3 ms·
"We made the mistake of assuming that everyone who is blocking ads at Ars is doing so with malice." How'd they do that? Ads are annoying, and many people I kno
by rubidium 17y ago
"We made the mistake of assuming that everyone who is blocking ads at Ars is doing so with malice."
How'd they do that? Ads are annoying, and many people I know never click on internet ads. For us (perhaps a minority, I don't know) ad-blocking leads to a better internet. We're probably the ones referred to in the article who are happy to help a website out if they ask for it in another way.
On a different note: Maybe car windshields could someday block billboards...
- mikedouglas 17y agoAds are annoying, and many people I know never click on internet ads. Addressed at the start of the second paragraph: "There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis."
- dschobel 17y agoBut doesn't that reflect a broken model then? If you really and truly never click on ads, what value does the advertiser get from the view (vs a click)?
- mikedouglas 17y agoBranding. Ars Technica is respected among a certain subset of the population and IBM, ScienceNews and GQ want their products associated with that brand. There's far more to marketing than just informing customers about your products.
- boundlessdreamz 17y agoBrand recall (just like an ad on TV)
- JulianMorrison 17y agoI consider attempts to subvert my unconscious mind to be the human equivalent of privilege escalation exploits - they are malicious hacks, I have no tolerance and no sympathy for them.