads, it's because companies are falling for the scam and paying advertisers who are essentially being offensive and misleading about their numbers.
Here are examples of effective ads:
- Hulu, because they made reasonable compromises to respect visitors. For example, they have far fewer commercials than an equivalent TV show, and an ad is often displayed "up front" to minimize interruptions later.
- Google, because they make plain text ads that stay out of the way. Not irritating? Good, now I'll actually read it.
So Ars Technica has the same fundamental problem as every publisher on earth-- how do you allow your content to reach the most eyes across the most channels and platforms while still maintaing full control (only showing your content with your ads intact).
I'm not sure you can have it both ways. You either have to trade in the open/free variable or accept it and some of the loss of revenue it entails as a tradeoff to the gained visibility.
Just like how Tivo has destroyed the television industry, right? I find it amazing that anyone believes they have a moral obligation to view advertisements.
[+] [-] motters|16 years ago|reply
Perhaps the solution is some sort of code of conduct for advertisers. If ads are discreet and respectful of the viewer then I'd certainly be prepared to stop blocking them.
[+] [-] romland|16 years ago|reply
I can only speak for myself but a solution does not seem that far off (at least not to get me to see your ads). While I agree that some sort of code of conduct may be a good idea, I don't really see it working out in the long run what with everyone always being willing to sacrifice good will for a quick buck.
That said, I use NoScript in Firefox and I run it for other reasons than blocking advertisements and I don't have an ad-blocker installed. If I white list a website it means I made a deliberate choice to trust whatever it is going to throw at me. The most important thing here is that I did not allow any third party to serve me some random code (plain markup is fine). I have no way of telling whether the site I just white listed in fact knows what their external advertisers actually serve. And this is proven again and again by how site owners expect visitors to contact the site when they see an ad that is intrusive so that they can "nuke it". This to me makes it a no deal.
To kill two birds with one stone: Serve your advertisements from your own servers and if I want to read your content I have to make a choice whether to trust you and your webserver(s). If you violate my trust then I will go elsewhere and I am no longer a waste of your resources and you are not a waste of mine.
If I have for some reason decided to not let you run dynamic content on whatever device I am currently on you simply have to respect that or I leave. You still have the opportunity to serve me static ads, surely that's got to be worth something. You don't know my reasons for not white listing you (as this article states as well). What surprised me about this link was that I did not see a single advertisement on the page. This means they are all using JavaScript or Flash. Sorry, your loss. And eventually my loss as well since the website might not live to see another day due to lack of income.
Incidentally, easy white listing [of script execution] for sites is also the only thing stopping me from switching to Chrome today.
[+] [-] Batsu|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nollidge|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kristianp|16 years ago|reply
Witness Adsense, which started off with text only, but now has full flash capabilities.
What is the solution to the problem? I don't think there is one.
Perhaps the rise of the paid app will provide a way to reduce ads, just like cable tv has done, but this will only be a niche. (I'm speculating there.)
[+] [-] hristov|16 years ago|reply
The way I see it, there is an implied contract between a website and a viewer. The website says, "well you get to look at my content for free and you will not have to pay for all the work I have done creating the content and serving it to you, but in exchange you should see and consider the various advertisements and deals we are offering."
Again you do not have to use the website, but if you do you should not block the ads.
[+] [-] axod|16 years ago|reply
Ad blocking means the market will never correct itself. You're cutting off the feedback loop.
If an ad annoys you, just don't visit that website again! Simple. It's not like there's a shortage of websites to visit.
edit: Yeah downmod me. It's a crazy idea! If you go into a shop, and the owner beats you with a bat, you'd resolve to wear full body armor when shopping from now on, and go right back there wouldn't you.
[+] [-] michaelneale|16 years ago|reply
I do use flashblock/click to flash (which has the side effect of hiding the most offensive video ads). But any site that becomes unbearable with ads, I move on, and don't go there again. I would suggest it is time to avoid those sites.
[+] [-] natrius|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psadauskas|16 years ago|reply
I'm wondering if, between ad-blocking and tivo, separate ads and commercials will be going away soon. I'm perfectly OK with the judges of American Idol with Coke glasses on their desk, or a sentence at the bottom of a blog post: "This post brought to you by FizzBuzz.com". I also don't mind the ads at the front of some podcasts, spoken by the same people that narrate the podcast itself. http://ruby5.envylabs.com/ is a good example of advertising that I don't mind one bit. Similar to how old radio shows were "sponsored", and the sponsor got a mention a few times throughout the show.
[+] [-] lucifer|16 years ago|reply
How about this as an alternative:
Modify the plugin to route the GETs for the ad content through an anonymizer server.
