3 ms·

If I have the mind and knowledge to install an Ad blocker, I was never going to click on your ads anyways.

• axod 17y ago
  How many times..... Many adverts are paid by the impression, not the click.
  • ehsanul 17y ago
    And the more impressions served that have no real value, the lower CPM falls.
• scott_s 17y ago
  From the piece that (I think) started this meta-discussion on HN, http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking... 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. If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue.
  • gills 17y ago
    That quote seems to amount to "download the damn ads anyway, even though it'll be a cold day in hell that you find one useful, so we can get paid." Am I the only person to whom that seems arbitrarily close to coercing users into participating in a scheme to intentionally mis-price advertising rates? Also, "hurt a site financially" seems a bit hyperbolic; ad-blocking users are priced in to CPM. If a content site's audience intersects largely with adblock users, and they don't like the revenue picture, they are more likely to succeed by exploring alternate revenue models or move to serving different audiences, than by convincing their users to change. [edit] I'm not trying to make a judgment on adblockers being right or wrong, just pointing out what I see as inconsistencies in the argument against them.