Don't Blame Rick752 For Blocking Ads; Blame Those Who Made Ads Annoying
from the get-over-it dept
The Washington Post is profiling the semi-anonymous Rick752, a mid-50s guy in upstate NY who puts together and maintains EasyList, an extremely popular list that powers the popular AdBlock Firefox extension. Basically, (for the 12 of you who don't know) it lets people surf without seeing advertisements. And, of course, this pisses people off, unreasonably. The article is full of examples of sites either trying to block AdBlock or begging people not to use it, along with quotes from people whining about how if ads are blocked there will be less content online.
Hogwash.
If the banner ads are bad content, then something like AdBlock and EasyList are simply a way of letting sites and advertisers know that the ads are not effective at all, but are annoying. That should be exactly what the advertisers and the sites want to hear, because that's the only way that they'll learn to make their advertising better. And the way you do that is by no longer thinking of them as ads, but recognizing that ads need to be good content.
I'm always fascinated by people who seem to think that interference with a business model is either a crime or unethical. In reality, it's simply a market changing, usually for the better. In fact, it's usually a sign of what customers really want and how to offer it to them most efficiently. That's all that AdBlock and EasyList are doing. They're letting advertisers and sites know that current ads just aren't effective. Rather than whining about it, it's the responsibility of publishers and companies to come up with business models that don't annoy users, but give them something of value. AdBlock and EasyList are just communicating that message back to them. Those that complain about it are basically just saying that they're too lazy to come up with a better business model.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
They corrupted the net, ABP fixed their corruption
Ads weren't just distracting, they are downright unbearable. Personally, I blame the webmasters for turning over control of the "content" of their sites over to the extremely sleazy advertisers. Not all sites did this, but enough did that it became accepted as the norm. Any site that uses flash ads deserve to have their advertising revenue reduced by those educated enough to use ABP. Same goes for anyone who ever used popup ads, especially popunder ads.
Ads really were tolerable when they were a few simple pics on the page. But then things got out of hand REALLY FAST.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Adblock saved my life
Well ok, not my life but my time. I hate using IE now because I cannot use adblock (not that I would want to use IE). I surf a lot (to much my wife thinks) and the last thing I want to do is be bombarded with ads about silly things.
I know what I want to buy, I will never buy, and never will, items from an ad online so adblock for me is a way to put blinders on it. IF I wanted to see ads, I can just open my local newspaper and read them there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
And yet...
You yourself run ads on your site. How do you make money again? Oh thats right, from advertising. The only thing worse than your spouting off about the ads is your hypocrisy.
Regardless of your view of their monetization effort publishers deserve to be paid for the service they are providing. If the ads piss you off so much then send them an email. Give them some real feedback. I can promise you they will pull the ads that offend you. The approach of blocking any and all ads only serves to escalate the problem.
I mean really, if the ads are so annoying to you on a particular site, dont go there. Pretty simple.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Intertube Stent Procedure
What's the deal with annoying video and "Rich ads" on my intertub--ADVERTISERS ADVERTISERS ADVERTISERS ADVERTISERS
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I just want to block DoubleClick
The most annoying advertising entity on the web, since almost the beginning, has been Doubleclick, in my opinion. I've gone through many efforts to block Doublecrap, mostly because my browser would spend endless minutes trying to contact a Doublecrap server in order to display an ad (that I was going to ignore anyway). In the meantime, I can't view the content of the page because the browser is waiting for Doublecrap to respond. With ABP, that's no longer a problem. Ads from Doublecrap? Never see 'em, and now, don't wait for 'em, either.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Art instead
If you'd like art to replace the advertisements, I work on a firefox extension of ABP (that's right, an extension of an extension) that does just that. Only tangentially topical, but I think it points out that folks are looking for a better browsing experience, and Add-Art brings it to them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: And yet...
Jesse: Yes, there are ads on Techdirt. But, in case you haven't noticed, Mike doesn't bitch about people blocking them, nor are they stupidly obtrusive like the ones that start playing loud audio, or cover up the content of a page, or throw pop-ups or pop-unders at you.
Read the article, over again, and this time PAY F--KING ATTENTION. ABP and EasyList exist because there are too many of those obtrusive, stupid ads that annoy the crap out of all of us. The ads here on Techdirt, at least since I've started reading it, are the good content type that don't get in the way and piss people off.
