5 ms·

Not only publishers it would seem: This weekend I tried visiting the website of a streaming video provider I was interested in subscribing to only to be informe

Not only publishers it would seem: This weekend I tried visiting the website of a streaming video provider I was interested in subscribing to only to be informed that, roughly, "there was a problem completing my request. If you have an ad-blocker, please disable it and refresh this page. <company in question> uses certain tools for marketing purposes that can be blocked by ad-blockers" ... ironically for their marketing department, I decided not become a customer then and there.

coderdude 10y ago
They wanted to see information about how you use something they offer. You wanted something they offer. You declined, which is your choice, of course. I think you both lost that battle.
- smsm42 10y ago
  I think the company insisting they know better than myself what I need to see and how I need to see it is not going to be good to do business with. If you know your tech doesn't work well with adblockers, you have two choices: a) accept that some part of the audience doesn't want ads and work so that your tech supports them and b) tell them "screw you" and refuse to take them as the clients. The company chose the latter. Why anybody would insist on being a client of somebody that doesn't want you as a client, given the choice?
  - coderdude 10y ago
    The bit about them insisting they know better than you what you need to see and how you need to see it, coupled with the bit about ads, is a non sequitur. We're talking about tracking usage stats. Some people simply can't be bothered to disable an ad blocker for non-ad related things. Others take a more extreme stance and consider analysis itself to be an affront. Everyone loses. Producers don't know what works or doesn't and consumers don't get the content they desire. One thing I've noticed is that these comments tend to come from pure consumers but rarely from those who both produce and consume. It's partially an issue of having a lack of perspective of the other part of the equation.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      > One thing I've noticed is that these comments tend to come from pure consumers but rarely from those who both produce and consume. It's partially an issue of having a lack of perspective of the other part of the equation. Also from people that feel entitled just to get services for free.
      - coderdude 10y ago
        I'm positive I've said exactly the same thing in the past. Over time, I realized that the issue is more nuanced. I don't think most people actually feel entitled to free content, but rather that the non-monetary "fee" is not acceptable. There is no known simple solution to this issue that I'm aware of.
        pjmlp 10y ago
        I am with you on that, but those services have to be paid in some form, as those people also have bills to pay. So if it isn't with money or advertising, it has to be whatever else they can extract from the users.
        coderdude 10y ago
        Indeed. I think you and I both are left with many others wondering what the ultimate solution will be.
        type0 10y ago
        > So if it isn't with money or advertising, it has to be whatever else they can extract from the users. So let's imagine someone serves supper on the street (i.e. street food), with the setup that it's take it yourself service. The incentive is that people would line up and pay, but some people don't - so would such company owners have the right to collect saliva and extract DNA to sell such personal information to some other companies thereby extracting value?
        10y ago

coderdude 10y ago

They wanted to see information about how you use something they offer. You wanted something they offer. You declined, which is your choice, of course. I think you both lost that battle.

smsm42 10y ago
I think the company insisting they know better than myself what I need to see and how I need to see it is not going to be good to do business with. If you know your tech doesn't work well with adblockers, you have two choices: a) accept that some part of the audience doesn't want ads and work so that your tech supports them and b) tell them "screw you" and refuse to take them as the clients. The company chose the latter. Why anybody would insist on being a client of somebody that doesn't want you as a client, given the choice?
- coderdude 10y ago
  The bit about them insisting they know better than you what you need to see and how you need to see it, coupled with the bit about ads, is a non sequitur. We're talking about tracking usage stats. Some people simply can't be bothered to disable an ad blocker for non-ad related things. Others take a more extreme stance and consider analysis itself to be an affront. Everyone loses. Producers don't know what works or doesn't and consumers don't get the content they desire. One thing I've noticed is that these comments tend to come from pure consumers but rarely from those who both produce and consume. It's partially an issue of having a lack of perspective of the other part of the equation.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    > One thing I've noticed is that these comments tend to come from pure consumers but rarely from those who both produce and consume. It's partially an issue of having a lack of perspective of the other part of the equation. Also from people that feel entitled just to get services for free.
    - coderdude 10y ago
      I'm positive I've said exactly the same thing in the past. Over time, I realized that the issue is more nuanced. I don't think most people actually feel entitled to free content, but rather that the non-monetary "fee" is not acceptable. There is no known simple solution to this issue that I'm aware of.
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        I am with you on that, but those services have to be paid in some form, as those people also have bills to pay. So if it isn't with money or advertising, it has to be whatever else they can extract from the users.
        coderdude 10y ago
        Indeed. I think you and I both are left with many others wondering what the ultimate solution will be.
        type0 10y ago
        > So if it isn't with money or advertising, it has to be whatever else they can extract from the users. So let's imagine someone serves supper on the street (i.e. street food), with the setup that it's take it yourself service. The incentive is that people would line up and pay, but some people don't - so would such company owners have the right to collect saliva and extract DNA to sell such personal information to some other companies thereby extracting value?
        10y ago