Death by Advertisement

I used an ad blocker for awhile, and the fundamental truth is it made the internet better for me. Videos loaded faster. Concentrating on content was vastly simpler. I never had to hunt for an obtusely placed X when some unwanted slab of advertising scooted across my screen obscuring my view. To be honest, I really want to go back to using an ad blocker.

Ad-blocking isn’t really about money for readers. It’s about barriers. It’s about hassle and distraction and annoyance. Ads are designed to try and get your attention for at least part of the time you spend on a site. Ads are intentionally disruptive to the experience you are having, and because the technology exists to eliminate disruption, it’s no surprise that people chose to use that technology. It’s no different from any other medium: When a commercial comes on when I’m listening to a radio, what do I do? I check if another station is playing a song I like instead. If an ad comes on the TV, I get up and go to the bathroom. Is the fact that I choose not to consume those ads some breach of my responsibility as a viewer or listener? I think not.

Of course, ad-blocking is to websites and content makers what used games are to game publishers. It’s not really arguable that people are stealing the content — though I am willing to bet more than a few people might give it the old college try — but neither are they directing dollars to the content makers. Whatever benefit the reader/viewer gains, the content creator loses.

The rules around how companies can make money from online content are in a consistent state of flux driven by changing technology and changing attitudes. And grudgingly, furiously and with great pain, it will likely fall to the website makers to find another solution beside — or at least in tandem with — advertising. In the process, we will lose a lot of voices. Heck, we already have, with the recent closures of GameSpy and 1UP.

Still, I can’t help but wonder how many people visited forums or news sites, and shook their head sadly at the closure of these long veterans of gaming content with their ad blockers on. I’m not going to be the one to say that those who did are implicated in the end of those establishments. There are, after all, a lot of moving parts to those kinds of decisions. But, I’m willing to bet declining ad revenue for any reason, regardless of traffic, probably didn’t help.

I’m not asking for sympathy here. Like every area of media and content production, the past two decades have insisted on incredible agility from makers of content. And frankly, people have been good at rewarding those outlets, services or providers who do prove able to roll with the changing of the times.

Not surprisingly, stealing — or being perceived as having stolen content — is not the go-to response for most people. And before I venture too perilously close to using labels like “piracy” and “stealing” content, that’s not what we’re really talking about here. We are talking more about finding a common ground on the generally accepted social agreement that makers of content deserve to be rewarded for what they create. The tough part is that now the consumers are also loudly stating that, while they are willing to reward, they aren’t going to just reward everyone regardless of quality or value, and they want to do the rewarding on their own terms.

The difference for online versus traditional media is not just that an individual can opt out of consuming the advertisement. The online reader can opt out of being served the advertisement altogether. The user doesn’t make a reactive choice (I don’t want this ad, I’m going to pause my DVR). The user is ahead of the game entirely.

Interestingly, this doesn’t hurt advertisers all that much, because they can monitor who sees what and basically say to a content creator that they are only going to pay for the people who actually saw their ad, so there’s no skin off their back. They only pay out for who actually receives their advertisement, which in some ways is actually better than other media, like television.

So, the content creator pays for it in the end. Which is a bit funny, because the person who has the most control over what draws a potential customer has the least control over what that person does once they are on the site, at least from an advertising point of view. Which, regardless of whether you think ads are great or not, is an unfortunate deal for the person doing all the work.

It may, however, come as a surprise — given that I have put this all in that context — that I don’t necessarily think this is all a bad thing either. Odds are that any innovative solutions that websites begin to put together to resolve this displeasure will actually result in a direct transaction between creator and receiver of content. Ads, after all, are acting only as a middleman that adds nothing of value to the transaction, and as much as you dislike being served ads, content creators don’t like having to distribute advertising for products that can be seen as endorsement of those products.

On top of that, there is a real opportunity here for innovative voices and outlets, if they’re based more on a firm connection and collaboration with their readers, to step into the void. Inevitably on a broader scale, the source of funding influences the funded, and you see this trend in the way that, as a collective, content creators seem to shift toward creating content that supports the advertising model. That’s not to say that every or any particular creator of content is explicitly trying to write words that deliver a marketing message, but that, as an aggregate, attracting and keeping advertisers happy with the content they are advertising on is a consideration.