Next time, before your bitch about someone's supposed hypocrisy, you might want to actually understand what they're talking about.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: And yet...
IDIOT, I do not want to see ads, so I use any means or blocking I choose. It's not up to you or any advertiser IF I BLOCK, HOW I BLOCK or whatever I surf.
You sound like a fairy designer defending ads. Sorry if I hurt your feelings PUSSY!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I don't have advertisements on my site
Come to Digital Productions!
Ad free - always has been, always will be.
Doesn't stop me advertising my site of course. ;-)
NB By 'ad' I mean space turned over to advertisers such that I effectively sell my audience's eyeballs to them.
I don't believe in selling one's audience to advertisers.
It's an indication of contempt.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Stupid article
We're going to block ads because they are ads - not because the are ads with "bad content" -
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: And yet...
I wouldnt even know which sites have annoying ads because I have been using adblockers for years and simply have no idea.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Google Ads
I have been thinking about this topic for a few days now. It astounds me how much money companies expend on advertising that appears to be 99% ineffective.
Google Ads are a great example of non obtrusive, applicable, and easy on they eye advertisements. But if Google is to continue in the long term I think they need to take advertising a step further and start right now. They should offer a new platform or modify the existing one to cater towards useful, artistic, content based ads. Also offer a tips section to advertisers that aids them in creating ads that work.
More and more people will use ABP, DVRs and such unless the advertising industry turns a new leaf. "Sheeple" are becoming a thing of the past. Bombardment advertising never was the answer. Instead of exclusively putting forth effort for the Super Bowl, try doing your job more often.
I shudder to think of a world without ads. I do not want a subscription to Google.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Business model
OK, so adblock is saying the advert business model doesn't always work? I'm curious- what is the alternative? It's been addressed some in this post already, but TD uses ads themselves. If everyone used AdBlock and no money was made of adverts, what kind of business model would be used to support the website?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: And yet...
Sigh, same old nonsense. Mike's said before that these articles serve to advertise the insight products that they sell, and that ads don't/barely (can't recall which) cover hosting.
Publishers "deserve" to get paid when they provide a service the consumer wants, and that evidently doesn't include invasive and annoying ads. Get over yourself.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Ads should be considered content
In the traditional sense of content, its what the site displays to the visitor. If the site chooses to display annoying or obtrusive adds, don't go to the site. Something that annoys the customer/visitor lowers the value of what you offer.
Why I can see why sites don't like AdBlock is that unlike TV ads that might be removed by some DVR device, sites are paid by impression or click; TV ads usually simply sell a slot for a fixed amount regardless of people watching. That means advertisers paid for time that doesn't reach the audience. AdBlock, conversely, takes money away from the sites. I can understand you thinking that they should make the ads better or entertaining, that would just be good advertising, but that isn't in control of the site hosting it.
Essentially you are preaching to one party (those wanting to advertise) about making better Ads as a solution for a problem another party (The site owner) has. I am afraid that simply won't have pull. Until a new model is discovered, they will simply find more creative ways to deliver adds avoiding AdBlock. You may believe its not a problem and the market will work itself out, and you may be right, but at this moment it does remove a level of reward for content providers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Complain to the website?
To the poster above who suggested people complain to the website who runs offending ads. Let's think about this: suppose you're Yahoo Mail. Now suppose you get $1 million from LendingTree (for example) to run their "1% mortgage" flashing Flash ad. Or suppose you get $1 million from the smiley-emoticon site (which also installs spyware when you install their smileys).
Now suppose Yahoo's users complain about the ads.
Remember, you're in charge of Yahoo: do you pull the ads because a few (or a few hundred) people complain or do you continue to take $1 million in revenue from these advertisers?
Do you really think the Board of Directors will be happy that you turned down a $1 million account because a few people complained?
Now, granted, I don't know the actual amount that companies spend on advertising, but it does come down to user-complaints versus income issue.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: And yet...
publishers deserve to be paid for the service they are providing.
No, they only "deserve" what they can get. And if they can't get money from banner and flash ads anymore, then they obviously need to find another way to make money.
