From artstechnia.com
Did you know that blocking ads truly hurts the websites you visit?
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. If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue. Because we are a technology site, we have a very large base of ad blockers. Imagine running a restaurant where 40% of the people who came and ate didn’t pay. In a way, that’s what ad blocking is doing to us. Just like a restaurant, we have to pay to staff, we have to pay for resources, and we have to pay when people consume those resources. The difference, of course, is that our visitors don’t pay us directly but indirectly by viewing advertising.
The argument is simple: blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love. I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, or makes someone the son of the devil. It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content. It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin. As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature. We’ve all seen it happen. I am very proud of the fact that we routinely talk to you guys in our feedback forum about the quality of our ads. I have proven over 12 years that we will fight on the behalf of readers whenever we can. Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that? Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads. But any of you reading this site for any significant period of time know that these are few and far between. We turn down offers every month for advertising like that out of respect for you guys. We simply ask that you return the favor and not block ads.
I admit, I’m guilty of this. I just never gave it much thought. I read that an ad blocker would get rid of those annoying ads, so I installed one and merrily went on my way.
I get revenue from ads and I get content from other sites where I block ads. I feel bad about this. So, I’m changing the way I approach this. In the future I will allow ads from sites that I visit unless they have the really annoying ads that constantly pop up over the content or play audio automatically. Heck, I might even wait and see if that’s too annoying.
That makes a lot of sense. I’m with you on that.
The problem with the Ars Technica position is, that they approach it as something, that you shouldn’t do ( Ad blocking, that is).
However – the right approach is to create Ads, that don’t annoy the heck out of you.
The overwhelming majority is visual junk and shouldn’t be allowed to see the light of day.
Add to it the devious technology of link tracking to evaluate user behavior and you have a mix of things, that you shouldn’t see anywhere.
Unless the crooks of adbrite, Doubleclick and so on don’t stop their tracking habits, I see absolutely no alternative to ad-blocking. As simple as that.
TechDirt wrote a response to this http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100306/1649198451.shtml I block ads from sites that serve up crappy flash stupidity. I block ads from sites that always have things I would never consider buying. If someone has an issue with it, fine… I’ll stop reading content, stop telling friends about it and actively tell others that it’s not worth the time.
I’m perfectly happy if people block ads on my own sites, I know that it’s just part of being a member of the internet community. don’t want your ads blocked? don’t used a third party ad serving system, bring it in house and do your own thing.
Like Klaus implies, Ad Blockers are used to block things that are annoying like flashy, un-ignorable adverts that often play music, complex visuals or videos without the user’s permission.
I have no objection to plain graphic images that say ‘drink this brand of drink’ or ‘buy this type of TV’… it’s when they consume bandwidth and insist on loading before the content of the site that they get annoying and that is why I use Firefox with AdBlock Plus.
“So, I’m changing the way I approach this. In the future I will allow ads from sites that I visit unless they have the really annoying ads that constantly pop up over the content or play audio automatically. Heck, I might even wait and see if that’s too annoying.”
Ad-blockers were not created because the ads were NOT annoying. It’s because they are already annoying that the blockers came to be.
I only block ads that pop-up all over the place, play audio/bandwidth hogging video or keylogging flash ads that sometimes load on wiki pages. Otherwise I allow all others as it is a way for small sites to make a little money to pay for their server.
If you insert plain text ads in non annoying ways or maybe have ads in another section of your site, its cool – I don’t mind those and the ad blockers don’t touch ’em – I’ll keep my ad blockers on … Take Digg for example – their (main content) ads aren’t blocked and you can vote ’em down… That I can live with.
don’t let the affiliate networks annoy your readers and you won’t run up against this wall.
I haven’t put ads in my site yet but I do plan to – and I plan to do it in a way where my users don’t get annoyed enough to block. – (and the ads don’t fall in the adblocker defaults)
anything that pops out or under tho – done deal – it interrupts my browsing.
Rob
Rob and Josh, how do you block only the obnoxious pop ads? I wouldn’t mind small ads but I use adblocker because of the annoying ones that take forever to load, make noise, are animated, etc.
“Imagine running a restaurant where 40% of the people who came and ate didn’t pay. In a way, that’s what ad blocking is doing to us.”
