6 ms·

What’s Wrong With Blocking Ads?

28 points by miles 17y ago

metamemetics 17y ago
I was thinking about this recently. My idea was to integrate advertisers as regular users into my web app. Advantages: Ads are ordinary pictures hosted from my site\domain without javascript so not blockable. No annoying animations for my visitors. Manually targetted ads with a much higher click through rate. No middle man. Could maybe come up with some sort of market algorithm to change price to advertise based on demand rather than negotiating every deal. Disadvantage: Would probably have to roll my own tracking system? Wouldn't be able to implement as many statistics for advertisers. Increased liability. Harder for small sites. Does anyone know what the state of "off-the-shelf" advertising systems is for big sites that want to sell ads directly rather than rely on adsense/3rd parties? If anyone wants to hash out some ideas\code for a plug-n-play ad system that sites can drop on there server, gives advertisers dynamic quotes, handles payments/uploads hit me up at dhllndr at gmail, or aim redfoxbeatbox. Could be a good seperate product to monetize.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
Batsu 17y ago
I take it this is somehow related to the other post about blocking ads. This post is from 2007, and this quote... >>And in short, due to the fact that tools like this exist, several webmasters are now refusing to allow netizens to access their respective websites via a Firefox browser. ... seems incredibly off base. I'm hoping there's something I'm missing that made this post interesting.
- doron 17y ago
  Back in 2007 a blogger named Danny Carlton blocked Firefox due to the use of adblock. some back story can be found here http://adblockplus.org/blog/ads-dont-generate-money http://adblockplus.org/blog/ads-dont-generate-money. For myself, i user adblock and it is very hard for me to imagine my internet experience without it, i eagerly await Fennec on the android platform so i can block ads on my cell browser, it is especially painful there
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
axod 17y ago
Here's a simple detect function if you want to show adblock users a big paywall, which could be good if you have enough of them. function detect(cb) { var tt = document.createElement("div"); tt.style.display = "none"; document.body.appendChild(tt); var i = document.createElement("iframe"); i.src = "http://adv.foo.com/ads/-adspace?ad_id=&affiliate=&advert=678"; var foo = i.style.cssText; tt.appendChild(i); window.setTimeout(function() { cb(foo!=i.style.cssText); }, 200); } the callback 'cb' will be called with true if adblock is installed.
- doron 17y ago
  To Quote Wladimir Palant, developer of Adblock Plus "There is only one reliable way to make sure your ads aren't blocked - make sure the users don't want to block them. Don't forget about the users, use ads in a way that doesn't degrade their experience."
- jimmyjim 17y ago
  Sounds like a very small phase in a cat-and-mouse chase. The people who use AdBlock are pretty technically savvy, they'll jump on another plug-in that bypasses the hack you've just mentioned in no time. And the hack doesn't work anyway for some existing popular adblock extensions. Perhaps it would be more worthwhile to move to a different model altogether.
  - radu_floricica 17y ago
    Many technical minded people tend to think that if something will eventually fail, it's not worth doing. There's an old joke about a horse trainer who was ordered by his king, under penalty of death, to teach his horse to speak. So he very methodically starts to do just that. When asked why he's trying to do the impossible, he answers: "Teaching takes a long time. Maybe the king dies. Maybe the horse dies. Or maybe the horse learns to talk."
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Maybe Adblock is updated the next day, and you basically wasted your afternoon. Time you will never get back, all for nothing.
sz 17y ago
An ironic point is that blocking ads actually raises the probability that I will buy the advertisers' product. Example: whenever I see the word "Netflix" now I am conditioned to want to punch a hole through the nearest computer screen. Had I blocked all their ads I may have eventually considered using them. Now I just think of them as the giant annoying red box that inserts itself between me and content I'm interested in.
- jimmyjim 17y ago
  Wow, so I'm not the only one. I recall being bombarded by their ads via snailmail about 5 years ago, and developing the perception that Netflix was some money-hungry scamming company. It is for that reason so uncanny now to hear my trusted circle of peers recommend Netflix to me sometimes.
- sunir 17y ago
  It's not ironic. It's statistics. Advertising works on a percentage basis across a population. Over all, it sells more products. If it didn't, people would stop doing it. You may happen to fit within a percentage of the population that will not buy the product after seeing an ad, but that segment is far, far smaller than the percentage of the population that will go out and buy a product after seeing an ad.
  - pedrocr 17y ago
    Then assuming the people that block ads are the same that have adverse reactions to them advertisers should like ad blockers.
- davidmurphy 17y ago
  You know what I find annoying? All those Netflix ads when I already am a subscriber. Same with any other company's ads when I already use their products....
  - nfnaaron 17y ago
    The amount of intimate information necessary to prevent ads served to existing customers would put me right off the internet.
houseabsolute 17y ago