The notion that by viewing the content of a website you are somehow obligated to view the ads is ludicrous. If I want to watch a television show, I'm not obligated to watch the ads (since I can mute them, do something else, etc), yet I can still view the show. If I want to look at a website, I'm still not obligated to view the ads, and I can still view the website.
Just because you are able to earn money with a business model does not mean that you should always be able to earn money with that model.
The only thing worse than your spouting off about the ads is your hypocrisy.
Except that the ad revenue is simply supplemental income for Mike, and not the main revenue source. Meaning that he uses a different method of making money from the site.
If you don't know what you're talking about, perhaps you should hold off on the insults.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Toleration
I could tolerate banner advertisements though. Pop-ups, pop-unders, flash - "games", sounds, music, strobe-effect, and roll-over expanding, you're a winner click to claim your prize, your computer isn't protected click here for a scan, etc. are all forms of advertisements that only annoy and waste bandwidth. So if it weren't for all that invasive crap, I'd happily view a few more ads to help support a site that I've found worth viewing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: And yet...
@Jesse: You, sir (and I use that word very loosely) are the actual idiot. You rely on insults and attacks, thus betraying your self-loathing for all of us to see by transferring it to someone who appears to have an opposing viewpoint. Anon in #14 offers a further erosion of your original comment. However, as you would rather behave as a low-life troglodyte, I have nothing more to say to you. Flame in hell, troll.
@DanC: Lovely misquoting going there, but I caught your attempted slight of hand. For anyone reading this, I refer again to comment #14, where a helpful Anon has written:
Publishers "deserve" to get paid when they provide a service the consumer wants, and that evidently doesn't include invasive and annoying ads.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Toleration
So if it weren't for all that invasive crap, I'd happily view a few more ads to help support a site that I've found worth viewing.
QUOTED FOR TRUTH
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Now that I think of it...
Intellisense. Intellisense is what initially drove me to convert to firefox so I could use ABP. I was extremely annoyed by these underlined words that constantly obscured the content on the page that I was trying to read. That was the straw that broke the camels back tho, not the only mitigating factor.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Ads should be considered content
AdBlock, conversely, takes money away from the sites.
A little nitpicky, but you can't take away what was never received. Adblock might lower their ad revenues, but it doesn't "take money away."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Complain to the website?
@John
I see what you are saying, but here is where I think it is different. You state they recieve 1 million, but generally the people we are talking about get paid by impression, not an upfront cost. If you went to the Yahoo Board of directors and said "People are compling about this ad we are showing and I think we are losing users over it. This ad stops us from getting impressions from other ads which generate revenue." I am pretty darn sure they would pull the ad.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No subject
If the banner ads are bad content...
This just made me laugh out loud!!!!
Proof that ADS and CONTENT are different things no matter how effective you make the ad.
Consumers do not want ads infiltrating their content.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
We don't know if the ad content is good or bad
I've used AdBlock for years, and for all I know the ad content is spectacular (I doubt it, though). I'll never see it to find out. So the "data" the advertisers get back simply from being blocked doesn't really help them.
As for what advertisers "deserve," if the CPM data on which their ad rates are based factor in a certain percentage of blockers, then that make sense. But if a large percentage of a site's visitors are blocking the ads and that's not accounted for in the rates, then the audience size is being misrepresented to the advertisers and the rates are probably inflated. But that's an issue to be settled between the site(s) and the advertisers. Not the visitors.
As for Google Ads, I find them completely ignorable. Except for when they piss me off: I work with an animal rescue, and Gmail insists upon serving me ads for puppy and kitten mills. As many would point out, however, that makes them easier to find, and...{insert evil thoughts here}
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No subject
No, you're just tainted by invasive advertising. When advertising is done right, noone minds it at all. This loathing of all ads stems from the fact that you are sick of being abused by ads. And now you are angry at ALL ads, not just the ones that were abusing you. Yes, its a form of discrimination. Hrmm, maybe rick752 should make seperate "intrusive" and "non-intrusive" lists.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I must have been one of the 12. Didn't know about AdBlock now I do and man I'm happy with it!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: And yet...
