1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why adblocking is devestating to websites

Discussion in 'Economics and Financials' started by padre31, Mar 7, 2010.

  1. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/52523.html

    This is a thorny issue, on one hand Website owners do and should have a profit motive, on the other hand, visitors just wish to read the content and not read ads, so imho a happy medium is not disallowing the ads to show, but to rarely click on the things.

    What say you?
     
  2. BigDogsHunt

    BigDogsHunt Enough talk...prove it!

    22,464
    9,905
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    DC Metro Area
    I say they are full of excuses, and their analogy doesn't hold water...

    No, your revenue concerns are not my problem. Charge for your content direct to the viewer for their time spent, and then I will decide if I want to pay for what you offer and I consume....but don't charge as your business decision, therefore, I control if I want anything in addition to your content of interest and if its valuable for me for my time spent.

    And the whole restaurant argument is silly...no, I am not consuming your food and then not paying...I am consuming your free "food" cause you offer it as free to me ~ thus I don't need to pay.

    40% didn't come and not pay.....you had a sign saying free dessert sampling ~ contributions welcome...try one....then look down your nose and say, how come you didn't contribute? BS!

    The answer is simple ~ If free, I get to choose if I want to contribute....its my choice. I can therefore block ads that are a waste of my time to view. You have given me the choice, I can therefore exercise that choice.
     
  3. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    The food would not be "free" simply because the payment comes in the form of advertising that is billable, it is somewhat similiar to the "free weekend in Tahoe" deal wherein one visits the Condos, and hears the sales pitch, then enjoys the weekend.
     
  4. BigDogsHunt

    BigDogsHunt Enough talk...prove it!

    22,464
    9,905
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    DC Metro Area
    But thats not their business model......their business model doesnt FORCE you to view the ads.....since they havent been able to UN-Block the Blocker.

    All these analogies don't hold up......if I could figure a way to not "hear" the sales pitch I would, and still get the FREE weekend in Tahoe.

    The business model is flawed, yet, they want to point fingers at the customer and claim the customer is doing it wrong. Sorry, dont waste my time with this nonsense if as a FOR PROFIT business you cant figure out how to ensure profits.
     
  5. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Which proves..nothing..if one perfected a way to skip out on paying the bill then the invisible hand of self interest would continue to skip out.



    Then it would not be "free", There ain't no such thing as a free lunch is still quite valid no?


    One is not a customer, one would be a consumer whilst avoiding paying for what is consumed.

    For example, if one could write checks with an invisible pen, one would never have to pay, the technology is there to allow one to do so...
     
  6. BigDogsHunt

    BigDogsHunt Enough talk...prove it!

    22,464
    9,905
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    DC Metro Area
    It proves everything....you cant claim its free but then expect compensation....if you can control my time while I seek something promoted as Free, fine, if you cant, then control returns to me. Its not skipping out on monetary since its FREE, its strickly time.

    Lots of FREE lunches when that is whats offered.

    No, on a website that does not charge for content its symantics over consumer or customer description. I am not avoiding paying for anything that is not being charged. So being FORCED to watch ads is not my problem if another legal and FREE avenue allows me to avoid it. Its not my problem. Dont let other peoples problems become your problems. You have zero obligation.

    You cant bring monetary arguments about check writing with invisible ink, or skipping out on food bill, since this website content is advertised and promoted and offered as FREE. Thus, I am not robbing anyone. Once you promote a PRICE for me to consume, then I am obligated if I agree to price, and choose to consume....however, for as long as you promote it as FREE, yet attempt to backdoor "Revenue" over ads, then you need to spend more time figuring out your problem with un-ad-blockers...not with me.

    The bottomline, is their gripe should be with ad-blocking technology...not with the customer/consumer of their FREE content. Fix that problem, but stop whining and making it my problem. Its not my problem!
     
  7. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    But a "free lunch" is not being offered, an exchange of time being exposed to ads for content on the site is.



    Let me ask then, does the site that is displaying the ads also offer programs to block the ads they display?

    why not?
     
  8. BigDogsHunt

    BigDogsHunt Enough talk...prove it!

    22,464
    9,905
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    DC Metro Area
    Its FREE if you can not enforce your own wishful policy or guarantee its execution. And its has been FREE to 40% based on their numbers. So, yes, it is quite clearly FREE for that 40% smart enough to BEAT THEM AT THEIR OWN GAME.

    I cant answer your second question, as I do not fully comprehend the intent....:lol:
     
  9. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    That is odd, as enforcement only occurs when there is a default..

    Neither do I....:lol:

    Someone page JJ...:D
     
  10. BigDogsHunt

    BigDogsHunt Enough talk...prove it!

    22,464
    9,905
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    DC Metro Area
    Enforcement of a policy is the responsibilty of the website....they could create lots of policies, but if they cant enforce them, they are invalid and a waste as they have nothing to claim from a default of what cannot be enforced. And that is exactly what they are claiming and complaining about ~ a policy they cant enforce and cant seek default...they can only whine.

    They would love to have the policy be 100% of all ads are not blocked, but they cant enforce that. So at this point 40% have been able to block ads yet still view the content they really came to the site for....they are not in default of anything.

    Again, its not the problem of the 40%.....its up to the website to manage and enforce its policy wishlist.

    No default has occured that would put the customer/conusmer at fault. Thats the difference.

    Their "real" beef needs to be directed at the ad-blocking creators...not the consumer that employs the ad-blocking service.
     
  11. DearbornDolfan

    DearbornDolfan Active Member

    375
    146
    43
    Mar 7, 2009
    I'm with BigDog on this. Also, having something of a background in web design, I can only say that aesthetics plays a big part in peoples' perceptions when visiting a website and ads are universally regarded as annoying and tacky. In the end that's why people block ads, because they're horrible to look at and disrupt the intake of information with pointless content.
     
