7 ms·

You're an outlier. Most people don't mind ads.

by maximusprime 15y ago

philwelch 15y ago
The enduring popularity of DVR and Adblock suggest differently.
- rfergie 15y ago
  Most people do not use Adblock. Although that might be different if everyone knew about it
  - maximusprime 15y ago
    Most people click on ads. Most people buy things based on ads. I'm inclined to think that this means most people find advertising useful, so I'm skeptical that people would want to block advertising if they could. Also it's kind of an antisocial thing to do, depriving free websites of income.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      "Most", or just enough to keep advertising a sustainable business, like spam email? Services like Spotify and Pandora actually make money from people paying them for an ad-free experience. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who actually likes most advertising, as opposed to simply tolerating it as a means to an end. If anything it's antisocial for websites to promise me valuable content, only to resell my attention to advertisers.
    - TeMPOraL 15y ago
      > Most people click on ads. Never met one. > Also it's kind of an antisocial thing to do, depriving free websites of income. Personally, it saddens me that we have to put up with all this electricity-wasting advertising crap in order to have free websites. It seems that one of the most useful tools of humanity needs to look ugly just in order to stay alive. I'd be very happy if we ever find a better solution.
      - maximusprime 15y ago
        Does a computer magazine look ugly because of the adverts for Apple in it? Does a car magazine look ugly because of adverts for cars in it? Personally, I find advertising useful, and pleasant. I'm certainly not alone. You're entitled to your opinion, but I believe it's an 'outlier' opinion.
        TeMPOraL 15y ago
        > Does a computer magazine look ugly because of the adverts for Apple in it? Does a car magazine look ugly because of adverts for cars in it? Yes. I read the magazine for the content, not for the ads. I don't mind an ad here and there, but the amount of advertising in magazines now is ridiculously high. Sometimes I'm not sure if just less than 50% of the magazine has some content in it. > Personally, I find advertising useful, and pleasant. I'm certainly not alone. I respect your opinion. While you're definitely not alone in your stance, I do also think that there are much more ad-haters than you believe. Might be a selection bias on my part, but I've never ever seen a person enjoying web ads.
        maximusprime 15y ago
        > Yes. I read the magazine for the content, not for the ads. The line between the two is very blurred. For example, a review of a new video card, is really just an advert.
        TeMPOraL 15y ago
        > The line between the two is very blurred. For example, a review of a new video card, is really just an advert. Fair enough. However, I feel that this type of ad gives me some concrete, useful and verifiable information to base my choice on (like technical parameters, and problems with use relative to other video cards reviewed in this issue), and not just shiny pictures. This discussion clarified my understanding of ads at least a bit, so next time I'll be more precise in what I mean. There is a subtype of ads, those click-based advertising that clutter websites providing no value whatsoever to the visitor and distracting from enjoying the content. Those I dislike, though I understand that they're somewhat necessary. I value every site which figures out how to stay free without cluttering itself with ads.
    - rfergie 15y ago
      You are correct about the usefulness of advertising but I think you are wrong about people's perception of advertising and its influence on them. Most people will not admit to being influenced by advertising and they'll rarely admit to clicking on them.
      - maximusprime 15y ago
        Disagree. HN, reddit, and techie internet crowd are usually very anti-advertising. If you look at the real population though, they love advertising. Kids watch advertising on TV to find out what toys they want to buy. Teenagers look at adverts to see what fashion to wear. etc etc. I really do think it's a case of not looking outside the bubble. HN and the techie crowd are pretty anti-consumerism, anti-mainstream, anti-advertising. But the general population isn't.
        nknight 15y ago
        You keep making statements about what "the real population" and "the majority" like or do, but the only study I've seen actually cited in this thread contradicts your assertions. Do you have any actual numbers to contribute, or just your personal intuition?
        rfergie 15y ago
        The point I am trying to make is that people's actions and feeling about advertising are very different. You are absolutely right that people consume advertising and react to it. I think you are wrong to conclude that this means they love advertising. Perhaps it is just my bubble, but I can't imagine many people saying something like "I love advertising, I wish commercial breaks were longer". IMO the difference with the techie internet crowd is that we are aware of what is an advert online and we also know that there are ways to avoid it.
        maximusprime 15y ago
        Commercial breaks are a special case. They prevent you from consuming the content until they end. Which is obviously not a great user experience (Although people do need to go make a cup of tea or have a toilet break). Online and print advertising doesn't prevent consumption of content, or stop the user going about his business for 5 minutes. Still disagree. I'm tech 'savvy', but I don't put myself in the HN crowd. I'm a consumer. I love advertising. I love buying stuff. I'm what I consider to be in the 'mainstream'. I can avoid ads, but I choose not to.
    - pessimizer 15y ago
      As far as I've heard, almost nobody clicks on ads. Just because ads produce enough revenue to support a business, don't assume that that means that a majority ever clicks on them. That's akin to an argument I read a lot on HN when people complain about particular content always getting on the front page (bitcoin, apple-this-or-that); that if it's getting on the front page, a majority must be for it. According to this article from 2009 reporting about some consultant study that divided people into "heavy clickers, moderate clickers, light clickers and non-clickers" of ads, between 2007 and 2009, the non-clickers grew from "68 to 84% percent of the entire Internet population." http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/4720-16-of-users-click-on-banners-are-display-ads-dead http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/4720-16-of-users-click-on-ba... The study also claimed that the more savvy people became about the internet, the less likely they clicked on ads. The population as a whole is becoming more savvy about the internet.