> There is nothing ethically or morally wrong with an ad-blocker. Haha, that is a huge, unbacked assertion in this article. Maybe under some ethical systems it's not wrong. However, some of us recognize the concept of a social contract where there is an implicit agreement that if you want to use someone else's resources and they ask payment for it, you are obligated to either 1. Pay them the way they ask (including by viewing the ads they ask you to). or 2. Not use their resources. Option three, which is to circumvent paying them by some means, does not become ethical merely because it's easy. You could also look at this through the lens of the categorical imperative. We haven't yet devised a means through which people can pay for things efficiently over the internet. Ads are the only current viable way to conduct business in situations that call for many small payments for small pieces of content. If everyone blocks ads, this business model becomes impossible, creating a detrimental reality. Thus, according to the categorical imperative, ad blocking is immoral. > It is no different than using any other technology to filter language or explicit content. This is incorrect. On typical webpages the author of the content is not being compensated for your hearing curse words or the possibility of your hearing them. > No one is being harmed. Not in a direct sense, but in a statistical and economic sense they are. Basically, this entire article-let is a big instance of begging the question. It reduces to "nothing is wrong with blocking ads because there's nothing unethical about blocking ads," with no correct support. Or, to put it even more ridiculously (but, I think, still being fair to the actual logical content of the article): "nothing is wrong with blocking ads because nothing is wrong with blocking ads."
- rue 17y ago
  > 1. Pay them the way they ask. Perhaps you are overlooking the actual problem: they are asking to be paid $0. There is no price for using the service. They hope to make their buck from a commission on third-party auxiliary content. If they ask to be paid something, i.e. institute a micropayment- or subscription system, circumventing that is unethical, I agree.
  - houseabsolute 17y ago
    The price is downloading and displaying the ads. I'm sorry if that was unclear -- I'll edit my previous post to make it more obvious.
vaksel 17y ago
Frankly I think what all sites should do is offer ad-free option. And I'm not talking about the greedy...let's charge $4.99 a month for ad-free service. No, I mean charge users what you are likely to see from them over a year $1-2 one-time micropayment. This way you still get to make money off ads, you show the passers by...but your core users, can opt out for a small fee. You win, by earning the $$$ you'd ever see from them in a single period. And they win, by not having ads on a site they use all the time.
jrockway 17y ago
And in short, due to the fact that tools like this exist, several webmasters are now refusing to allow netizens to access their respective websites via a Firefox browser. LOL, using user-supplied data as an access control method? Sure, keep doing that, it works great! I also recommend replacing the locks on your house with a sign that says, "Authorized personnel only."
motters 17y ago
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with blocking ads, especially if you find them offensive. Some of the worst examples feature rapidly flashing animations. To someone like me they're just an irritant to be eliminated as quickly as possible. To someone with epilepsy the situation could be more serious. This sort of disrespectful advertising is what we don't want to see on the web. I'm not against advertising online, but I think there need to be changes in the way ads are served/approved/regulated - perhaps with an industry-wide code of conduct being adopted. Ads are subject to regulation when they're shown on television, and maybe there needs to be some similar process for the internet.
ndl 17y ago
I at least somewhat believe that ad-blocking is a symptom rather than a problem. Some advertising legitimately alerts me to things I find interesting, and I avoid blocking ads in general for this reason. Most, however, are repulsive and inconveniencing - I rarely watch enough of an advertisement to see what it actually sells. I generally like ad-supported content models, however, and usually am willing to let the banners ads have their place if it keeps a valuable site in business. What offends me is the new class of ad that comes with built-in audio. I may add your site to my blocklist/spamlist for doing this. This kind of ad causes awkward social situations and trouble in the office - someone's computer randomly starts blaring out noise in what should be a quiet and focused environment. This is not a social contract - this is a trap. I think this debate exists for stupid reasons. Advertisers and webmasters have apparently forgotten that ads are supposed to sell something to a customer. If potential customers run away from your ad, then it's time to fire the ad agency and question product-market fit.
ErrantX 17y ago
I think dubbing ad-blockers as stealing is, clearly, idiotic. But I think it's a fair assertion that your depriving the displaying site of revenue for their content. If everyone used ad blockers would big news agencies offer free services like they currently do? But then adverts can be a big annoyance. Both sides have a clear point here. The problem is that the ad blockers hold all the cards - if sites put up a paywall for ad blockers they lose custom. If they circumvent the blockers they just draw fire. If they denounce the blockers they get berated. Lets at least be a bit ethical: ad blockers are cool. But if you like a site and it's contents and your a regular visitor consider unblocking their ads :) this is what I do and I dont begrudge them it (I will still block some of the more "in your face" ads on a case by case basis)