[+] [-] gkefalas|16 years ago|reply
It's unfortunate that there's the collateral damage that affects non-obnoxious sites; and, while I whitelist the sites I frequent, and many here may as well, I'm sure we're the minority.
That being said, here's about as close to a real-world analogue for my thoughts as I can get: in NYC, I'm sure there are people in Times Square trying to gain signups for Greenpeace and other "ethical" purposes mixed in with the other people hustling CDs, comedy club tickets, and the like, but I just ignore everyone as I walk by, wholesale, because stopping and seeing what everyone's about will turn a brief walk into a pain in the ass.
I'm not sure what the answer is; perhaps the various adblocking technologies could make whitelisting a site even more obvious? With AdBlock Plus, you hit the drop-down and choose Disable on foobar.com, but it requires an active interaction to seek that out. GlimmerBlocker for the Mac is even more buried (as it's a proxy, it's in System Preferences.) Maybe switching to putting placeholders where the ads would be with a short message and a single click to whitelist would make it a little easier for users to both see how many ads a site's pushing as well as whitelist the site with the minimum amount of effort? I donno.
[+] [-] hga|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aneesh|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] axod|16 years ago|reply
If you install adblock "Fingers in ears" (ignore everything), you're not even giving websites a chance. You're not even giving them the benefit of the doubt that they could ever provide you useful advertising. You're assuming they're going to annoy you, so you're sticking your fingers in your ears.
You can sort of see why that's disheartening to people who are trying to provide useful advertising.
I personally think installing adblock is a crappy move. It's like walking into a conference with hands over your ears incase someone tries to sell you something. You just look like an idiot, and lose out.
It's sort of common courtesy to not assume someone is going to irritate you when you meet them. That's why, when we meet new people, we don't cover our ears, we extend them goodwill, and assume they're going to be nice.
Sadly, adblock users (Ones who block everything) don't seem to have any common courtesy.
[+] [-] el_dot|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notauser|16 years ago|reply
You install ABP to get rid of Flash/animated ads... and accidentally end up killing off everything including the ones that aren't objectionable.
[+] [-] mo34|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mortenjorck|16 years ago|reply
Look at sites on The Deck's network. They each have one ad, targeted to creative and tech professionals. The ads tend to look more like something the Iconfactory would put together than the average "1 rule 2 a flat belly" dreck. They give both the site and the ad an ethos of premium quality.
[+] [-] fuzzmeister|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamhowell|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Willie_Dynamite|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enjo|16 years ago|reply
If you don't like it, don't consume the resources of the site serving the adds. This idea that your entitled to the content, without actually 'paying' for it (you pay by giving up a bit of privacy to heighten the value of the ads) is just wrong in my world view.
It's not stealing. It's not piracy. It's just the wrong thing to do.
[+] [-] djcapelis|16 years ago|reply
Also if you're using whitelists, they will only track you on the sites that you're choosing to whitelist, so it's not as if whitelisting Ars will immediately allow them to track all your moments.
Neither of these are perfect solutions to your concerns, but I thought they should at least be mentioned.
[+] [-] isopod|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natrius|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggrot|16 years ago|reply
An advertiser is going to pay as much for ads as they can profit from them. At the end of the day, the advertiser wants to spend less on ads than they make in profit from running those ads - they don't care about # impressions, # clicks, or whatever. If an advertiser can make $1.01 profit for every 1,000 random ad impressions, they'll pay $1 or less for those 1,000 impressions. If I can identify half my audience that will never respond to the ad, I'm essentially making $1 for 500 impressions instead of 1,000. I'll happily pay $2 for 1,000 of those more effective impressions.
I don't care if you get paid CPM, CPC, or CPA. You aren't making money of the users who don't respond to the ads.
[+] [-] wanderr|16 years ago|reply
The question then, for a for-profit site, how do you monetize the freeloaders? I thing the answer is: 1. Try to get them to upgrade to a paid subscription. 2. Create highly targeted ads based on the content, and integrate them with that content (ie not from ad servers). Unfortunately, this is only a cost-effective option if you get a high volume of traffic). 3. Restrict freeloaders from using your most expensive resources. I don't imagine a site like Ars is very bandwidth intensive, but if an adblocking user is costing them a lot in bandwidth for some reason, they could provide the content without the images, for example.
Sites also should consider how important it is to monetize every user directly. How much of your cost is fixed vs goes up per user? If most of your costs are fixed (paying writers for editorial content, for example) and the cost of providing content to users is low, it may be better to try to maximize readers aven if some of those are freeloaders; users talk and share information and links, so user A with adblock installed, whose visits cost you almost nothing, might result in users B, C and D who don't have adblock installed visiting your site.