      - maximusprime 15y ago
        > As far as I've heard, almost nobody clicks on ads. You need to talk to people outside your circle of friends then. > The population as a whole is becoming more savvy about the internet. Is this why googles ad revenue is growing at such an astounding rate?
        pessimizer 15y ago
        I don't talk to my friends for evidence, I look at studies. Google's ad revenue has nothing do with what the majority of anybody does. Google is doing ads well, better than they had been done before, and ads have gradually become more relevant and less seedy; I could see those two things countering the slide of clicks, at least in their case, but maybe in all cases. I don't have a problem with ads, and I would start clicking on them if the odds that it wouldn't be a waste of my time got better. I do have a problem with bald-assed assertions instead of arguments, defended by insults that assume that you know anything about anyone else's circle of friends but your own.
- maximusprime 15y ago
  Adblock is used by a tiny tiny percentage. Anecdotally, I tried using adblock, and quickly found it irritating. I was seeing a censored internet. I like my internet uncensored. I like rewarding websites with my visits that don't piss me off, and punishing websites that do piss me off, by not returning.
- look_lookatme 15y ago
  I don't think you understand the point of DVR.
tripzilch 15y ago
I only don't mind ads because I block most of them. Whenever I view the net through a different browser or computer, I'm pretty shocked how much ads are actually there. And no, I'm afraid they're not actually "sometimes useful", to me. Most of the time I'm on the net I'm not looking to buy something. Though come to think of it, the few times I am, I don't mind clicking an ad or two. Except when I do, and it appeals to me, I usually run a query through a search engine to find the same page, so I can see what the other 9 top results are. I mean, how can I know I'm getting a good deal by just clicking one ad, right?
- maximusprime 15y ago
  > Except when I do, and it appeals to me, I usually run a query through a search engine to find the same page, so I can see what the other 9 top results are. As I say, you're an outlier ;)
  - TeMPOraL 15y ago
    Then there are two of us, as I don't ever, ever consider ads even if I'm (rarely) on the Internet to buy something. I mean... since when did we start to trust advertisements?
    - maximusprime 15y ago
      I hate this sort of comment. It's naive. Loads of Reddit/HN posts are adverts. We all click on adverts all the time, all over the internet. We just don't necessarily realize they're adverts. Yes, shock horror, adblock only blocks the most obvious advertising.
      - TeMPOraL 15y ago
        Well, advertisements are not all equal. I understand the need of companies with valuable products for reaching their potential customers. But it can be done in a win-win way. To give you some more details on how I perceive adverts: - Video/audio advertisements that start playing by themselves = I'll probably add you to my mental black list of people and companies I don't want to do business with (yes, I have one, 'voting by my dollars'. Actually, Groupon is on it, mostly because of annoying ads that were just everywhere I looked.). - Pop-ups and anything that touches the area with content (all those floating or expanding windows), distracting me in an offensive way = I'll most likely remember you as a company not to do business with you as well. Also, I'll start hating the website soon for allowing this type of advertisements. - Simple banners and ads of products that in my belief actually introduce some value - like development tools - I don't really mind them; I might click on then to see what's about with this new product, out of pure curiosity. - AdWords - I don't mind them, they're not intrusive. I might even consider clicking at them if they happen to show something interesting. Also, I can't even express how annoyed I am about the new batch of YouTube adverts - the ones that play before the movie I requested, often stealing half a minute of my time and making me lose interest in the video itself. So yes, AdBlock is fine. It blocks most of the crap.
Goladus 15y ago
The fate of MySpace suggests otherwise. The existence of radio stations exuberantly announcing "commercial free this hour!" suggests otherwise. The prevalence of adblock suggests otherwise. Ads are inherently disruptive, most people DO mind them under many circumstances. And sometimes, even people who wouldn't mind them still have their experience disrupted by their presence. The other day I was trying to read an article, and some programming glitch caused a nearby ad to expand over the article text and I wasn't able to get rid of it without reloading the entire page. It's true there is some threshold of advertising under which people genuinely appreciate and show interest in the content. That threshold is certainly lower than you think. Most people hate ads, they're merely willing to put up with them in exchange for the content. The question isn't whether someone who minds ads is an "outlier" or not, the question is how many "outliers" are there. My guess: you don't actually know the answer to that.
- maximusprime 15y ago
  Facebook has far more intrusive ads than myspace did.. I'm pretty sure facebook also makes a lot more from ad revenue, so I'm not sure of your point... "The prevalence of adblock suggests otherwise." What is it... less than 1% use adblock? hmm FWIW I've been earning a living from online advertising for 10 years. I've run community websites that run adverts, and fielded feedback from users.
  - mirkules 15y ago
    I know next to nothing about advertising online, so please don't think I'm being facetious by asking this: what is the actual rate of display ads vs. people that click and buy stuff directly resulting from that ad? From what I heard it's sub-10% or even 5%. If 5% is considered good, doesn't that say something about advertisements, that is, that 95% of the people _didn't_ follow through, and probably ignored it. This to me screams that there should be a better way to advertise.
    - RainFlutter 15y ago
      5% would mean that for every 20 pages viewed on the Internet, advertising is leading someone to make a purchase. I can't imagine that ever happening no matter how fantastic the ads are. Don't think of it as a percentage hit rate; think about how that number fits into the way we use the Internet and live our lives.

