8 ms·

> So, in the coming weeks, we will restrict access to articles on WIRED.com if you are using an ad blocker. Good luck with that, Wired. The people-who-will-ne

> So, in the coming weeks, we will restrict access to articles on WIRED.com if you are using an ad blocker. Good luck with that, Wired. The people-who-will-never-pay group will split into two: People who never visit your site again, and people who up the ante in the ad-blocking escalation. While you may think that you don't care about the people-who-will-never-pay group, the latter subgroup will release their improved ad-blocker, allowing the people-who-might-have-paid group to continue blocking ads. I don't see this ending well for any party involved.

adt2bt 11y ago
I think they're betting the group of people who pay them $52/year will more than make up for it, at least in the short term.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  They may very well be in for a rude surprise. You can bet they will roll this out with a big name writer's article (Neal Stephenson has written for wired before, that would be a good candidate) to maximize the conversion. If they start it out with a bunch of junk they'll effectively tell people 'save your money'.
aaron695 11y ago
Your comment doesn't make any sense? Don't view ads. Wired doesn't care about you. You contribute nothing back anyway. So by making it a little harder, at least some of those people with morals will be pushed in the right direction to pay or white list ads for free content.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > some of those people with morals As opposed to those without morals who won't white list the trackers or pay up? As opposed to those moral upstanding citizens that run the advertising industry? I don't think that the 'morals' bit needs to be in there, in fact it would be stronger without.
  - aaron695 11y ago
    They are asking, please stop using our content without giving something back. We need something from you to continue. Here are two options. Payment, or ads that we'll try and keep ok. The response is, we'll weaponize and win. Or excuses about how I don't contribute anything but might bring in someone who does, so how dare you. You are going to fail. These are not evidence based arguments. It's not to hard to block Ad Block users. Other media companies have survived with paywalls AND ads. And even if it doesn't work out, Wired can pull back and at least say they tried. It's the self righteous behaviour about it that's immoral. The glee at that they might fail. This can be read both above and below the lines.
    - striking 11y ago
      We don't want to bet on their content being good enough that it's worth so much money. And honestly, if there really is a wall that isn't casually circumventable, then I just won't read it. I don't care enough to pay. If they curated some constantly brilliant content, I'd jump on paying them. But as it is, I rarely end up there anyway.
    - marklgr 11y ago
      > Payment, or ads that we'll try and keep ok. The response is, we'll weaponize and win. You really got to realize this is not about showing ads, ie. some plain jpg/gifs--which a lot of people would accept--but loading tons of tracking scripts that slow you down and violate your privacy. So yeah, I'm gonna protect against that, I don't deem it as an acceptable choice.
      - majewsky 11y ago
        I'm not sure about that. I'm right there with you, but I'm skeptical whether it's a majority opinion. Does anybody have numbers on that?
    - beedogs 11y ago
      How's the weather up there on that tall horse, mister?
- monkmartinez 11y ago
  This isn't a moral argument. This is advertising. Less traffic overall will be bad in the long term. There are no two ways about that.
  - Donzo 11y ago
    So true. It is shortsighted to value your readers only for their capacity to view and click advertisements. Readers also act as distribution nodes, sharing content that they find compelling with others who may or may not use ad blockers. Building walls will result in fewer readers, and as you've noted, less traffic will be bad in the long term...
    - x0x0 11y ago
      Odd how working for exposure is decried when business owners want designers or devs to do it, but grand when we want publishers to do it.
      - michaelmrose 11y ago
        Exposure IS worth something and a business that pays a team of analysts and other professionals ought to be in a position to access this and decide accordingly. In this case in the long run something is better than nothing which is what wired will end up with. As a publication they have little to offer to justify their high subscription cost and the portion of people interested in tech who don't use an ad blocker will eventually be the empty set. Alternatively they could offer tasteful text and image ads served from their own domain and many people would be willing to allow them.
        TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        I'm enjoying the meta - ad machine that sometimes writes about ads writing about its own new ad plans. So tech is having a shake-out at the moment - many assumptions being questioned, many business models being challenged, many unicorns revealed as dead horses. Considering how little of genuine value these businesses contribute - including Wired - I'm not sure they're going to be heavily mourned if they disappear. Is anyone really going to mind much if the Distraction Economy dies over the next few years?
- rosser 11y ago
  people with morals Nice. You might take a moment to consider that some of us who block ads are more concerned about the morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than we are the revenue some arbitrary site may or may not lose from missing our impressions before you start casting stones wildly about like that. I'd probably be very willing to consider whitelisting sites who worked with advertisers that didn't run tracking programs most of the Three Letter Agencies in the West would kill to access — if they didn't already have behind-the-scenes arrangements with them. But that question is probably pretty moot at this point, isn't it?