Who is relying on insults and attacks? Hypocrisy again eh. When you come up with a real response (and maybe learn a little more about the economics of the internet) feel free to chime back in.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
hey nerds and geeks...
what is a "firefox extension" ? I use Office Vista, not the google fire browser. Is it like moving the due date back for more time on a presentation?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: And yet...
Lovely misquoting going there, but I caught your attempted slight of hand.
Not sure what misquoting I'm being accused of (or the sleight of hand either, for that matter). I didn't take anything out of context, so I'm a tad confused.
I simply have an issue with the notion that a web publisher somehow "deserves" to be paid for online content. If they are able to secure payment for their content, more power to them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: And yet...
Yeah the problem is though that ABP denies the sites you are visiting to make money. I am not a troll but I am just saying that there is a better way. And again, if you dont like the ads on a site you dont have to go there.
It would be nice if there were a better way but right now this is how the economics of the internet work. Until that changes all you are doing is undermining the very content you are enjoying.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Actually some of us (like me) just don't like ads. I turn on the TV solely to watch my show. I go to a website solely to read the articles. I pop a DVD in the player solely to match the movie.
I don't have a lot of free time and I don't want to waste any of it by having anyone trying to sell me something. I never go to these sources wondering what the ads are today. I don't care if they are great, intrusive, old, boring, or whatever. I don't like ads.
So, for some of us, technologies like adblock will never serve to improve the quality of ads because I'll always use any (legal) blocking tools I have. I'm sorry if someone's business model depends on ads because, regardless of their quality, they annoy me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Stupid article
Wrong. If the ad was content that was relevant to you then you'd pay attention. That is the point.
And how do "content" and "advertising" differ anyway? "Annoying ads" and "bad content" are the same thing. So are "good/relevant ads" and "good/relevant content".
For example, how does an article on the trend of social networks differ from a good advertisement from Facebook (i.e. a valid message describing what social networks are, who is out there, with focus on the market leading service)?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: They corrupted the net, ABP fixed their corruption
I agree. To be honest, when AdBlock misses an ad on a page I don't automatically block it anymore because I'm starting to see some reasonable, unobtrusive, and relevant ads on some sites. Mind you, they tend to be tech sites with ads that benefit that particular tech company but maybe that's what I like about it. A few simple static picture or, even better, text ads on a site is perfectly acceptable to me. It's this war of "How obnoxious and in your face can I make my ad?" that has made me choose to block large portions of content. The site owners and advertisers need to react to the feedback, not force their way of doing things on us out of laziness.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: And yet...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Ads should be considered content
That's not nit-picky at all. It is completely relevant and accurate.
On top of that, there is NOTHING in the specification of the Web that says that my browser must do exactly what the web author wants it to do. In fact, the specification of the Web is exactly that the client can do whatever it wants with the copy of the content that it downloads. If it wants to go fetch embedded images/ads...that is completely up to the client, not the web author/publisher.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: And yet...
Ads on Tech Dirt? I had no idea. Adblock must be doing it's job. ;)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: And yet...
So, Techdirt makes most of it's money from the Insight community. This blog is here to promote the expertise that can be found in the Insight community -- just look at the end of any of Tim's articles where it pitches him as an analyst. Mike sells webspace to advertisers because they're willing to give him money for it. If someone offered you money, no strings attached, would you turn them away?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: hey nerds and geeks...
If you really care to know, start here:
http://www.getfirefox.com/
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: And yet...
Advertisers and publishers never "deserve" to receive anything. They should only receive what they "earn". Which imho is complete elimination. I don't want to see ads on TV, in print, or on the internet. If I want a good or a service I will find you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Consistency
I would hope that the people that are upset about web site visitors blocking advertisements are consistent in their ad-loving. As in, I'm sure they don't fast-forward through the commercials when they watch their DVR-ed American Idol, right? RIGHT???
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Stupid article
Ever see the "I'm a Mac" ads? I specifically seek those out, because they're entertaining and informative. Yeah, they're ads, but they're -good content-. I'm willing to spend my time watching them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Business model
Techdirt is supported by the Insight community, which makes money by selling economic reports and analysis. The Techdirt blog advertises the expertise of the Insight community. The ads you mention are just gravy; if they went away, Techdirt would still be here.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Stupid article
How does "content" and "advertising" differ? "Good/relevant ads" and "good/relevant content" the same thing?? Are you serious?