You're an outlier. Most people don't mind ads.

philwelch 15y ago

The enduring popularity of DVR and Adblock suggest differently.

rfergie 15y ago
Most people do not use Adblock. Although that might be different if everyone knew about it
- maximusprime 15y ago
  Most people click on ads. Most people buy things based on ads. I'm inclined to think that this means most people find advertising useful, so I'm skeptical that people would want to block advertising if they could. Also it's kind of an antisocial thing to do, depriving free websites of income.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    "Most", or just enough to keep advertising a sustainable business, like spam email? Services like Spotify and Pandora actually make money from people paying them for an ad-free experience. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who actually likes most advertising, as opposed to simply tolerating it as a means to an end. If anything it's antisocial for websites to promise me valuable content, only to resell my attention to advertisers.
  - TeMPOraL 15y ago
    > Most people click on ads. Never met one. > Also it's kind of an antisocial thing to do, depriving free websites of income. Personally, it saddens me that we have to put up with all this electricity-wasting advertising crap in order to have free websites. It seems that one of the most useful tools of humanity needs to look ugly just in order to stay alive. I'd be very happy if we ever find a better solution.
    - maximusprime 15y ago
      Does a computer magazine look ugly because of the adverts for Apple in it? Does a car magazine look ugly because of adverts for cars in it? Personally, I find advertising useful, and pleasant. I'm certainly not alone. You're entitled to your opinion, but I believe it's an 'outlier' opinion.
      - TeMPOraL 15y ago
        > Does a computer magazine look ugly because of the adverts for Apple in it? Does a car magazine look ugly because of adverts for cars in it? Yes. I read the magazine for the content, not for the ads. I don't mind an ad here and there, but the amount of advertising in magazines now is ridiculously high. Sometimes I'm not sure if just less than 50% of the magazine has some content in it. > Personally, I find advertising useful, and pleasant. I'm certainly not alone. I respect your opinion. While you're definitely not alone in your stance, I do also think that there are much more ad-haters than you believe. Might be a selection bias on my part, but I've never ever seen a person enjoying web ads.
        maximusprime 15y ago
        > Yes. I read the magazine for the content, not for the ads. The line between the two is very blurred. For example, a review of a new video card, is really just an advert.
        TeMPOraL 15y ago
        > The line between the two is very blurred. For example, a review of a new video card, is really just an advert. Fair enough. However, I feel that this type of ad gives me some concrete, useful and verifiable information to base my choice on (like technical parameters, and problems with use relative to other video cards reviewed in this issue), and not just shiny pictures. This discussion clarified my understanding of ads at least a bit, so next time I'll be more precise in what I mean. There is a subtype of ads, those click-based advertising that clutter websites providing no value whatsoever to the visitor and distracting from enjoying the content. Those I dislike, though I understand that they're somewhat necessary. I value every site which figures out how to stay free without cluttering itself with ads.
  - rfergie 15y ago
    You are correct about the usefulness of advertising but I think you are wrong about people's perception of advertising and its influence on them. Most people will not admit to being influenced by advertising and they'll rarely admit to clicking on them.
    - maximusprime 15y ago
      Disagree. HN, reddit, and techie internet crowd are usually very anti-advertising. If you look at the real population though, they love advertising. Kids watch advertising on TV to find out what toys they want to buy. Teenagers look at adverts to see what fashion to wear. etc etc. I really do think it's a case of not looking outside the bubble. HN and the techie crowd are pretty anti-consumerism, anti-mainstream, anti-advertising. But the general population isn't.