  - throwaway2048 11y ago
    I prefer the term "online surveillance industry"
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    So, clearly, you instead just directly pay the authors/etc when you can, right? Or does that all conveniently fall by the wayside in your crusade?
    - rosser 11y ago
      When they give me a way to, yes, I actually do. I pay for recurrent subscriptions, plural, to sites that offer and warrant it. At least one of them has been running for a decade or more. Regardless, calling it a "crusade" is the same kind of argument-poisoning that the GP uses with his "people with morals" quip. If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point.
      - DannyBee 11y ago
        "crusade: lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue." Apparently using correct words is now argument poisoning charged rhetoric. Okay. Sorry if you don't like when the definitions of words match what you are doing. "If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point." Let's look at who is using rhetoric here: "morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than " Yeah, i guess i couldn't agree more with you.
- fourneau 11y ago
  "Wired doesn't care about you." isn't true at all. Just because a person who is blocking ads may not generate any revenue directly, they may share the article with someone who doesn't block ads. Losing 20% of their audience may have really painful effects on their reader network.
  - blcArmadillo 11y ago
    Yup, which would in turn affect their advertising since advertisers generally sites with the most traffic.
  - jamespo 11y ago
    I guess they have estimated the impact on revenue that would cause and realised it's minimal.
elorant 11y ago
$52 is way too much for a medium that occasionally publishes something good. OK, that’s just my opinion and it’s highly subjective. But I used to love Wired back in the days when Internet was booming. Nowadays they’re just too irrelevant. All that aside, I’d love a pay-per-article scheme. Give me a summary of the article and if I like it I can pay for it. Sounds much more reasonable than asking me to pay for everything.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Right. I don't read $1 worth of Wired per week. That page I just read was worth maybe $0.001 (and that's being generous). Generally, I'd be happy to match forgone ad income. I wonder how many page views it takes for Wired to earn $1. Edit: Make that $0.01 for the page.
  - bachmeier 11y ago
    > I wonder how many page views it takes for Wired to earn $1. When I read the price, I immediately wondered "what are they doing to my computer with those ads that they're making $52 a year when I read maybe four stories a year?" Companies trying to sell subscriptions have never understood how to set prices. One thing they're not taking into consideration is that you're a lot more likely to click on an article if it costs you nothing but time. For many readers, even $1 a year isn't a good value.
    - mirimir 11y ago
      > Companies trying to sell subscriptions have never understood how to set prices. It's a dead-wood mindset, I think. Sure, I like to read a Wired article now and again. But I don't regularly hit their site. I go there based on search results, links, and so on. There are too many sites at that level for me to bother following. Let alone subscribing. I get that $52 isn't very much. Not for me, that is. But it is for many readers. And so it's not a good choice for a basic subscription. If they don't want to bother with per page pricing, they could at least offer multiple subscription levels.
    - jarnix 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
peteretep 11y ago
I have found out that I try and access a Forbes article about once a week from my cellphone. I've also found that I don't care about any of the links enough to whitelist it. I haven't shared a Forbes link with anyone since then.
- greggman 11y ago
  if I care I just open it in pr0n tab
romanovcode 11y ago
Exactly. I for one will be one of the people who will stop visiting the page altogether since it doesn't provide that much of a content for me personally.
bitmapbrother 11y ago
Why would Wired care about people that use ad blockers and never visit their site again? They're really no value to Wired so why expend resources on them? I have no problem adding Wired.com to my whitelist because I enjoy their articles. >I don't see this ending well for any party involved. I would get used to this. Ad blockers are relatively easy to defeat and if that 20% figure starts getting higher we'll start to see more and more sites employ these countermeasures.
- Programmatic 11y ago
  >Why would Wired care about people that use ad blockers and never visit their site again? They're really no value to Wired so why expend resources on them? Blocking users that use ad blockers and will never visit their site may potentially block a significant chunk of their intended audience. That audience may then share interesting articles with others who are not running ad blockers. I would assume that the cost of serving a single article to a portion of users who will not view ads may be insignificant in comparison.
  - bitmapbrother 11y ago
    Blocking a significant chunk of their audience that doesn't pay for the content they produce, in any way, while expending their resources is of little concern to sites that make their money from advertising.
rsync 11y ago
"Good luck with that, Wired." I can only see this as an act of desperation. They can't possibly think people are going to sign up for $1/mo subscriptions ... they must know that will happen fewer than 1000 times ever. The other half - restricting their content from the exact audience that they supposedly represent ... I feel sorry for them - they must be completely backed in a corner with no good options.

