4 ms·

The fate of MySpace suggests otherwise. The existence of radio stations exuberantly announcing "commercial free this hour!" suggests otherwise. The prevalence

by 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.
  - maximusprime 15y ago
    Not really. That's pretty high compared to print advertising, billboards, TV/radio etc.
- Goladus 15y ago
  > Facebook has far more intrusive ads than myspace did.. MySpace had surprise obnoxious audio ads, MySpace had "punch the monkey and win" flash ads, MySpace had header banners inserted above all of the content you wanted to see. Facebook doesn't do any of that. Their redesigns have all allocated slightly more screen real estate to ads, but it's nowhere close to facebook levels of insanity. Facebook ads conform standards and are specifically unobtrusive, except for newsfeed spam, and plenty of tools are provided to manage that. > What is it... less than 1% use adblock? hmm 1%-2% of people using adblock does not mean 1%-2% of people hate ads. It means that's how many of the people who hate ads have the knowledge, means, and will to do something about it. Given that, 2% is a lot.
EricBurnett 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. MySpace failed because a better competitor came along. It had a history of predators, spammers, and viruses, and was hard to use well. (Did you see the pages people made?). Ads were one cause among many, and it's doubtful how much they contributed. For comparison, Facebook has ads, but people aren't flocking in droves to G+, and I haven't heard the lack of ads cited as the reason for any of those that are. Radio stations certainly have ads, and those that claim "x songs without commercials!" usually put self-advertisements in instead, which they count separately. It's still advertising, just a different sort. Overall the whole process is pretty duplicitous (imho). AdBlock has minimal market share [1], so the prevalence of AdBlock isn't an argument in your favour. You may be correct that people hate ads, but the evidence you've given does not support your conclusion. [1] first hit guesstimates 2%: http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-percentage-of-Internet-users-that-employ-AdBlock-Plus-or-similar-ad-blocking-plugins http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-percentage-of-Internet-user...
- nuje 15y ago
  The closest thing to a guess at ad blocking rate at linked page says "I did some research on this a while back, and discovered that 14% of all visitors to MediaUK.com used ad-blockers". The only 2% figure there is a guess as what portion of all web users use Firefox and AdBlock.
  - maximusprime 15y ago
    My own measurements put it at <2% (Based on visitors to my website).
    - eps 15y ago
      What ads do you have though? Are they from the ad networks? I have for example Google blocked across the board, but I do let Deck ads to sip through.
badclient 15y ago
Does prevelance of a group of people disliking cars and prefering to walk indicate that cars are largely bad?
bitops 15y ago
> Most people hate ads, they're merely willing to put up with them in exchange for the content. I agree. Growing up in a country (Denmark) that had two primary television stations, one sponsored without ads (Denmarks Radio - called DR, channel 1) the other with ads (TV2, channel 2) I can tell you that there was quite a difference between how the two were perceived. Both were good stations, but TV2 was more of an "entertainment" channel, while DR had more "60 Minutes" style programming. Both channels had news and entertainment, but the station without ads I think was generally seen as a bit cleaner and more informative. Despite the fact that TV2 had ads, they made it nice by only showing ads in between programs. So when you settled in with the family for a movie, you knew you weren't going to be interrupted by all kinds of annoying ads. Then there was TV3, a private Swedish channel, which broadcast throughout Scandinavia but offered subtitled programs (primarily British & American) in the local language. They showed ads during programs as well as in between. You also had to pay to get TV3 in your home. I guess my point is that, in a smaller country, people are willing to agree communally that they'll pay taxes to support something so they don't have to deal with crap advertising on broadcast television.

by Goladus 15y ago

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.
- maximusprime 15y ago
  Not really. That's pretty high compared to print advertising, billboards, TV/radio etc.
Goladus 15y ago
> Facebook has far more intrusive ads than myspace did.. MySpace had surprise obnoxious audio ads, MySpace had "punch the monkey and win" flash ads, MySpace had header banners inserted above all of the content you wanted to see. Facebook doesn't do any of that. Their redesigns have all allocated slightly more screen real estate to ads, but it's nowhere close to facebook levels of insanity. Facebook ads conform standards and are specifically unobtrusive, except for newsfeed spam, and plenty of tools are provided to manage that. > What is it... less than 1% use adblock? hmm 1%-2% of people using adblock does not mean 1%-2% of people hate ads. It means that's how many of the people who hate ads have the knowledge, means, and will to do something about it. Given that, 2% is a lot.

EricBurnett 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. MySpace failed because a better competitor came along. It had a history of predators, spammers, and viruses, and was hard to use well. (Did you see the pages people made?). Ads were one cause among many, and it's doubtful how much they contributed. For comparison, Facebook has ads, but people aren't flocking in droves to G+, and I haven't heard the lack of ads cited as the reason for any of those that are. Radio stations certainly have ads, and those that claim "x songs without commercials!" usually put self-advertisements in instead, which they count separately. It's still advertising, just a different sort. Overall the whole process is pretty duplicitous (imho). AdBlock has minimal market share [1], so the prevalence of AdBlock isn't an argument in your favour. You may be correct that people hate ads, but the evidence you've given does not support your conclusion. [1] first hit guesstimates 2%: http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-percentage-of-Internet-users-that-employ-AdBlock-Plus-or-similar-ad-blocking-plugins http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-percentage-of-Internet-user...

nuje 15y ago
The closest thing to a guess at ad blocking rate at linked page says "I did some research on this a while back, and discovered that 14% of all visitors to MediaUK.com used ad-blockers". The only 2% figure there is a guess as what portion of all web users use Firefox and AdBlock.
- maximusprime 15y ago
  My own measurements put it at <2% (Based on visitors to my website).
  - eps 15y ago
    What ads do you have though? Are they from the ad networks? I have for example Google blocked across the board, but I do let Deck ads to sip through.

badclient 15y ago

Does prevelance of a group of people disliking cars and prefering to walk indicate that cars are largely bad?

bitops 15y ago

> Most people hate ads, they're merely willing to put up with them in exchange for the content. I agree. Growing up in a country (Denmark) that had two primary television stations, one sponsored without ads (Denmarks Radio - called DR, channel 1) the other with ads (TV2, channel 2) I can tell you that there was quite a difference between how the two were perceived. Both were good stations, but TV2 was more of an "entertainment" channel, while DR had more "60 Minutes" style programming. Both channels had news and entertainment, but the station without ads I think was generally seen as a bit cleaner and more informative. Despite the fact that TV2 had ads, they made it nice by only showing ads in between programs. So when you settled in with the family for a movie, you knew you weren't going to be interrupted by all kinds of annoying ads. Then there was TV3, a private Swedish channel, which broadcast throughout Scandinavia but offered subtitled programs (primarily British & American) in the local language. They showed ads during programs as well as in between. You also had to pay to get TV3 in your home. I guess my point is that, in a smaller country, people are willing to agree communally that they'll pay taxes to support something so they don't have to deal with crap advertising on broadcast television.