28 points by miles 17y ago

I was thinking about this recently. My idea was to integrate advertisers as regular users into my web app. Advantages: Ads are ordinary pictures hosted from my site\domain without javascript so not blockable. No annoying animations for my visitors. Manually targetted ads with a much higher click through rate. No middle man. Could maybe come up with some sort of market algorithm to change price to advertise based on demand rather than negotiating every deal. Disadvantage: Would probably have to roll my own tracking system? Wouldn't be able to implement as many statistics for advertisers. Increased liability. Harder for small sites. Does anyone know what the state of "off-the-shelf" advertising systems is for big sites that want to sell ads directly rather than rely on adsense/3rd parties? If anyone wants to hash out some ideas\code for a plug-n-play ad system that sites can drop on there server, gives advertisers dynamic quotes, handles payments/uploads hit me up at dhllndr at gmail, or aim redfoxbeatbox. Could be a good seperate product to monetize.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

Batsu 17y ago

I take it this is somehow related to the other post about blocking ads. This post is from 2007, and this quote... >>And in short, due to the fact that tools like this exist, several webmasters are now refusing to allow netizens to access their respective websites via a Firefox browser. ... seems incredibly off base. I'm hoping there's something I'm missing that made this post interesting.

doron 17y ago
Back in 2007 a blogger named Danny Carlton blocked Firefox due to the use of adblock. some back story can be found here http://adblockplus.org/blog/ads-dont-generate-money http://adblockplus.org/blog/ads-dont-generate-money. For myself, i user adblock and it is very hard for me to imagine my internet experience without it, i eagerly await Fennec on the android platform so i can block ads on my cell browser, it is especially painful there

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

axod 17y ago

Here's a simple detect function if you want to show adblock users a big paywall, which could be good if you have enough of them. function detect(cb) { var tt = document.createElement("div"); tt.style.display = "none"; document.body.appendChild(tt); var i = document.createElement("iframe"); i.src = "http://adv.foo.com/ads/-adspace?ad_id=&affiliate=&advert=678"; var foo = i.style.cssText; tt.appendChild(i); window.setTimeout(function() { cb(foo!=i.style.cssText); }, 200); } the callback 'cb' will be called with true if adblock is installed.

doron 17y ago
To Quote Wladimir Palant, developer of Adblock Plus "There is only one reliable way to make sure your ads aren't blocked - make sure the users don't want to block them. Don't forget about the users, use ads in a way that doesn't degrade their experience."
jimmyjim 17y ago
Sounds like a very small phase in a cat-and-mouse chase. The people who use AdBlock are pretty technically savvy, they'll jump on another plug-in that bypasses the hack you've just mentioned in no time. And the hack doesn't work anyway for some existing popular adblock extensions. Perhaps it would be more worthwhile to move to a different model altogether.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  Many technical minded people tend to think that if something will eventually fail, it's not worth doing. There's an old joke about a horse trainer who was ordered by his king, under penalty of death, to teach his horse to speak. So he very methodically starts to do just that. When asked why he's trying to do the impossible, he answers: "Teaching takes a long time. Maybe the king dies. Maybe the horse dies. Or maybe the horse learns to talk."
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Maybe Adblock is updated the next day, and you basically wasted your afternoon. Time you will never get back, all for nothing.

sz 17y ago

An ironic point is that blocking ads actually raises the probability that I will buy the advertisers' product. Example: whenever I see the word "Netflix" now I am conditioned to want to punch a hole through the nearest computer screen. Had I blocked all their ads I may have eventually considered using them. Now I just think of them as the giant annoying red box that inserts itself between me and content I'm interested in.

jimmyjim 17y ago
Wow, so I'm not the only one. I recall being bombarded by their ads via snailmail about 5 years ago, and developing the perception that Netflix was some money-hungry scamming company. It is for that reason so uncanny now to hear my trusted circle of peers recommend Netflix to me sometimes.
sunir 17y ago
It's not ironic. It's statistics. Advertising works on a percentage basis across a population. Over all, it sells more products. If it didn't, people would stop doing it. You may happen to fit within a percentage of the population that will not buy the product after seeing an ad, but that segment is far, far smaller than the percentage of the population that will go out and buy a product after seeing an ad.
- pedrocr 17y ago
  Then assuming the people that block ads are the same that have adverse reactions to them advertisers should like ad blockers.
davidmurphy 17y ago
You know what I find annoying? All those Netflix ads when I already am a subscriber. Same with any other company's ads when I already use their products....
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  The amount of intimate information necessary to prevent ads served to existing customers would put me right off the internet.