  12. Desides

    Desides Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    38,945
    20,022
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    Adblocking indeed hurts websites. But I do it anyway, because my issue isn't with the existence of advertisements, but rather their nature.

    I don't need inline text advertising links. I don't need gigantic banners that pop on top of my screen and play music until I find a microscopic-sized close button somewhere on the image. I don't need popups and popunders and Flash content littering the page.

    If advertisers wish to defeat adblockers, they should construct less annoying ads.
     
  13. DOLBET

    DOLBET Active Member

    114
    48
    28
    Jan 10, 2009
    I don't mind ads but the problem is that sites are never happy with one ad...

    I use ad blocker cuz I am getting tired of seeing 5 to 7 popups every webpage :D

    If they limit themselves to 1 ad per visit, not per webpage then I will take off ad blocker...
     
  14. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,325
    3,682
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    Ads are often unscreened, and rife with malware as well. Nobody wants to chance that ****.
     
    adamprez2003 likes this.
  15. Muck

    Muck Throwback Uniform Crusader Retired Administrator

    14,525
    22,244
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Sunny Florida
    As a website owner, obviously I'm going to be against ad blockers. :lol: I stopped running ad blockers years ago. It would be hypocritical of me to do so.

    We take great care to ensure that the ads shown on our site are safe and not obnoxious. Troublesome streams get pulled immediately.

    We are quite fortunate in that we are able to charge for some of our content. Not everyone is so lucky. In fact, the vast majority aren't so lucky.

    Like it or not, ads are the lifeblood of the web and will continue to be in the future.

    I don't think it's that cut and dry.

    If you know that a site survives on ads, and you know that blocking them takes money out of their pockets and choose to block them anyway.....

    See what I'm getting at?

    The newspaper business is dying. They're being forced into a web format more and more (not that I'm opposed to that). You can't block ads on a physical newspaper.

    My point is, the big boys (ESPN, Fanhouse, etc.) are buying up the local talent. If you want good beat guys to remain on the local beat, you want to support the local newspaper (website).

    If you have an adblocker, you have the option of whitelisting individual sites. It is generally a good practice to do so on sites you support IMO.
     
  16. Muck

    Muck Throwback Uniform Crusader Retired Administrator

    14,525
    22,244
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Sunny Florida
    You might as well leave your ad blocker on.

    The above scenario significantly slashes the revenue stream. Many sites are paid per impression. If you visit 10 pages, they get paid 10 times. And this ain't big money. Many times you're talking fractions of a penny, depending on the site.

    Obviously there is much to be said about placement, content and delivery.

    But very few sites can survive the way you describe.
     
  17. BigDogsHunt

    BigDogsHunt Enough talk...prove it!

    22,464
    9,905
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    DC Metro Area
    I do see, but again, not my problem. And I say that on behalf of the 40% that look at it that way.

    They choose to browse a given site for their enjoyment and value of the content only.....and if they can do that freely.....the revenue or profitability of that site, especialy one that does not charge directly for the content they are offering, is of no concern of theirs. And rightly so. As a site owner, if you leave the revenue at the whim or mercy of the "AD view or click approach" you are leaving your revenue to a game of chance. Its a game of chance because you gave up control on how assured you are to receive revenue with ad-blocking technology at the disposal of your viewership.

    So, what you are getting at is the hope that your #1 wish is to have lots of viewers (logical), and your wish #2 is that all viewers would be willing to seek enjoyment while also contributing to your revenue stream by viewing ads (or clicking in those cases) (illogical). Because in reality for 40% in this exampe, the level of enjoyment is often related to no-ads, and thus is in direct conflict with your #2 wish. You need to adjust your plans to provide a valid reason to guarantee 100% revenue by blocking the ad-blockers (haha) or convince all viewers to allow the ads to be viewed (not likely); or readjust your expect revenue to be 60%; or figure out how to increse viewership to make up or the 40% that will use the ad-blocking approach. Which would be close to double the viewership to account for the 60/40 split.

    Again, most folk wake up and oneday realilze, we dont need make someone elses problem our problem ~ thats all I am saying.

    (P.S. not that it matters, but I dont personally use ad-blocker services - but I see their value)
     
  18. Boik14

    Boik14 Admin Club Member Retired Administrator

    71,411
    31,341
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    I agree with you, however the flipside to that is the ads may not get noticed if they didnt jump out in some way. Having worked in advertising and majored in it in college, they design stuff with the intent of catching your attention.

    Never stopped me from using an ad blocker though :wink2:
     
  19. Zeke0123

    Zeke0123 message board ******* Club Member

    5,602
    3,613
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    I use a pop up blocker...Ive had to many nightmares with stuff before massive spyware bots ect clinging on my browser for me its more a defensive measure against malware...I dont use anything called an "adblocker' and can see any and all advertisements on a given webpage Am I missing something..I dont want to block what I consider "standard" advertising.
     
  20. Desides

    Desides Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    38,945
    20,022
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    Google makes millions from plain text advertising, so it's possible to have profitable, unobtrusive ads.
     
  21. Muck

    Muck Throwback Uniform Crusader Retired Administrator

    14,525
    22,244
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Sunny Florida
    I don't know what we're debating really, other than who content providers are allowed to have beef with.

    If I walked over to your desk and saw you browsing my site with an ad blocker, I'd give you **** about it because it's a slap in the face. ;)

    The only difference here is distance and anonymity.
     
    BigDogsHunt likes this.

Share This Page