If the direct customer is the source of funds and support, well then the only goal is making those readers feel like they are getting value. I speak with some authority on this.

As a site that doesn’t run a lot of ads, we don’t really have a dog in this fight. We’ve figured out an alternative model that we’re pretty happy with, and I think it keeps us honest to our roots. I also recognize that it’s an extraordinarily limited model that only works under a few conditions, and building a long-term answer is no simple task.

What you think about ad-blocking probably has a lot to do with where you are on the chain. Established outlets with high traffic probably hate it. Smaller outlets, or places that generate success as much through good-will and community as through fat checks from advertisers, probably take a more tempered view. Readers obviously love it, and advertisers — as long as they get enough ads in front of enough eyes across the spectrum of sites they work with — may not like it but aren’t openly in revolt the way they are around DVR.

That tells me this isn’t a moral issue; it’s a business one. And though I choose not to use ad-blocking, I really don’t find myself faulting those who do. What I hope is that its use becomes a force for innovation, not over-reaction.

Comments

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Thanks for the reminder to add GWJ to my AdBlock exceptions list.

I block ads here, and everywhere else. I donate a fair bit of money, each donation drive, so I don't feel even the tiniest bit guilty.

Plus, in the case of GWJ, many of us are, ourselves, the content. Just by being here, even running ad blockers, we make the site more valuable for those that don't, and increase ad revenue indirectly.

I distinctly remember when I first turned on an adblocker; some ad came on that was so annoying and intrusive that it basically wrecked any ability to focus on the web page underneath. And I remember saying, very clearly and definitely, that I was sorry, but they had crossed a bright line, and that I was taking matters into my own hands, and Opting Out.

I have stayed opted out, and I give money to websites I actually care about, ones I would miss if they disappeared. That's not a huge list, but it's not as short as my wallet wishes it were.

I'm a huge proponent for a "Premium" cost when it comes to consuming content on the internet. I will gladly pay an annual or monthly sum to create a better viewing experience for the content I enjoy.

This money goes directly to the content provider. It allows that content provider to give me the raw experience they set out to give me in the first place. And most importantly It fosters a "content first" market. If people don't like ads, but they like the content enough, they will put the money up, and rewards will be given where most deserved. Non-premium members, whether they don't particularly LOVE the content, or they are Ramen students, will have to sort through the ads, but they also aren't providing a pay back to the providers.

I have an ad blocker installed on all my computers for the initial reason people have already stated, security. In the past year, I have been making an effort to whitelist those sites I want to support, and I find their ads nonintrusive. Loud content covering ads are the equivalent of television ads that turn the volume to 11 so they can still pierce your eardrum when you leave the room. They need to stop.

In the meantime, my purchasing, and content choices online have been farmed for years and a simple banner with something I may actually be interested in is the only thing I'm going to click on anyways.

Don't waste my time with ads, but keep your content rich, and offer me an option that allows me to reward it with my personal dollar. It will keep me coming back, keep me loyal, and keep me sane.

Oh, and I look at Metafilter as a great example of how to run a nice small website. They show ads by default to everyone. If you buy a membership there, which is $5 once ever, then they stop showing ads to you. The great bulk of readers just show up, read a few things, and bail, so MeFi makes money off them. And then, once someone has ponied up and become part of 'the community', they become a content generator, so MeFi doesn't advertise at them anymore.

It seems to be working pretty well for them. They've organically grown to, um, I think five employees plus the owner. It looks like they are very well taken care of. It's just a happy, profitable, successful little community, and I suspect that's one business model that will last.

Ad block users would be interested to know that disabling ad block on GWJ will basically just mean you see the small Amazon search box on the left side of the page. That's my favorite kind of "ad" thing. Totally fits into something people may be doing anyway, small and not flashy.

I block ads here, and everywhere else. I donate a fair bit of money, each donation drive, so I don't feel even the tiniest bit guilty.

I do want to confirm that my article is not intended to be a guilt trip at all. As I said in the piece, I think ad blocker probably drives innovation in the long run and encourages a more direct transaction between user and site. Like I said, I don't see this as a moral issue (or a guilt one) but a business issue.

