5 ms·

It's a shame that almost every decent website (this one being a notable exception) eventually succumbs to the temptation to go to war with their users on behalf

It's a shame that almost every decent website (this one being a notable exception) eventually succumbs to the temptation to go to war with their users on behalf of their advertisers. Radio stations and podcasts are doing it too by upping the percent of the *cast dedicated to ads in hopes of generating more revenue. This never ends well, especially since so many cord-cutters are less tolerant of ads than people have ever been before. Oh well. It's a nice opportunity for disruption, and the cycle repeats.

dawnerd 8y ago
Youtubers too. Filler unboxing video with no real content still gets a pre and post roll ad. (On top of whatever ads YouTube inserts). What’s even better is the tech youtubers that do a paid review and still include their normal ads.
- MrEldritch 8y ago
  To be fair, ads got way less profitable for Youtubers recently. After the so-called "Adpocalypse", it's a total crapshoot whether any given video will be monetizable, so it makes sense that videomakers would resort to adding more paid-by-the-sponsor ads directly into the video rather than relying on revenue from Yoututbe's own ads.
listenallyall 8y ago
I'd argue that in many cases, the users go to war first. Ad blockers, paywall bypassing, incognito mode, etc. make it virtually impossible for most sites to survive on a straight ad model. The company has to find a way to survive, so it tries memberships, click-bait, nag screens, gathering user data, and in response an extension like this is built, and it keeps going back and forth with anti-ad-blocker, anti-anti-ad-blocker, etc. Medium is far from blameless here, their Twitter feed is repetitive and far too low on quality articles vs junk. And yes, their nag screen and 3-article limit suck. But they need to do something, don't you think? If you are a user of ad blockers and additional strategies, what do you envision as the endgame? No ads, ever? What kind of content are you expecting at that point?
- PurpleRamen 8y ago
  Not really. AdBlockers were a reaction against the toxic ads. And even today only a minority of users (<10%) are using adblockers.
  - listenallyall 8y ago
    You should provide sources when you toss out statistics, PurpleRamen is not itself a source people trust. You are quoting a global number. And it's outdated. In the US, overall ad-blocking is 30%+. https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach-usage-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach... On laptops, US adblocking was 40% in 2017. https://marketingland.com/survey-shows-us-ad-blocking-usage-40-percent-laptops-15-percent-mobile-216324 https://marketingland.com/survey-shows-us-ad-blocking-usage-... These number are growing every year. And surely, if you focused only on the demographic group most likely to read Medium, the percentage would be even higher.
- flukus 8y ago
  > The company has to find a way to survive No it doesn't. Closing the business when they can't turn a profit is a perfectly viable (maybe inevitable) course of action. When a local restaurant is losing money do you expect them to close or to start padding the meals with sawdust? Much of digital media has reached the point of charging you for the sauce on your sawdust. > What kind of content are you expecting at that point? Much better content on average, less clickbait crap. You could halve the quantity tomorrow and no one would notice.
  - nicbou 8y ago
    If restaurants offered meals for free, people wouldn't complain about the ads on the menu. No restaurant offers free meals though. Should we start charging for everything we see online?
  - listenallyall 8y ago
    So content providers shutting down their businesses will result in "much better content"? Are you sure you've thought this through?
criddell 8y ago
I think it's the nature of advertising. Ideally the relationship between audience, producer, and advertiser would be symbiotic but it almost always ends up being parasitic. I think the incentives are just don't align. I've been running a tracking blocker (which is effectively an ad blocker) for years and feel absolutely no guilt for doing so.

dawnerd 8y ago

Youtubers too. Filler unboxing video with no real content still gets a pre and post roll ad. (On top of whatever ads YouTube inserts). What’s even better is the tech youtubers that do a paid review and still include their normal ads.

MrEldritch 8y ago
To be fair, ads got way less profitable for Youtubers recently. After the so-called "Adpocalypse", it's a total crapshoot whether any given video will be monetizable, so it makes sense that videomakers would resort to adding more paid-by-the-sponsor ads directly into the video rather than relying on revenue from Yoututbe's own ads.

listenallyall 8y ago

I'd argue that in many cases, the users go to war first. Ad blockers, paywall bypassing, incognito mode, etc. make it virtually impossible for most sites to survive on a straight ad model. The company has to find a way to survive, so it tries memberships, click-bait, nag screens, gathering user data, and in response an extension like this is built, and it keeps going back and forth with anti-ad-blocker, anti-anti-ad-blocker, etc. Medium is far from blameless here, their Twitter feed is repetitive and far too low on quality articles vs junk. And yes, their nag screen and 3-article limit suck. But they need to do something, don't you think? If you are a user of ad blockers and additional strategies, what do you envision as the endgame? No ads, ever? What kind of content are you expecting at that point?

PurpleRamen 8y ago
Not really. AdBlockers were a reaction against the toxic ads. And even today only a minority of users (<10%) are using adblockers.
- listenallyall 8y ago
  You should provide sources when you toss out statistics, PurpleRamen is not itself a source people trust. You are quoting a global number. And it's outdated. In the US, overall ad-blocking is 30%+. https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach-usage-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach... On laptops, US adblocking was 40% in 2017. https://marketingland.com/survey-shows-us-ad-blocking-usage-40-percent-laptops-15-percent-mobile-216324 https://marketingland.com/survey-shows-us-ad-blocking-usage-... These number are growing every year. And surely, if you focused only on the demographic group most likely to read Medium, the percentage would be even higher.
flukus 8y ago
> The company has to find a way to survive No it doesn't. Closing the business when they can't turn a profit is a perfectly viable (maybe inevitable) course of action. When a local restaurant is losing money do you expect them to close or to start padding the meals with sawdust? Much of digital media has reached the point of charging you for the sauce on your sawdust. > What kind of content are you expecting at that point? Much better content on average, less clickbait crap. You could halve the quantity tomorrow and no one would notice.
- nicbou 8y ago
  If restaurants offered meals for free, people wouldn't complain about the ads on the menu. No restaurant offers free meals though. Should we start charging for everything we see online?
- listenallyall 8y ago
  So content providers shutting down their businesses will result in "much better content"? Are you sure you've thought this through?

criddell 8y ago

I think it's the nature of advertising. Ideally the relationship between audience, producer, and advertiser would be symbiotic but it almost always ends up being parasitic. I think the incentives are just don't align. I've been running a tracking blocker (which is effectively an ad blocker) for years and feel absolutely no guilt for doing so.