How ’bout this:
Imagine a restaurant where you are dragged off the sidewalk into the establishment and force fed food you don’t like. In a way, that’s what intrusive internet ads are doing to us.
Seriously? I am not obligated to consume advertising. And yep, it’s my consumer choice. Flash just one of those sight-blocking ads on here and I’ll just move on. If you want to truly get a conscience, stop making any revenue off this entertaining site where you actually generate < 1% of the content. Don't get me wrong, I love reading B&P and have for a long time. But this consumerist morality-debt position is ridiculous, Jonco.
Jonco, if you’re serious about this, you’re out of my bookmarks. What makes you think that I should support your internet addiction? The only content you write is about your family. Yeah, you find cool stuff, but so can I. While I may not publish a list of stuff I found cool, I still find it. There are Thousands of people out there who do the same thing as you. Someone who doesn’t add content getting upset that they don’t get paid for it is kind of upsetting. While I write this, I’ve decided that B&P is not worth my reading. Maybe you can find someone else to give you money to surf the web. Good luck with that.
All I said is that I’m changing the way I look at ads. They generate revenue for me and to block them from sites I visit seems a little hypocritical to me. Why deny my sources revenue? I’m not asking my readers to do anything. I’m just stating what I’m doing and why.
If that offends you…. too bad.
How did this turn into an attack on Jonco? I haven’t blocked a single ad here yet and he gave no indiation here that he’s going to start allowing annoying ads that I would want to block. Am I missing something?
Sorry I was typing while Jonco was postng.
I browse with ClickToFlash enabled so all Flash content is blocked until I click on it to activate it. Ads, per se, don’t bother me much but the Flash plugin is a buggy piece of garbage so I block it except when I want to watch a video or play a game. Blocking Flash blocks the annoying ads that make noise and get in my face as a happy side effect.
An ad site “GothScene” is covering up some of B&P content right now…
Jim,
Terry
See ya.
Jonco,
I appreciate what you do. I like that you filter the web for me. I can get a quick shot of fun without having to look too far.
I don’t use an ad blocker, I only use Google tool bar to stop pop-ups. I think pop-ups are out of line. Granted I sometimes end up on sites that have annoying ads, or that load slow because they load the ads first… so I don’t go back. No biggie.
For someone to think that you don’t deserve to be compensated for your time just because you don’t generate the original content should become a retailer and sell everything at wholesale. After all they didn’t generate the original goods so charging to have a store and pay their rent/mortgage, overhead, etc. would put them in a “consumerist morality-debt position” whatever that is.
Man, hot topic. 5 posts while I was typing. 🙂
While it’s true that Jonco doesn’t author the majority of the content here, he still finds it and puts it all in one handy dandy spot. I think that is well worth the minor inconvenience of the few ads that are here.
A friend gave me some great advice. he said I should install ads on my site and make some money! I replied that I’ve had ads on my site for years. Oh, he says, I didn’t know because I use AdBlock.
That had to be the funniest thing that happened to me in weeks.
I am sure that Jonco is driving a solid golid motorcyle and Gus is wearing a diamond studded color with all of the revenue generated here. What a greedy guy!
That Gus must be a high maintenance poochie. He wants a condo in Dubai!?!?
i have a google adsense account for many months and i didn´t get one cent for just displaying ads. i guess pay per view is a fairytale and for i do not click on any ads, adblocking does not hurt more than my general behaviour. to be honest, arstechnica should have said: not clicking ads hurts websites. they should earn their money with candid work.
and please don´t forget about ad-blockes making the internet more childproof…
I’ve never had a problem with ads on this site and even click on them to support B&P =) As for blocking ads Gretal, I block all flash ads. Most flash ads (not all) are annoying/intrusive.
A suggestion for you (and one which I really hope will start a trend!)… put up a big sign somewhere for advertisers: we are happy to accept advertising which is cleverly done and draws our readers’ attention. We will not accept “in-your-face” advertising that alienates or annoys people!
Personally I can’t understand why a company would use an ad agency whose strategy is to p*ss-off potential clients… maybe we need to get that message through
I want to know what the F kind of sites you f*ckers are browsing that you’re getting these type of ads that you describe. All the sites I browse don’t have any such annoying ads that you guys complain about.