Advertising: (from dictionary.com):
1. the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., esp. by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.
The purpose of advertising is to inform you of something the advertiser would like you to buy. Content on a webpage can be anything - including ads, but also anything else.
If I click on a link taking me to a page telling me (just for example) how to drywall my garage, the instructions on how to drywall my garage is the content that I'm looking for. That's what I want. That's all I want. I don't want any other distractions. I may have all the materials and everything else I need, so don't give me helpful ads for your drywall products. If I need materials, I'll go to a site that sells materials and shop there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: And yet...
Yeah the problem is though that ABP denies the sites you are visiting to make money.
Untrue. Adblock might lower their advertising revenues, but it doesn't deny them the ability to make money. It does effect one method of making money on the internet.
It would be nice if there were a better way but right now this is how the economics of the internet work. Until that changes all you are doing is undermining the very content you are enjoying.
And programs like Adblock help influence the economics of the internet by limiting the effectiveness of one business model, which will lead to the development of other, more effective models.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What's the confusion?
The article seems pretty straightforward. Its not about ads in general, its about annoying and obtrusive distractions while browsing. I only regularly visit sites that don't resort to those types of ads, so don't bother to use an ad-blocking extension or whatever people use. Ads don't bother me. Distractions and popups do.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No subject
How is "banner ads are conent" proof that ads and content are different things?
Techdirt is an Ad for the Insight community.
"I'm a Mac" is entertaining content I carry on my iPod.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
But the movie advertises the talent of the actors, the vision of the director, and the discression of the Studio. Have you never said, "Oh, ActorX was good in That One Movie, I think i'll check out their new one"?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Stepping into my flame suit...
The idea that people only block ads because they are annoying is really not true. If tomorrow we somehow were all guaranteed that ads would no longer be annoying, would you choose to not block them? Of course not. Given the choice, people will always block ads regardless of whether they find them annoying or not. No matter how many measures are taken to make the ad unobtrusive, ads are always seen as an interuption and therefore people will want to block them. Case in point, video ads on the web - if you watch Hulu, you'll get one 15 or 30 second commercial at each break, far less than television. But people will still strive to block that one ad - yet they love the fact that the content is free. People's logic is completely backwards, and eventually it will be self defeating. Or, they just don't care and figure everyone else will pay for them. But eventually if enough people block ads, free content won't be around anymore - that's a mathematical certainty. The argument that publishers should just find different ways to make money is flawed. If you're an entertainment provider, there are two methods: pay model, and advertising. 90% (probably more) of the folks complaining about ads would not go the pay route.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wait a second
Doesn't this kind of ignore the whole issue at hand?
If the status quo model for revenue is pay per click, then wouldnt these sites never make a dime off the people who use AdBlock anyway even if they didnt use AdBlock? Its also a huge exaggeration to say that this is something that EVERYONE is doing.
Firefox has about 40% market share and of those people what percentage use adblock (20%)? The way I see it, these are people who would NEVER click an ad in the first place, so where is the issue?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Stepping into my flame suit...
I don't mind Hulu's ads at all. I think the site is awesome with its current ad policies. That might change, who knows. But for not, the ads are extremely well done and not worth the effort to block.
However, I do hate how the studios are (mis)managing the content that is available. Most popular shows only have 4 or 5 episodes available at any time. Or they will have one season of many, which is neither the first nor most recent. Totally annoying, that is.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Wait a second
If the status quo model for revenue is pay per click, then wouldnt these sites never make a dime off the people who use AdBlock anyway even if they didnt use AdBlock?
This is not correct - pay per click is the main model for google, but not for the majority of ads on the net - the ones that people strive to block. Those are paid generally on an impression basis.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Just realized how much I love AdBlock
I've always had AdBlock so I never realized until this article that TechDirt has advertising! I turned it off and sure enough there they were.
I personally like the ads in Gmail. Link and short description, but all txt based. I like reading them as I am reading my emails to see how accurately Google matches ads with my "interests". I do click on a good number of those advertisements too, so kudos Google!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Stepping into my flame suit...
I don't mind Hulu's ads at all. I think the site is awesome with its current ad policies.
