4 ms·

This article concludes that adblockers are "losing"... But do you know what happens when I see a modal asking me to whitelist the site? See ya! This isn't some

This article concludes that adblockers are "losing"... But do you know what happens when I see a modal asking me to whitelist the site? See ya! This isn't some critical thing I rely on to survive. It's Forbes. I don't need any of their content, and I'm totally fine walking away until my particular blend of adblockers can block the garbage on their site again.

user5994461 10y ago
Wow Forbes. I've been unable to read that site for years. Is there even content somewhere after all the popups and redirections? Hard to tell.
- davidgerard 10y ago
  Yes, usually a sponsored op-ed blog presented as if it's an actual article.
bumblebeard 10y ago
Agreed, although maybe this is what they want to happen. If you use their bandwidth and they don't make any money off your visit, then they probably don't care if you never come back. I'm like you though; I actively avoid reading sites that do this. I also block JavaScript by default, which helps to mitigate a lot of other annoyances and privacy invasions.
- flukus 10y ago
  The don't realize the relationship is symbiotic though. Part of the value of big news sites like forbes is their influence. To an extent they are widely read because they are widely read, people read it to see what others are reading.
  - dismantlethesun 10y ago
    Perhaps, but as an alternative perspective.... I work for a midlevel publisher. Nearly of our content is syndicated, with very nearly none if it being unique. Our value -add is our selectivity, and great on-site user experience when it comes to filtering and subscriptions. 20% of our readers use adblock. For video content which is a mere fraction of our site, that comes out to $700 a day in bandwidth costs going to adblock users, or $21,000 in the average month. That's a lot. What publisher wouldn't fall over themselves to get 20% more profits in a given year? In the last year, we grew approximately 20% but our % of adblock users soared so while costs are up, revenue is flat. This isn't a sustainable situation. I have a lot of sympathy for people who do not want to see intrsuive advertisement, and I myself feel the same way sometimes, but when it comes down to sheer costs---we can't afford to subsidize adblock users. I'm unconviced that adblock users add more value that they take away. Since we know how many of them they are, and how much they cost, we can ask is $21,000 better spent subsizing adblock user who may tell their friends about our site, or is it better spent on traditional advertising? I think that people do follow word-of-mouth better than traditional ads, but that also means the friends of adblock users are more likely to be adblock users themselves---thus just an additional cost ontop of one we can't handle already.
    - flukus 10y ago
      Is that video content that users want or stuff that you auto play for them?
      - dismantlethesun 10y ago
        We don't autoplay videos because that costs bandwidth. These aren't ads. They have to click play for anything to happen.
iLoch 10y ago
Shortsighted, wouldn't you say? Eventually this will choke out all competition except for companies with the smartest people/deepest pockets. We'll end up creating monopolies around content by refusing to pay for it when there was healthy competition.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Fake news sites usually don't have paywalls It's sad really
- Pinckney 10y ago
  Doesn't affect my logic. Tragedy of the commons.
- andromeduck 10y ago
  I for one am willing to pay for content as long as it's large enough to o cover most of the sites I frequent, fixed rate subscription, no extea fees for content (pay per comment/timed exclusivity for paid members to drive membership fine by me), and most importantly, a way to personally choose who gets a portion (at least 25%) of the subscription fees. Short of that I really don't give a damn. It's not my problem.
- fapjacks 10y ago
  You're supposing that there aren't people out there willing to make and distribute content without demanding some kind of payment in return. Content doesn't only come from people that put tons of crappy ads on their sites. And I can't say I'll find it tragic when Buzzfeed and Upworthy go bankrupt.
edibleEnergy 10y ago
Yeah sorry, it's not totally clear but what we were trying to convey in the conclusion is in the back and forth between ad blockers and ad block detectors the detectors seem to be winning, especially if you're using AdBlock Plus or AdBlock.

user5994461 10y ago

Wow Forbes. I've been unable to read that site for years. Is there even content somewhere after all the popups and redirections? Hard to tell.

davidgerard 10y ago
Yes, usually a sponsored op-ed blog presented as if it's an actual article.

bumblebeard 10y ago

Agreed, although maybe this is what they want to happen. If you use their bandwidth and they don't make any money off your visit, then they probably don't care if you never come back. I'm like you though; I actively avoid reading sites that do this. I also block JavaScript by default, which helps to mitigate a lot of other annoyances and privacy invasions.

flukus 10y ago
The don't realize the relationship is symbiotic though. Part of the value of big news sites like forbes is their influence. To an extent they are widely read because they are widely read, people read it to see what others are reading.
- dismantlethesun 10y ago
  Perhaps, but as an alternative perspective.... I work for a midlevel publisher. Nearly of our content is syndicated, with very nearly none if it being unique. Our value -add is our selectivity, and great on-site user experience when it comes to filtering and subscriptions. 20% of our readers use adblock. For video content which is a mere fraction of our site, that comes out to $700 a day in bandwidth costs going to adblock users, or $21,000 in the average month. That's a lot. What publisher wouldn't fall over themselves to get 20% more profits in a given year? In the last year, we grew approximately 20% but our % of adblock users soared so while costs are up, revenue is flat. This isn't a sustainable situation. I have a lot of sympathy for people who do not want to see intrsuive advertisement, and I myself feel the same way sometimes, but when it comes down to sheer costs---we can't afford to subsidize adblock users. I'm unconviced that adblock users add more value that they take away. Since we know how many of them they are, and how much they cost, we can ask is $21,000 better spent subsizing adblock user who may tell their friends about our site, or is it better spent on traditional advertising? I think that people do follow word-of-mouth better than traditional ads, but that also means the friends of adblock users are more likely to be adblock users themselves---thus just an additional cost ontop of one we can't handle already.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Is that video content that users want or stuff that you auto play for them?
    - dismantlethesun 10y ago
      We don't autoplay videos because that costs bandwidth. These aren't ads. They have to click play for anything to happen.

iLoch 10y ago

Shortsighted, wouldn't you say? Eventually this will choke out all competition except for companies with the smartest people/deepest pockets. We'll end up creating monopolies around content by refusing to pay for it when there was healthy competition.

raverbashing 10y ago
Fake news sites usually don't have paywalls It's sad really
Pinckney 10y ago
Doesn't affect my logic. Tragedy of the commons.
andromeduck 10y ago
I for one am willing to pay for content as long as it's large enough to o cover most of the sites I frequent, fixed rate subscription, no extea fees for content (pay per comment/timed exclusivity for paid members to drive membership fine by me), and most importantly, a way to personally choose who gets a portion (at least 25%) of the subscription fees. Short of that I really don't give a damn. It's not my problem.
fapjacks 10y ago
You're supposing that there aren't people out there willing to make and distribute content without demanding some kind of payment in return. Content doesn't only come from people that put tons of crappy ads on their sites. And I can't say I'll find it tragic when Buzzfeed and Upworthy go bankrupt.

edibleEnergy 10y ago

Yeah sorry, it's not totally clear but what we were trying to convey in the conclusion is in the back and forth between ad blockers and ad block detectors the detectors seem to be winning, especially if you're using AdBlock Plus or AdBlock.