Aja on 19/3/2010 at 22:40
I've been blocking all ads for a while now, and using noscript too. Then I read the Ars piece and decided I could stand to see a few IBM banners if it meant supporting the site. But I couldn't enable the ads without allowing doubleclick.net to run scripts. I didn't really want to do that, since doubleclick is ubiquitous, and I only want to support certain sites. Fortunately there's an overly complicated (but effective) way of allowing particular scripts for particular sites, outlined (
http://vimeo.com/10051719) here. Now, doubleclick.net runs scripts on Ars, Kotaku, or whatever other site I decide to support, and gets blocked from everywhere else.
rachel on 19/3/2010 at 23:05
If it intrudes on content, moves or has sound, I block. I've also seen first hand drive-by infections from trusted sites and seemingly innocuous ads. Truth is, ad servers don't have a clue what they're sending. No trust there, sorry. If it's on my blocklist it's gonna stay there. Typical blocked ads are shit anyway. If it hurts your website because you're pissing off your readers, here's a novel idea: find a new business model.
Matthew on 19/3/2010 at 23:37
Such as?
(Genuinely interested in the alternatives, as it seems like subscriptions and the like only go so far.)
doctorfrog on 20/3/2010 at 00:00
I'll take a stab at it.
When you go to work, you pass billboards. When you watch TV, you generally can't stop the ads coming in. When it comes to the web, now you have a choice, and given that choice, people will overwhelmingly choose not to view ads.
Advertisers have long heldd the upper hand in deciding where and when to insert their message, for so long, that now entire industries rely on advertising. Things like AdBlock put the power squarely in the hands of individuals, who do not want to see ads. Ad companies and content providers feel entitled to money and ad views. Individuals feel entitled to clean layouts and free content.
Advertisers and those who survive on their traditional models have two choices: either find a way to force the ads through the blockage and regain their power, or pay tribute to those who currently have it.
The latter starts with an acknowledgment. "Yes, we have inundated the internet with our shitty business model, spyware, datamining, and other nonsense. We were greedy and stupid. We're sorry and we want to work things out, and we want to earn your trust."
Then the other side has to acknowledge something. "Yes, we know that if we want good content, we'll either have to pay for it, or watch a few ads."
So far, both 'sides' aren't single entities that can sit down and bargain, so both sides will continue to labor in loose groups in a continual arms race.
A similar impasse occurred between music listeners and RIAA. The high price music party had gone on for so long that the RIAA began to feel entitled to it. Now, music listeners are beginning to feel entitled to free music. RIAA went the strongarm route and started suing their listeners. They missed an opportunity to 'sit down' with someone, anyone, and hammer out some sort of compromise.
tl;dr: there is no solution.
Master Villain on 20/3/2010 at 00:35
I used to not mind a few ads on sites - But the local news sites ended up loading so many ads I had no choice but to turn them off to get the news on the day it's reported. If those punks wanted me to load the ads, they wouldn't have done that in the first place.
Also: I'll start viewing ads when they advertise something I can 1: afford; 2: want; 3: something else that would round this out nicely.
PeeperStorm on 20/3/2010 at 04:48
Dear ad companies: As long as the connection is on my dime, I'm going to block everything. Give me free broadband and I'll stop blocking your well behaved ads. You can forget about the ones that act obnoxiously though.
Stitch on 20/3/2010 at 05:37
Nice attitude to cop and all, but raising the cost of your broadband is exactly what they can do compensate for you freeloaders.
rachel on 20/3/2010 at 06:31
I leave ads if they don't annoy me, mind you. Again, as long as they don't intrude, it's ok. To take the billboard example above, yeah, that's all right to have it there on the side, but if the billboard starts moving and takes up your entire windshield while screaming at you for attention, there's something wrong. And it's not me.
denisv on 20/3/2010 at 21:20
I block all ads, always. I can't be manipulated into turning it off.
Someone pointed out on reddit, it's a terrible business model: to a site that earns money from ads, advertisers are the customers, <b>and you are the product they deliver to the advertisers</b>. Think about it.
Stitch on 20/3/2010 at 21:42
Anyone particularly shocked by that revelation has had their head firmly ensconced up their buttocks for the past, what, 170 years? Selling ads to reimburse content ain't anything new.
What is new is the fact that we have the tech to override ads now, which means that the model is going to have to change. Developing content costs money.