      - nknight 15y ago
        You keep making statements about what "the real population" and "the majority" like or do, but the only study I've seen actually cited in this thread contradicts your assertions. Do you have any actual numbers to contribute, or just your personal intuition?
      - rfergie 15y ago
        The point I am trying to make is that people's actions and feeling about advertising are very different. You are absolutely right that people consume advertising and react to it. I think you are wrong to conclude that this means they love advertising. Perhaps it is just my bubble, but I can't imagine many people saying something like "I love advertising, I wish commercial breaks were longer". IMO the difference with the techie internet crowd is that we are aware of what is an advert online and we also know that there are ways to avoid it.
        maximusprime 15y ago
        Commercial breaks are a special case. They prevent you from consuming the content until they end. Which is obviously not a great user experience (Although people do need to go make a cup of tea or have a toilet break). Online and print advertising doesn't prevent consumption of content, or stop the user going about his business for 5 minutes. Still disagree. I'm tech 'savvy', but I don't put myself in the HN crowd. I'm a consumer. I love advertising. I love buying stuff. I'm what I consider to be in the 'mainstream'. I can avoid ads, but I choose not to.
  - pessimizer 15y ago
    As far as I've heard, almost nobody clicks on ads. Just because ads produce enough revenue to support a business, don't assume that that means that a majority ever clicks on them. That's akin to an argument I read a lot on HN when people complain about particular content always getting on the front page (bitcoin, apple-this-or-that); that if it's getting on the front page, a majority must be for it. According to this article from 2009 reporting about some consultant study that divided people into "heavy clickers, moderate clickers, light clickers and non-clickers" of ads, between 2007 and 2009, the non-clickers grew from "68 to 84% percent of the entire Internet population." http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/4720-16-of-users-click-on-banners-are-display-ads-dead http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/4720-16-of-users-click-on-ba... The study also claimed that the more savvy people became about the internet, the less likely they clicked on ads. The population as a whole is becoming more savvy about the internet.
    - maximusprime 15y ago
      > As far as I've heard, almost nobody clicks on ads. You need to talk to people outside your circle of friends then. > The population as a whole is becoming more savvy about the internet. Is this why googles ad revenue is growing at such an astounding rate?
      - pessimizer 15y ago
        I don't talk to my friends for evidence, I look at studies. Google's ad revenue has nothing do with what the majority of anybody does. Google is doing ads well, better than they had been done before, and ads have gradually become more relevant and less seedy; I could see those two things countering the slide of clicks, at least in their case, but maybe in all cases. I don't have a problem with ads, and I would start clicking on them if the odds that it wouldn't be a waste of my time got better. I do have a problem with bald-assed assertions instead of arguments, defended by insults that assume that you know anything about anyone else's circle of friends but your own.
maximusprime 15y ago
Adblock is used by a tiny tiny percentage. Anecdotally, I tried using adblock, and quickly found it irritating. I was seeing a censored internet. I like my internet uncensored. I like rewarding websites with my visits that don't piss me off, and punishing websites that do piss me off, by not returning.
look_lookatme 15y ago
I don't think you understand the point of DVR.