houseabsolute 17y ago

> There is nothing ethically or morally wrong with an ad-blocker. Haha, that is a huge, unbacked assertion in this article. Maybe under some ethical systems it's not wrong. However, some of us recognize the concept of a social contract where there is an implicit agreement that if you want to use someone else's resources and they ask payment for it, you are obligated to either 1. Pay them the way they ask (including by viewing the ads they ask you to). or 2. Not use their resources. Option three, which is to circumvent paying them by some means, does not become ethical merely because it's easy. You could also look at this through the lens of the categorical imperative. We haven't yet devised a means through which people can pay for things efficiently over the internet. Ads are the only current viable way to conduct business in situations that call for many small payments for small pieces of content. If everyone blocks ads, this business model becomes impossible, creating a detrimental reality. Thus, according to the categorical imperative, ad blocking is immoral. > It is no different than using any other technology to filter language or explicit content. This is incorrect. On typical webpages the author of the content is not being compensated for your hearing curse words or the possibility of your hearing them. > No one is being harmed. Not in a direct sense, but in a statistical and economic sense they are. Basically, this entire article-let is a big instance of begging the question. It reduces to "nothing is wrong with blocking ads because there's nothing unethical about blocking ads," with no correct support. Or, to put it even more ridiculously (but, I think, still being fair to the actual logical content of the article): "nothing is wrong with blocking ads because nothing is wrong with blocking ads."

rue 17y ago
> 1. Pay them the way they ask. Perhaps you are overlooking the actual problem: they are asking to be paid $0. There is no price for using the service. They hope to make their buck from a commission on third-party auxiliary content. If they ask to be paid something, i.e. institute a micropayment- or subscription system, circumventing that is unethical, I agree.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  The price is downloading and displaying the ads. I'm sorry if that was unclear -- I'll edit my previous post to make it more obvious.

vaksel 17y ago

Frankly I think what all sites should do is offer ad-free option. And I'm not talking about the greedy...let's charge $4.99 a month for ad-free service. No, I mean charge users what you are likely to see from them over a year $1-2 one-time micropayment. This way you still get to make money off ads, you show the passers by...but your core users, can opt out for a small fee. You win, by earning the $$$ you'd ever see from them in a single period. And they win, by not having ads on a site they use all the time.

jrockway 17y ago

And in short, due to the fact that tools like this exist, several webmasters are now refusing to allow netizens to access their respective websites via a Firefox browser. LOL, using user-supplied data as an access control method? Sure, keep doing that, it works great! I also recommend replacing the locks on your house with a sign that says, "Authorized personnel only."

motters 17y ago

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with blocking ads, especially if you find them offensive. Some of the worst examples feature rapidly flashing animations. To someone like me they're just an irritant to be eliminated as quickly as possible. To someone with epilepsy the situation could be more serious. This sort of disrespectful advertising is what we don't want to see on the web. I'm not against advertising online, but I think there need to be changes in the way ads are served/approved/regulated - perhaps with an industry-wide code of conduct being adopted. Ads are subject to regulation when they're shown on television, and maybe there needs to be some similar process for the internet.

ndl 17y ago

I at least somewhat believe that ad-blocking is a symptom rather than a problem. Some advertising legitimately alerts me to things I find interesting, and I avoid blocking ads in general for this reason. Most, however, are repulsive and inconveniencing - I rarely watch enough of an advertisement to see what it actually sells. I generally like ad-supported content models, however, and usually am willing to let the banners ads have their place if it keeps a valuable site in business. What offends me is the new class of ad that comes with built-in audio. I may add your site to my blocklist/spamlist for doing this. This kind of ad causes awkward social situations and trouble in the office - someone's computer randomly starts blaring out noise in what should be a quiet and focused environment. This is not a social contract - this is a trap. I think this debate exists for stupid reasons. Advertisers and webmasters have apparently forgotten that ads are supposed to sell something to a customer. If potential customers run away from your ad, then it's time to fire the ad agency and question product-market fit.

ErrantX 17y ago

I think dubbing ad-blockers as stealing is, clearly, idiotic. But I think it's a fair assertion that your depriving the displaying site of revenue for their content. If everyone used ad blockers would big news agencies offer free services like they currently do? But then adverts can be a big annoyance. Both sides have a clear point here. The problem is that the ad blockers hold all the cards - if sites put up a paywall for ad blockers they lose custom. If they circumvent the blockers they just draw fire. If they denounce the blockers they get berated. Lets at least be a bit ethical: ad blockers are cool. But if you like a site and it's contents and your a regular visitor consider unblocking their ads :) this is what I do and I dont begrudge them it (I will still block some of the more "in your face" ads on a case by case basis)