That's my point - most folks would block the ads regardless of how conscious Hulu is to not overly annoying folks with ads. If ad blockers become as prevelant as popup blockers, then Hulu will have real problems and definitely would not be around in its present form.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Stepping into my flame suit...
I STRONGLY disagree with this. I WISH ads were useful and entertaining, and if I could be guaronteed that they would be I'd happily give them a look-through. A good ad tells you about a good product or service and why that product or service would be good for you. Why would I not want to know about things that could honestly benefit me?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
@DanC: Okay, I might have been a bit too harsh on you, but it sure did look like you were taking Anon's comment from #14 and rewriting it to mean something different. From the moment I saw both your posts it seemed to me that you're practically agreeing on just about the same thing, but phrasing it differently, and that your post was giving him a lump for not agreeing. So, I'll rule it as miscommunication, and my thinking it was something else.
@Brian: I don't block ads by choice. I've used AdBlock on everything in the past, when some of my favourite sites used horrible, content-blocking Flash ads (one particularly annoying one from ATI comes to mind). Now, if I find a site that insists on obtrusive ads, I'll block them, and nasty ad providers I'll block either through AdBlock, the firewall, or the hosts file. I have no problem with ads, and I'm pretty sure there are many others like me, who just want to avoid the bottom of the quality barrel.
Otherwise, you sound pretty logical and right to me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I remember when online target marketing banner ads really worked. As a consumer, going back as far as say 1997, I remember finding the banner ads that popped up at the top of my Yahoo! mail page to be useful.
Now, I'm a googleite, having long since abandoned Yahoo! and their increasingly overbearing ads that sing, dance and play movies, and clog up my internet pipes. I find myself ignoring content ads almost completely because now, most are either junk, scams or from companies I don't recognize.
In the old Yahoo! days, I did the following: applied for a Chevron gasoline credit card, opened a bank account, and at lesat two credit card accounts, based on 'relevant banner ads' that popped up on my screen. Today, with the rise of internet fraud and realistic-looking phishing fake banner ads, I refuse to click on anything presented to me as an online advertisement.
Back in the old days, when you could still trust online ad content, and I was totally p--d off at my bank (Wells Fargo, thieves and bandits in three-piece suits), I typed in keywords in the Yahoo search engine, like 'I hate my bank' and 'Wells Fargo sucks!' until a relevant ad popped up, leading me to open a bank account with a competing financial institution. Eight, nine years later, I'm still perfectly happy with that bank. This happens to be a company whose primary business isn't banking, and without target banner advertising, I never would have known they offered this service.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
How many times can you say the exact same thing in this article? repeat, repeat...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Adblock saved my life
Plus, think of the bandwidth you're saving not having to load the flash files and all that.
I also use PeerGuardian that acts as a firewall. If you turn on the "advertisers" list, then the sites don't even resolve to their IPs (they resolve to your own localhost) so you don't even download ANYTHING!
Google Text ads don't bother me, and in fact I've unblocked them from adblock. I don't mind clicking the occasional link to help a webmaster out if they actually give me ads worth clicking.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Who says annoying ads aren't effective?
If the banner ads are bad content, then something like AdBlock and EasyList are simply a way of letting sites and advertisers know that the ads are not effective at all, but are annoying.
Your point is based on what I believe is the false assumption that annoying ads aren't effective. Who says annoying ads aren't effective? ("HeadOn!") Most people may think of advertising as a bit of a sleazy business, but they're not stupid. Almost all ads are annoying, so if annoying ads aren't effective, that would mean that almost all ads aren't effective. This is either not true or the companies that advertise have been throwing their money away since the dawn of advertising.
We may not like it, but annoying ads work. Less annoying ads may work better, but probably not enough so to make it worthwhile for most advertisers. Now, perhaps ad blockers will change the model a bit, but not because annoying ads aren't effective, but because people finally have a means to avoid annoying ads.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Who says annoying ads aren't effective?
If the banner ads are bad content, then something like AdBlock and EasyList are simply a way of letting sites and advertisers know that the ads are not effective at all, but are annoying.
Your point is based on what I believe is the false assumption that annoying ads aren't effective. Who says annoying ads aren't effective? ("HeadOn!") Most people may think of advertising as a bit of a sleazy business, but they're not stupid. Almost all ads are annoying, so if annoying ads aren't effective, that would mean that almost all ads aren't effective. This is either not true or the companies that advertise have been throwing their money away since the dawn of advertising.