[+] [-] IgorPartola|16 years ago|reply
On the other hand take Martha Stewart. A number of industries such as cutlery makers, wineries, home decorators, etc. are benefitting from her show airing. She can be sponsored by any company in any industry and never has to mention them once since she is already bringing them sales. Another example of this are home improvement shows -the directly benefit Lowes and Home Depot.
[+] [-] kevingadd|16 years ago|reply
Then PDF and flash player exploits started showing up in ads on high-traffic websites. After a couple close calls (only averted thanks to my particular system configuration), I installed AdBlock and FlashBlock. I blacklist both ads and flash content by default.
Websites I can trust to serve me ads that aren't going to try and root my machine get whitelisted so that all their content shows up. All ads based on Project Wonderful fall into this category, since they only serve text and images. Google Ads would have also fallen into this category, but they're not safe anymore since I've seen them serving up Flash.
I'm perfectly happy with sites not liking my approach. They can show me a message asking me to turn off my ad-blocker (and I might, if I'm willing to give them a chance and I'm interested in their content), or refuse to serve me content entirely. That's fine.
If content providers are upset with the current state of things, maybe they should think about how we got here: ad networks are, in general, a wild west in which you serve up unknown advertisements to your visitors without any knowledge of its content. Content providers that care about their customers tend to block any advertisements they get complaints about - which is great - but by using ad networks that run on a 'blacklist only' system, they're knowingly putting their visitors at risk in order to generate ad revenue. By the time a flash exploit makes it onto your advertisement blacklist, your customers have already been hurt.
[+] [-] axod|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ximeng|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MartinCron|16 years ago|reply
I would expect that to be met with a pretty harsh backlash, though. Even though it's a small minority of people who use adBlock, they are a vocal and persuasive minority.
[+] [-] tensor|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfager|16 years ago|reply
Then I'm going to run an ad blocker. I visit how many sites a day? What percent at any given time are in their "sometimes" phase?
You run annoying ads, I get annoyed, I do what I can to stop being annoyed. Don't run annoying ads, I don't get annoyed, I don't take action to avoid the thing that isn't annoying me. Done.
The fact that you picked a business model that relies on me being willing to be annoyed isn't my problem. Stop serving me content if it bothers you so much - I'll survive, I promise.
[+] [-] herf|16 years ago|reply
The firefox extension "requestpolicy" http://www.requestpolicy.com/ is a fascinating view of the web. It's too strict to use every day, but is much more an "opt-in" view that everyone should try for a day.
[+] [-] qjz|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ax0n|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] munctional|16 years ago|reply
Internet Explorer and Safari do not. If you have Flash installed, supercookies can still be used anyways.
[+] [-] jsz0|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rubidium|16 years ago|reply
How'd they do that? Ads are annoying, and many people I know never click on internet ads. For us (perhaps a minority, I don't know) ad-blocking leads to a better internet. We're probably the ones referred to in the article who are happy to help a website out if they ask for it in another way.
On a different note: Maybe car windshields could someday block billboards...
[+] [-] mikedouglas|16 years ago|reply
Addressed at the start of the second paragraph: "There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis."
[+] [-] almost|16 years ago|reply
But no, I'm not going to disable adblock while there are still so many ads that clearly cross the line of what is aceptable. Sure I feel bad about it but that's just the way it is given that the other options are a) not using the internet or b) constantly seeing pictures of other peoples yellowing teeth.
[+] [-] qjz|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makecheck|16 years ago|reply
Historically, most web ads seem to have the first view. "Why, of course! All I have to do is treat the visitor like crap: store 75 cookies, throw up new windows, flash some animations, play loud noises, and trick them into clicking on things. Then they'll surely want to shell out cash for my products!"
The problem is, after seeing a few of these, I'm not going to spend time weeding out the good from the bad: it's like junk mail, after awhile it's just thrown away, and it doesn't even matter anymore if there might be a hidden gem.
I can only assume that a scam is being pulled: that there are ad managers who create annoying systems to meet artificial quotas, and then show their employers how many "millions of clicks or page views" they received. That way, they can demand huge sums of money for all the "exposure"; in reality, I'd be surprised if the ads do much good. If a site is "dying", it's not because visitors block ads, it's because companies are falling for the scam and paying advertisers who are essentially being offensive and misleading about their numbers.
Here are examples of effective ads:
- Hulu, because they made reasonable compromises to respect visitors. For example, they have far fewer commercials than an equivalent TV show, and an ad is often displayed "up front" to minimize interruptions later.
- Google, because they make plain text ads that stay out of the way. Not irritating? Good, now I'll actually read it.
[+] [-] strebler|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] c00ki3s|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dschobel|16 years ago|reply
I'm not sure you can have it both ways. You either have to trade in the open/free variable or accept it and some of the loss of revenue it entails as a tradeoff to the gained visibility.
[+] [-] eplanit|16 years ago|reply