adt2bt 11y ago

I think they're betting the group of people who pay them $52/year will more than make up for it, at least in the short term.

jacquesm 11y ago
They may very well be in for a rude surprise. You can bet they will roll this out with a big name writer's article (Neal Stephenson has written for wired before, that would be a good candidate) to maximize the conversion. If they start it out with a bunch of junk they'll effectively tell people 'save your money'.

aaron695 11y ago

Your comment doesn't make any sense? Don't view ads. Wired doesn't care about you. You contribute nothing back anyway. So by making it a little harder, at least some of those people with morals will be pushed in the right direction to pay or white list ads for free content.

jacquesm 11y ago
> some of those people with morals As opposed to those without morals who won't white list the trackers or pay up? As opposed to those moral upstanding citizens that run the advertising industry? I don't think that the 'morals' bit needs to be in there, in fact it would be stronger without.
- aaron695 11y ago
  They are asking, please stop using our content without giving something back. We need something from you to continue. Here are two options. Payment, or ads that we'll try and keep ok. The response is, we'll weaponize and win. Or excuses about how I don't contribute anything but might bring in someone who does, so how dare you. You are going to fail. These are not evidence based arguments. It's not to hard to block Ad Block users. Other media companies have survived with paywalls AND ads. And even if it doesn't work out, Wired can pull back and at least say they tried. It's the self righteous behaviour about it that's immoral. The glee at that they might fail. This can be read both above and below the lines.
  - striking 11y ago
    We don't want to bet on their content being good enough that it's worth so much money. And honestly, if there really is a wall that isn't casually circumventable, then I just won't read it. I don't care enough to pay. If they curated some constantly brilliant content, I'd jump on paying them. But as it is, I rarely end up there anyway.
  - marklgr 11y ago
    > Payment, or ads that we'll try and keep ok. The response is, we'll weaponize and win. You really got to realize this is not about showing ads, ie. some plain jpg/gifs--which a lot of people would accept--but loading tons of tracking scripts that slow you down and violate your privacy. So yeah, I'm gonna protect against that, I don't deem it as an acceptable choice.
    - majewsky 11y ago
      I'm not sure about that. I'm right there with you, but I'm skeptical whether it's a majority opinion. Does anybody have numbers on that?
  - beedogs 11y ago
    How's the weather up there on that tall horse, mister?
monkmartinez 11y ago
This isn't a moral argument. This is advertising. Less traffic overall will be bad in the long term. There are no two ways about that.
- Donzo 11y ago
  So true. It is shortsighted to value your readers only for their capacity to view and click advertisements. Readers also act as distribution nodes, sharing content that they find compelling with others who may or may not use ad blockers. Building walls will result in fewer readers, and as you've noted, less traffic will be bad in the long term...
  - x0x0 11y ago
    Odd how working for exposure is decried when business owners want designers or devs to do it, but grand when we want publishers to do it.
    - michaelmrose 11y ago
      Exposure IS worth something and a business that pays a team of analysts and other professionals ought to be in a position to access this and decide accordingly. In this case in the long run something is better than nothing which is what wired will end up with. As a publication they have little to offer to justify their high subscription cost and the portion of people interested in tech who don't use an ad blocker will eventually be the empty set. Alternatively they could offer tasteful text and image ads served from their own domain and many people would be willing to allow them.
      - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        I'm enjoying the meta - ad machine that sometimes writes about ads writing about its own new ad plans. So tech is having a shake-out at the moment - many assumptions being questioned, many business models being challenged, many unicorns revealed as dead horses. Considering how little of genuine value these businesses contribute - including Wired - I'm not sure they're going to be heavily mourned if they disappear. Is anyone really going to mind much if the Distraction Economy dies over the next few years?
rosser 11y ago
people with morals Nice. You might take a moment to consider that some of us who block ads are more concerned about the morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than we are the revenue some arbitrary site may or may not lose from missing our impressions before you start casting stones wildly about like that. I'd probably be very willing to consider whitelisting sites who worked with advertisers that didn't run tracking programs most of the Three Letter Agencies in the West would kill to access — if they didn't already have behind-the-scenes arrangements with them. But that question is probably pretty moot at this point, isn't it?
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  I prefer the term "online surveillance industry"
- DannyBee 11y ago
  So, clearly, you instead just directly pay the authors/etc when you can, right? Or does that all conveniently fall by the wayside in your crusade?
  - rosser 11y ago
    When they give me a way to, yes, I actually do. I pay for recurrent subscriptions, plural, to sites that offer and warrant it. At least one of them has been running for a decade or more. Regardless, calling it a "crusade" is the same kind of argument-poisoning that the GP uses with his "people with morals" quip. If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point.
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      "crusade: lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue." Apparently using correct words is now argument poisoning charged rhetoric. Okay. Sorry if you don't like when the definitions of words match what you are doing. "If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point." Let's look at who is using rhetoric here: "morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than " Yeah, i guess i couldn't agree more with you.
fourneau 11y ago
"Wired doesn't care about you." isn't true at all. Just because a person who is blocking ads may not generate any revenue directly, they may share the article with someone who doesn't block ads. Losing 20% of their audience may have really painful effects on their reader network.
- blcArmadillo 11y ago
  Yup, which would in turn affect their advertising since advertisers generally sites with the most traffic.
- jamespo 11y ago
  I guess they have estimated the impact on revenue that would cause and realised it's minimal.