We may not like it, but annoying ads work. Less annoying ads may work better, but probably not enough so to make it worthwhile for most advertisers. Now, perhaps ad blockers will change the model a bit, but not because annoying ads aren't effective, but because people finally have a means to avoid annoying ads.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Who says annoying ads aren't effective?
Now, perhaps ad blockers will change the model a bit, but not because annoying ads aren't effective, but because people finally have a means to avoid annoying ads.
You mean, because now we can make annoying ads ineffective.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Stupid article
Advertising is the distribution of information to get people to consume your product/service. Information is content.
If the content on your website is good, people consume your service. Content is advertising.
Thinking of the two as separate can be done today mainly because "advertisers" typically put out bad content. That is, they often have an extremely narrowly focused and lopsided message. A smart advertiser would put out content that their target audience actually wants to see/hear/read. In other words, they'd become "content providers".
Don't let the current stereotypes cloud your thinking. Ads and content are one and the same.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: And yet...
You yourself run ads on your site. How do you make money again? Oh thats right, from advertising. The only thing worse than your spouting off about the ads is your hypocrisy.
As I've made clear multiple times, as a publisher, it still makes us some money, but it's a tiny fraction of our revenue, and if it goes away so be it.
It's not hypocrisy to say that ads aren't very effective for getting an advertising message across while still using them as a publisher. My point is that the companies that sell through brand advertising are going to discover it's not worth it.
Then, those sites that rely solely on banner ads will be in trouble.
The real issue is that if the ads are bad and annoying so that people want to block them, then that's going to hurt everyone a lot more than an ad blocker.
Regardless of your view of their monetization effort publishers deserve to be paid for the service they are providing.
No one deserves their business model. You have to earn it. If you piss people off, then you don't deserve anything.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Precisely. It is that exact line of thought that had me go see The Happening. Damn, was that ever a mistake...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Precisely. It is that exact line of thought that had me go see The Happening. Damn, was that ever a mistake...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Just Doesn't Matter
Maybe I'm in the minority, but it just doesn't matter what the ad says, is about, etc. I don't click ads, period. I barely even notice the "Sponsored Links" on the right hand side of a Google search. My mind is trained to just skip over ads. I think a lot of people are actually like this. All the sleazeball advertisements ("Free IPOD!" and "Protect your computer!") have ruined all the others. I look at an ad and think "Malware download."
Advertisers need to find a new model, that's for sure. Advertisements need to be directly related to the page I'm viewing (if I'm on Guitar site show me an ad for a guitar, not a car), should look natural and be undistracting (no music, no "games"), and shouldn't interfere in my browsing (those annoying ones which rolldown and cover everything).
The most effectives ads I've seen are those that the site probably isn't even getting paid for. Reading a forum where someone recommends a certain TV tuner card because it works well with Linux is going to result in me looking up that card and company and probably buying it. Seeing a blog review the new Asus eeePC will get me interested, not some ugly flash banner which screams at me to click here now.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Stupid article
We're going to block ads because they are ads - not because the are ads with "bad content" -
No, you're wrong. You read this post, right? And it's an "advertisement" for Techdirt. You didn't block it because it was relevant content.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I view the comments threaded instead of the list view, and tend to skim over some of the posts. I honestly didn't even notice comment #14 until you pointed it out. My comments were in response to Jesse's post only.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Stepping into my flame suit...
You are still thinking of content and ads as separate things. They are the same thing.
The reason you think of ads as separate is that you still think of it as "information that someone else wants to push on me". But that is exactly what content providers are giving you. You just happen to go "looking for news"...which is information that someone is "trying to push on you".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: And yet...
Me too, and yet I still had ads on my own site.
Note: I say had, because in 7 years of me owning the .com I made a grand total of $250 in advertisements (and I was told that was EXCEPTIONAL!)
Didn't even cover hosting costs and I'd rather my visitors feel like they are on a homepage than a business (I don't care about making money off the site.)
