5 ms·

It was inevitable that this would happen. I remember when Opera first added pop-up blocking and plenty of people got mad. This is the same thing: ads are burnin

It was inevitable that this would happen. I remember when Opera first added pop-up blocking and plenty of people got mad. This is the same thing: ads are burning energy, bandwidth, and our time. Now that consumers have been subjected to piles of abusive ads, they're just blocking all of the ads regardless of how bad they are.

ForkFed 11y ago
This notion of "publishers" vs. "comsumers" is myopic ... we're all sitting in the same boat. Lot of benevolent and ad displaying publishers out there (f.x. stackoverflow) and same goes for lot of consumers who donate to content creators they cherish.
mtw 11y ago
Did you ever give consent for ads in your print newspaper? They "load" on the page, without asking
- jalfresi 11y ago
  But they don't cost me actual real money both in terms of bandwidth costs and psychological cost (tracking induces paranoia which curbs my thought, which adjusts my online search behaviour, for one example). Printed adverts in a newspaper do not have these costs.
  - mtw 11y ago
    They do cost real money. The price of the newspaper is proportional to the number of pages printed, including ad pages. You are right about online tracking though.
cookiecaper 11y ago
The downside is that ads are going increasingly incognito, precisely to avoid things that explicitly filter them out. The basic act of renting an audience is not going to be stopped.
- striking 11y ago
  Thank goodness there are rules against truly indistinguishable, native ads. Because they mislead customers into thinking positive-leaning advertisements are actual reviews of products. Further reading: http://adexchanger.com/publishers/ftc-publishers-will-be-held-responsible-for-misleading-native-ads/ http://adexchanger.com/publishers/ftc-publishers-will-be-hel... https://m.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/38gocf/ethics_major_ftc_update_the_ftc_has_updated_their/ https://m.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/38gocf/ethics...
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    That's interesting because PR companies' entire job is to place "native ads".
wutbrodo 11y ago
> Now that consumers have been subjected to piles of abusive ads, they're just blocking all of the ads regardless of how bad they are. Not really; they're blocking all ads except the ones that are unblockable: ads masquerading as content (sponsored posts, etc). It's inevitable to a degree; most people are willing to whine loudly and pretend they have the moral high ground about things that are immediately visible, but unable to think more than one step ahead about the consequences of their actions. Paid content is, by and large, a miserable failure[1] (just look at the history of paid apps relative to ad-supported and IAP), and ad-blocking is on the rise as well. This is just pushing publishers to break one of the oldest rules (and for good reason), and break down the wall between ads and content. [1] With minor exceptions like publications that have established a very strong brand with people of relatively high net worth. It's not a coincidence that the only publications I read regularly that moved to paywalls happen to be over a hundred years old (NYT, WSJ, Economist)
- striking 11y ago
  Paid content is not always awful. Take this tasteful, sponsored Ashens video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUGcjkdIfTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUGcjkdIfTk There is a clear disclosure (no misleading marketing!) and he presents a new and interesting version of his usual show while incorporating the product. It's not selling out, and it's fairly enjoyable (as evidenced by the rating counter on the video, as well as the comments). If I must be advertised to, I prefer this method. Having watched the video, I would actually like to purchase the device mentioned. Not because it was shoved down my throat, but because it is relevant to me and I find it interesting. The video merely brought it to my attention.
  - wutbrodo 11y ago
    Sure, but as usual, anecdotal evidence isn't worth much[1]. I'm sure I can point you to traditional display ads that I've seen on the Web that are tasteful, useful, and unobtrusive. Does that obviate all the complaints people have about display ads overall? Of course not. Similarly, the amount of times I've heard a podcast say "this episode sponsored by blahblah, [explanation of blahblah]" doesn't erase the amount of examples I've seen of an article with a tiny "sponsored by X" at the top. And as is inevitable when financial pressure is great enough, you end up with even well-respected publishers resorting to stuff like this: http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-shrinks-labeling-natives-ads/294473/ http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-shrinks-labeling-n... [1] I'm aware that you're explicitly providing a counter-example, so I'm not disagreeing with your comment. Just saying that it doesn't really address my point.