Comparisons such as being dragged out into the street to eat junk food you don’t want to eat is uncalled for. Is that how you really feel about the ads here at B&P? I don’t find anything that close to that happening here. Get real. Jonco wasn’t asking any of you to stop blocking ads altogether. All he was saying was that he was gonna stop blocking ads from the sites he benefits from.
And FWIW, Google adsense does not operate like how other ad revenue streams do. If you’re a big enough website to negotiate your own ad terms, your value is gauged on views, not clicks like adsense. You get paid regardless if the advertiser gets clicks or not, what you’re selling is the “view”.
It’s more about the media or, rather, the formats used for the ads. If a site guarantees that they will only use static, text or jpeg advertising then fine, I will happily turn off Adblockplus for that site. They are the billboards of the internet – I’m not brainwashed into buying Fanta by the billboards on the street and I’m in no danger of being brainwashed by some discrete text or pictures placed on a web page.
As soon as a site has an ad that has movement however – be it flash or (usually more annoyingly) animated gifs – or some javascript to change image content as on the fly, thereby disturbing my reading, that’s it – adblock is staying. I’m still in no danger of brainwashing, but this is no longer a billboard – it’s the equivalent of some dodgy hawker following you down the street, yammering and waving gaudy, unwanted knick-knacks in your face.
Adblock is my hand in his sternum.
Oh and Sander, when you manage to jump off that conclusion you leapt on to, try Lifehacker, Gizmodo, NewYorkTimes.com (the list goes on and on) to see ads of the kind mentioned.
The sick turd-porn sites I visit don’t need to use ads as they are subscription only :0)
Jonco, I’m with you on this up to a point. There are a few sites that I like well enough that I turn off my blocker. Those sites give me free services and they’ve earned my ad revenue. I’d happily turn off my ad-block at BnP because this site (and its KING) are awesome. However, I don’t think my safari adblock works here anyway as I still see ads.
If it helps Jonco, I’m happy to do it. I also know that a lot of busy sites can be very expensive to run. Jonco, buddy, you’ve got my support.
By allowing the ads some users will be paying to see them. If you are on a plan where you pay for downloaded data then you only want to see the relevant information wich in data terms might be less traffic than the adverts on the page. Hmm paying to see advert I don’t want to see… No Thanks.
I’m not going to click the ads if I see them or not. So useing a blocker changes nothing. By this logic I should buy whatever the advertizer is selling bc they paid for me to click the ad…
I’ll donate $3 to this site… outta pay for 150 clicks on ads or so…
No question – ads are supporting the life … over there, elswhere at www and also right here!
Most people there&here are answering the same way – only blocked if disturbed by anoying flash, popups to the fore or else. Same to me, no question!
But the article at arstechnica itself delivered one of the main reasons why I’m using those little helpers … cit. “On the Internet everything is 100% trackable and is billed and sold as such.” …
I SIMPLY DON’T WANT TO BE TRACKED DOWN TO 100%.
And if you take a closer look at advertising – unfortunately an awful lot of them don’t only track you at the supported site – they try to track your whole movements at www “by the way” with the usual specialized cookies etc.
jm2c
PS:
And every then-and-now impression after surfing a while unsecured for test and evaluating the cache & cookies afterwards. 😐
I go to the bathroom during tv commercials. 🙁
It seems to me that artstechnica is misleading people and I have already told them so. Ad servers may pay you for the number of viewers, but have no way of knowing if the ads are blocked. Some advertisers may pay you for allowing their ads on your site. Others pay only if the ad is clicked. I block all ads as so many of them are sponsored by Google, who has become one of the largest SPY engines. If I need to search a site itself, my browser allows that function, so why use Google search just because it’s on the web page? Call me paranoid, as some have, but I also search and browse anonymously. The only time a website sees my IP address is if I log into it, like this one.
So you collect cash from re-posting other peoples stuff and whine about not getting ad revenue. Nice.
Cactus, I’m not whining about anything! Where do you get it that I’m whining?
…I think some people need to reread what Jonco actually said before getting pissy about something that isn’t even an issue. I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’. 🙂