Come to think of it, the ads might go back up now that Adblock is around simply because people have an opportunity to opt-out from seeing them. Hmm so is this a case of Adblock INSPIRING the use of ads?! I believe so!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Business model
OK, so adblock is saying the advert business model doesn't always work? I'm curious- what is the alternative? It's been addressed some in this post already, but TD uses ads themselves. If everyone used AdBlock and no money was made of adverts, what kind of business model would be used to support the website?
Again, if the *content* is good, then there's no problem. You're reading Techdirt, even though it's an "ad" for our business.
People watch BMWFilms because they're interesting films, despite the fact that they're "advertising" for BMW.
People watch the Super Bowl for the ads, because they're more entertaining than the game.
Advertising is not Techdirt's business model, but we do have some ads, but it's more to learn about the advertising process. It's a tiny fraction of our revenue, which is made by selling Insight services to clients.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I did not know ether.
But know I do! and boy is it sweet. I swear it must have increased load time for pages that usually are plastered with ads by at least 50%.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No subject
Proof that ADS and CONTENT are different things no matter how effective you make the ad.
Huh? Not at all. Ads are content. And content are ads. Always. Any bit of content advertises something, and any bit of ads are content.
Where's the proof? I pointed out that ads can be *bad* content, and that's true. And that's the problem I'm pointing out.
But it doesn't change the fact that ads are content.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: And yet...
It would be nice if there were a better way but right now this is how the economics of the internet work. Until that changes all you are doing is undermining the very content you are enjoying.
Not at all. You are simply making it clear that the business model is not effective.
That's not "undermining" the content, it's pushing the publisher to find better ways to monetize.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Actually some of us (like me) just don't like ads. I turn on the TV solely to watch my show. I go to a website solely to read the articles. I pop a DVD in the player solely to match the movie.
And when you watch that TV show, it's advertising that show to you. And when you watch that DVD, it's advertising the actors and directors.
You DO like ads. You just only like them to be good content. If it's bad content, such as banner ads or commercials, then you get annoyed.
I don't have a lot of free time and I don't want to waste any of it by having anyone trying to sell me something. I never go to these sources wondering what the ads are today. I don't care if they are great, intrusive, old, boring, or whatever. I don't like ads.
Yet, you watch TV shows and movies, which are advertising themselves. You just don't think of them as advertising, because the content is good.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What customers want
"In fact, it's usually a sign of what customers really want and how to offer it to them most efficiently."
That's easy. Customers want the best of everything, and they want it for free. You can cease your market analysis now. Trouble is, that doesn't put food on the tables of those who supply it.
"I'm always fascinated by people who seem to think that interference with a business model is either a crime or unethical."
And I'm always fascinated by people who seem to think that trying to protect your current business model is either a crime or unethical...
That being said, I use adblock myself (at least when I'm at home and can install whatever I wish). Like some of the other posters, I try to limit my block list to ad servers, or even specific ads on occasion, that are the most intrusive and detrimental to my enjoyment of the "real" content. If the ad just sits quietly to the side and doesn't get in my way, I'm glad to provide the site a little more ad revenue.
I've seen people argue that getting rid of ads and the revenue they generate doesn't mean there will be any less content available, because there are plenty of other ways the sites can make money. That's simply untrue. It's like saying we don't need fossil fuels because there are alternative energy sources available. Not everything lends itself easily to such a change it what drives it. Some could make the change almost seemlessly, some would need a major overhaul. It's no surprise that would be met with a fair amount of resistance.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ADs SUCK plain and simple - The less the better!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What customers want
That's easy. Customers want the best of everything, and they want it for free. You can cease your market analysis now. Trouble is, that doesn't put food on the tables of those who supply it.
Not true at all. People will pay for value. They always have, always will.
And if you can leverage free stuff to get them to pay for something of value, that DOES put food on the table.
And I'm always fascinated by people who seem to think that trying to protect your current business model is either a crime or unethical...
I never said that it was a crime or that it was unethical. I just said that it was stupid, because it won't work.
And that's true.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Ads should be considered content
"TV ads usually simply sell a slot for a fixed amount regardless of people watching."
I used to work in the TV advertising business. The prices for ads are set based on viewership. The more viewers a show has, the more you pay. Ads run during peak viewing hours cost more than run-of-station (which usually ends up meaning 2-4am)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I did not know ether.
(