5 ms·
How does this even help? Surely for the people who visit the site and do buy a ticket the revenue lost from them blocking ads would be basically insignificant
by p1necone 4y ago
How does this even help?
Surely for the people who visit the site and do buy a ticket the revenue lost from them blocking ads would be basically insignificant compared to what they pay for their tickets. And obviously the people that visit the site while blocking ads and don't pay for a ticket won't be paying the surcharge.
I guess ultimately it helps by just bringing in extra revenue via a sneaky hidden charge that most people won't realize is there. But it doesn't really have anything to do with ad revenue.
- chrisseaton 4y agoMaybe adverts from a confirmed traveller going to a particular destination are valuable?
- jacquesm 4y agoNot as valuable as the typical EU fine for these kind of nasty tricks.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- aendruk 4y agoPresumably by impeding competitors who attempt to automatically price match. For those who didn’t read the full article (I don’t blame you; it’s nearly illegible—font weight 86‽) the airline intended to price-discriminate against automated scrapers, not against people who don’t view ads, but distinguishing between robots and humans is futile in practice.
- singlow 4y agoIt's a bug. They didn't intend for it to flag ad-blockers, it was supposed to inflate the prices for third party aggregators so that their direct website would look cheaper than booking on a third-party site.