elorant 11y ago

$52 is way too much for a medium that occasionally publishes something good. OK, that’s just my opinion and it’s highly subjective. But I used to love Wired back in the days when Internet was booming. Nowadays they’re just too irrelevant. All that aside, I’d love a pay-per-article scheme. Give me a summary of the article and if I like it I can pay for it. Sounds much more reasonable than asking me to pay for everything.

mirimir 11y ago
Right. I don't read $1 worth of Wired per week. That page I just read was worth maybe $0.001 (and that's being generous). Generally, I'd be happy to match forgone ad income. I wonder how many page views it takes for Wired to earn $1. Edit: Make that $0.01 for the page.
- bachmeier 11y ago
  > I wonder how many page views it takes for Wired to earn $1. When I read the price, I immediately wondered "what are they doing to my computer with those ads that they're making $52 a year when I read maybe four stories a year?" Companies trying to sell subscriptions have never understood how to set prices. One thing they're not taking into consideration is that you're a lot more likely to click on an article if it costs you nothing but time. For many readers, even $1 a year isn't a good value.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    > Companies trying to sell subscriptions have never understood how to set prices. It's a dead-wood mindset, I think. Sure, I like to read a Wired article now and again. But I don't regularly hit their site. I go there based on search results, links, and so on. There are too many sites at that level for me to bother following. Let alone subscribing. I get that $52 isn't very much. Not for me, that is. But it is for many readers. And so it's not a good choice for a basic subscription. If they don't want to bother with per page pricing, they could at least offer multiple subscription levels.
  - jarnix 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

peteretep 11y ago

I have found out that I try and access a Forbes article about once a week from my cellphone. I've also found that I don't care about any of the links enough to whitelist it. I haven't shared a Forbes link with anyone since then.

greggman 11y ago
if I care I just open it in pr0n tab

romanovcode 11y ago

Exactly. I for one will be one of the people who will stop visiting the page altogether since it doesn't provide that much of a content for me personally.

bitmapbrother 11y ago

Why would Wired care about people that use ad blockers and never visit their site again? They're really no value to Wired so why expend resources on them? I have no problem adding Wired.com to my whitelist because I enjoy their articles. >I don't see this ending well for any party involved. I would get used to this. Ad blockers are relatively easy to defeat and if that 20% figure starts getting higher we'll start to see more and more sites employ these countermeasures.

Programmatic 11y ago
>Why would Wired care about people that use ad blockers and never visit their site again? They're really no value to Wired so why expend resources on them? Blocking users that use ad blockers and will never visit their site may potentially block a significant chunk of their intended audience. That audience may then share interesting articles with others who are not running ad blockers. I would assume that the cost of serving a single article to a portion of users who will not view ads may be insignificant in comparison.
- bitmapbrother 11y ago
  Blocking a significant chunk of their audience that doesn't pay for the content they produce, in any way, while expending their resources is of little concern to sites that make their money from advertising.

rsync 11y ago

"Good luck with that, Wired." I can only see this as an act of desperation. They can't possibly think people are going to sign up for $1/mo subscriptions ... they must know that will happen fewer than 1000 times ever. The other half - restricting their content from the exact audience that they supposedly represent ... I feel sorry for them - they must be completely backed in a corner with no good options.