5 ms·

The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects, and refuse to deliver content to adblocker users. Publishers and content creators sa

by a3n 12y ago

The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects, and refuse to deliver content to adblocker users. Publishers and content creators say "If you don't like what you hear from someone on the TV or radio, change the channel." It's free speech, after all. Maybe it's time for publishers and creators to live that credo, and not deliver to consumers that they don't like.

xyby 12y ago
Yes, I find it very interesting that the publishers in this trial said their content and their ads are an "inseparable unit" and still they do deliver the content to visitors with adblockers. They could block users with adblockers or they could just circumvent the adblockers. Many sites already show alternative content where blocked ads would have been. All you cannot do is to link through central ad-markets. Thats easily blockable. But a direct link to advertisers can never be blocked. Because the adblocker cannot know if the link to some site was paid for or not. I can understand that Google does not dare to go this way with adsense. If adblock would decide to block ads on googles own websites, billions of yearly revenue would go up in smoke. But other publishers, who are not in bed with adblockers, should probably try linking directy to advertisers. At least as alternative content, when the ad-market ads are blocked. A startup that creates a market for direkt-linking-ads could become huge.
danieldk 12y ago
The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects, and refuse to deliver content to adblocker users. What could possibly go wrong? :) Let's not forget that e.g. Die Zeit actually has subscribers (i.e. my wife) who might not be amused and end their subscriptions. Why not seek different models for non-subscribers instead. E.g. for my native language (Dutch) Blendle [1] is becoming more and more popular. They are basically a paywall, but offer many newspapers, reasonable curation, a money-back guarantee (if an article is not what you expected), and recommendations based on e.g. Twitter followers. Monthly, I am probably spending the price of a subscription, because they have made it so easy to actually purchase content without ads and other annoyances. [1] https://blendle.com/ https://blendle.com/
- a3n 12y ago
  > who might not be amused and end their subscriptions. Exactly my point. "If you don't like what we say or do, then change the channel, end your subscription, etc." If they want to sit comfortably in the big freedom of speech chair, they're going to have to sit in the same room with consumers sitting in the freedom of listening chair. Of course that's not what they want. What they want is to have fine control on their end, but not on yours. I'm not worried about them. Someone else will figure out how to thrive in every new world that comes our way. EDIT: BTW I'm not opposed to your suggestion. Lots of ways to coexist in this new world of fine control. Forcing unwanted content down my throat, as publishers appear to currently prefer, will be resisted by me and others.
- celticninja 12y ago
  If you are a subscriber then you are already paying for the service, why the hell do you have to view the ads too? I can understand the need to show ads to people viewing content for free I just don't understand why charge an access fee and show ads. This is why people use ad blockers.
  - a3n 12y ago
    > If you are a subscriber then you are already paying for the service, why the hell do you have to view the ads too? But your subscription isn't necessarily paying the amount of money that the publisher has decided it wants. In that case, it's divided its revenue between your subscription and selling ads. It's hoping that the ads won't annoy you enough to block them or leave. For most people that's probably true.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    I ask myself that when I use the NYT app or visit their website. Why the hell am I paying every month to be shown ads? But then again: any magazine, cable channel, etc "old media" still follows that. If it existed before the Internet, you're likely paying for it and viewing its advertisements.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
Of course. But then many publishers and creators care about products and content their make, and not about the additional crap that is added to bring it revenue. So I expect many publishers willing to help finding a way to make both consumers and creators happy.

by a3n 12y ago

xyby 12y ago

Yes, I find it very interesting that the publishers in this trial said their content and their ads are an "inseparable unit" and still they do deliver the content to visitors with adblockers. They could block users with adblockers or they could just circumvent the adblockers. Many sites already show alternative content where blocked ads would have been. All you cannot do is to link through central ad-markets. Thats easily blockable. But a direct link to advertisers can never be blocked. Because the adblocker cannot know if the link to some site was paid for or not. I can understand that Google does not dare to go this way with adsense. If adblock would decide to block ads on googles own websites, billions of yearly revenue would go up in smoke. But other publishers, who are not in bed with adblockers, should probably try linking directy to advertisers. At least as alternative content, when the ad-market ads are blocked. A startup that creates a market for direkt-linking-ads could become huge.

danieldk 12y ago

The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects, and refuse to deliver content to adblocker users. What could possibly go wrong? :) Let's not forget that e.g. Die Zeit actually has subscribers (i.e. my wife) who might not be amused and end their subscriptions. Why not seek different models for non-subscribers instead. E.g. for my native language (Dutch) Blendle [1] is becoming more and more popular. They are basically a paywall, but offer many newspapers, reasonable curation, a money-back guarantee (if an article is not what you expected), and recommendations based on e.g. Twitter followers. Monthly, I am probably spending the price of a subscription, because they have made it so easy to actually purchase content without ads and other annoyances. [1] https://blendle.com/ https://blendle.com/

a3n 12y ago
> who might not be amused and end their subscriptions. Exactly my point. "If you don't like what we say or do, then change the channel, end your subscription, etc." If they want to sit comfortably in the big freedom of speech chair, they're going to have to sit in the same room with consumers sitting in the freedom of listening chair. Of course that's not what they want. What they want is to have fine control on their end, but not on yours. I'm not worried about them. Someone else will figure out how to thrive in every new world that comes our way. EDIT: BTW I'm not opposed to your suggestion. Lots of ways to coexist in this new world of fine control. Forcing unwanted content down my throat, as publishers appear to currently prefer, will be resisted by me and others.
celticninja 12y ago
If you are a subscriber then you are already paying for the service, why the hell do you have to view the ads too? I can understand the need to show ads to people viewing content for free I just don't understand why charge an access fee and show ads. This is why people use ad blockers.
- a3n 12y ago
  > If you are a subscriber then you are already paying for the service, why the hell do you have to view the ads too? But your subscription isn't necessarily paying the amount of money that the publisher has decided it wants. In that case, it's divided its revenue between your subscription and selling ads. It's hoping that the ads won't annoy you enough to block them or leave. For most people that's probably true.
- freehunter 12y ago
  I ask myself that when I use the NYT app or visit their website. Why the hell am I paying every month to be shown ads? But then again: any magazine, cable channel, etc "old media" still follows that. If it existed before the Internet, you're likely paying for it and viewing its advertisements.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

Of course. But then many publishers and creators care about products and content their make, and not about the additional crap that is added to bring it revenue. So I expect many publishers willing to help finding a way to make both consumers and creators happy.