ForkFed 11y ago

This notion of "publishers" vs. "comsumers" is myopic ... we're all sitting in the same boat. Lot of benevolent and ad displaying publishers out there (f.x. stackoverflow) and same goes for lot of consumers who donate to content creators they cherish.

mtw 11y ago

Did you ever give consent for ads in your print newspaper? They "load" on the page, without asking

jalfresi 11y ago
But they don't cost me actual real money both in terms of bandwidth costs and psychological cost (tracking induces paranoia which curbs my thought, which adjusts my online search behaviour, for one example). Printed adverts in a newspaper do not have these costs.
- mtw 11y ago
  They do cost real money. The price of the newspaper is proportional to the number of pages printed, including ad pages. You are right about online tracking though.

cookiecaper 11y ago

The downside is that ads are going increasingly incognito, precisely to avoid things that explicitly filter them out. The basic act of renting an audience is not going to be stopped.

striking 11y ago
Thank goodness there are rules against truly indistinguishable, native ads. Because they mislead customers into thinking positive-leaning advertisements are actual reviews of products. Further reading: http://adexchanger.com/publishers/ftc-publishers-will-be-held-responsible-for-misleading-native-ads/ http://adexchanger.com/publishers/ftc-publishers-will-be-hel... https://m.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/38gocf/ethics_major_ftc_update_the_ftc_has_updated_their/ https://m.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/38gocf/ethics...
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  That's interesting because PR companies' entire job is to place "native ads".

wutbrodo 11y ago

> Now that consumers have been subjected to piles of abusive ads, they're just blocking all of the ads regardless of how bad they are. Not really; they're blocking all ads except the ones that are unblockable: ads masquerading as content (sponsored posts, etc). It's inevitable to a degree; most people are willing to whine loudly and pretend they have the moral high ground about things that are immediately visible, but unable to think more than one step ahead about the consequences of their actions. Paid content is, by and large, a miserable failure[1] (just look at the history of paid apps relative to ad-supported and IAP), and ad-blocking is on the rise as well. This is just pushing publishers to break one of the oldest rules (and for good reason), and break down the wall between ads and content. [1] With minor exceptions like publications that have established a very strong brand with people of relatively high net worth. It's not a coincidence that the only publications I read regularly that moved to paywalls happen to be over a hundred years old (NYT, WSJ, Economist)

striking 11y ago
Paid content is not always awful. Take this tasteful, sponsored Ashens video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUGcjkdIfTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUGcjkdIfTk There is a clear disclosure (no misleading marketing!) and he presents a new and interesting version of his usual show while incorporating the product. It's not selling out, and it's fairly enjoyable (as evidenced by the rating counter on the video, as well as the comments). If I must be advertised to, I prefer this method. Having watched the video, I would actually like to purchase the device mentioned. Not because it was shoved down my throat, but because it is relevant to me and I find it interesting. The video merely brought it to my attention.
- wutbrodo 11y ago
  Sure, but as usual, anecdotal evidence isn't worth much[1]. I'm sure I can point you to traditional display ads that I've seen on the Web that are tasteful, useful, and unobtrusive. Does that obviate all the complaints people have about display ads overall? Of course not. Similarly, the amount of times I've heard a podcast say "this episode sponsored by blahblah, [explanation of blahblah]" doesn't erase the amount of examples I've seen of an article with a tiny "sponsored by X" at the top. And as is inevitable when financial pressure is great enough, you end up with even well-respected publishers resorting to stuff like this: http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-shrinks-labeling-natives-ads/294473/ http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-shrinks-labeling-n... [1] I'm aware that you're explicitly providing a counter-example, so I'm not disagreeing with your comment. Just saying that it doesn't really address my point.