tripzilch 15y ago

I only don't mind ads because I block most of them. Whenever I view the net through a different browser or computer, I'm pretty shocked how much ads are actually there. And no, I'm afraid they're not actually "sometimes useful", to me. Most of the time I'm on the net I'm not looking to buy something. Though come to think of it, the few times I am, I don't mind clicking an ad or two. Except when I do, and it appeals to me, I usually run a query through a search engine to find the same page, so I can see what the other 9 top results are. I mean, how can I know I'm getting a good deal by just clicking one ad, right?

maximusprime 15y ago
> Except when I do, and it appeals to me, I usually run a query through a search engine to find the same page, so I can see what the other 9 top results are. As I say, you're an outlier ;)
- TeMPOraL 15y ago
  Then there are two of us, as I don't ever, ever consider ads even if I'm (rarely) on the Internet to buy something. I mean... since when did we start to trust advertisements?
  - maximusprime 15y ago
    I hate this sort of comment. It's naive. Loads of Reddit/HN posts are adverts. We all click on adverts all the time, all over the internet. We just don't necessarily realize they're adverts. Yes, shock horror, adblock only blocks the most obvious advertising.
    - TeMPOraL 15y ago
      Well, advertisements are not all equal. I understand the need of companies with valuable products for reaching their potential customers. But it can be done in a win-win way. To give you some more details on how I perceive adverts: - Video/audio advertisements that start playing by themselves = I'll probably add you to my mental black list of people and companies I don't want to do business with (yes, I have one, 'voting by my dollars'. Actually, Groupon is on it, mostly because of annoying ads that were just everywhere I looked.). - Pop-ups and anything that touches the area with content (all those floating or expanding windows), distracting me in an offensive way = I'll most likely remember you as a company not to do business with you as well. Also, I'll start hating the website soon for allowing this type of advertisements. - Simple banners and ads of products that in my belief actually introduce some value - like development tools - I don't really mind them; I might click on then to see what's about with this new product, out of pure curiosity. - AdWords - I don't mind them, they're not intrusive. I might even consider clicking at them if they happen to show something interesting. Also, I can't even express how annoyed I am about the new batch of YouTube adverts - the ones that play before the movie I requested, often stealing half a minute of my time and making me lose interest in the video itself. So yes, AdBlock is fine. It blocks most of the crap.

Goladus 15y ago

The fate of MySpace suggests otherwise. The existence of radio stations exuberantly announcing "commercial free this hour!" suggests otherwise. The prevalence of adblock suggests otherwise. Ads are inherently disruptive, most people DO mind them under many circumstances. And sometimes, even people who wouldn't mind them still have their experience disrupted by their presence. The other day I was trying to read an article, and some programming glitch caused a nearby ad to expand over the article text and I wasn't able to get rid of it without reloading the entire page. It's true there is some threshold of advertising under which people genuinely appreciate and show interest in the content. That threshold is certainly lower than you think. Most people hate ads, they're merely willing to put up with them in exchange for the content. The question isn't whether someone who minds ads is an "outlier" or not, the question is how many "outliers" are there. My guess: you don't actually know the answer to that.

maximusprime 15y ago
Facebook has far more intrusive ads than myspace did.. I'm pretty sure facebook also makes a lot more from ad revenue, so I'm not sure of your point... "The prevalence of adblock suggests otherwise." What is it... less than 1% use adblock? hmm FWIW I've been earning a living from online advertising for 10 years. I've run community websites that run adverts, and fielded feedback from users.
- mirkules 15y ago
  I know next to nothing about advertising online, so please don't think I'm being facetious by asking this: what is the actual rate of display ads vs. people that click and buy stuff directly resulting from that ad? From what I heard it's sub-10% or even 5%. If 5% is considered good, doesn't that say something about advertisements, that is, that 95% of the people _didn't_ follow through, and probably ignored it. This to me screams that there should be a better way to advertise.
  - RainFlutter 15y ago
    5% would mean that for every 20 pages viewed on the Internet, advertising is leading someone to make a purchase. I can't imagine that ever happening no matter how fantastic the ads are. Don't think of it as a percentage hit rate; think about how that number fits into the way we use the Internet and live our lives.