It's tricky as a writer to even talk about things like this, because a lot of people assume (not saying you did, Malor, just talking generally now) there are ulterior motives. For those of you using ad block on GWJ, if you didn't you'd discover that we no longer use ads aside from a couple of affiliate links, and we got rid of them for the reasons you guys hated them. That's not to say we'd never try again if we thought we found the right network, but honestly, right now we feel like our donation drive particularly in its new form is very successful, so there's nothing driving us back toward old ways.

I think this is a fascinating discussion, and I didn't want to derail the conversation, but I just wanted to confirm there is no underlying message in this piece. If you use an ad block on GWJ, go right ahead and continue to do so. We understand.

Ad block users would be interested to know that disabling ad block on GWJ will basically just mean you see the small Amazon search box on the left side of the page. That's my favorite kind of "ad" thing. Totally fits into something people may be doing anyway, small and not flashy.

Jeez, basically identical comment at identical timestamp

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/0g2WO9s.jpg)

This is the difference between our brains. We're going to the same point, but you always have to take the scenic route.

I have never used an ad blocker. In all honesty, I've never seen what the big deal is. Ads are very easy for me to ignore in favour of the content I'm trying to read. I've also never gotten malware from an ad, though I do know others who have. Maybe I'm just good at ignoring them, I don't know. Much like piracy, I strongly disagree with ad blockers but I don't have the time or mental energy to judge people who use them. My opinion is simply that if you use an ad blocker, you lose the right to bemoan the death of your favourite site who can't afford to operate their free service when 50% or more of their users are blocking out the only revenue source they have. As someone who is about to start making regular YouTube content that I hope to eventually monetise, it does concern me a lot to realise a lot of people who will consume the content for no money think that watching a 15 second pre-roll ad to cover my costs and my time (which yes, is also a cost) is too much to ask of them.

The only thing that really chaffs me is the self-righteous types who scream "You are using an outdated business model!" every time as a justification for not paying the price asked for something, be that actual money or seeing an ad. People love to tell content creators how they're not embracing new ideas while never actually offering any. I stopped following DG Radio a while back when they took a very douchey tone towards Polygon for bemoaning the use of ad blockers, using this exact excuse. Which is even more hilarious considering they had ads on their podcast. If someone out there can figure out how these sites can make money without using ads, they should start a consulting firm because they'd get rich overnight. But if you can't offer a better alternative, who are you to tell them they're doing it wrong?

The idea of paid premium content sounds like a good one but who has it really worked for? The Escapist tried it and was recently sold. Giant Bomb tried it and Whiskey Media was split up and sold off because they were almost out of money. They regularly said after launching their premium program that it was only slowing the bleeding, not covering costs. Sure, it works for GWJ but as I understand it, writers here are often unpaid or only paid a small fraction of what they would be elsewhere. The cost structure is very different here and while it's made for a great community, most gaming sites need to serve a greater group. It's kind of like Firefly, people loved it and the ones that did were very vocal in their support but it was never enough to make it sustainable. Quality content costs and if those costs aren't covered, quality suffers or the content goes away entirely.

Again, if you feel justified in using an ad blocker or pirating content, it's your choice and it's how you are voting with your wallet. But if you're a fan of Giant Bomb, Polygon, The Escapist or any other kind of content that largely relies on ads to survive, understand that something has to give eventually. If you blocked ads on their site, don't complain when they go away or stop producing the level of content you want. We live in an age now where people want everything both ways (high quality and free) and that's not the real world.

Yeah, the very first thing I do with a site I like is put them on my AdBlock Plus exception list. It's easy, you just click on the little ABP icon and select "Disable on foo-bar.com" or whatever the site is. Mind you, it's entirely possible for a site to start serving obnoxious ads and annoy me enough to go back off the exception list. I agree with the people who mentioned The Escapist. They've gotten pretty bad lately.

I wouldn't worry about people over-reacting to ad blockers. They've been around for a long time now, and the Internet ecosystem as a whole seems to have adapted just fine. The neat thing about them is that they're a technological issue that advertisers literally cannot work around. With DVRs that skip commercials for example, they can try to get those devices banned based on some nebulous copyright bullsh*t. But with Internet ads, they can't ever force you to download them. Your browser actually has to specifically request the images. Ad blockers just check the hostname of the source and simply don't request anything on their blacklist.

mwdowns wrote:

Saw a comment on Metafilter about what it's like when one turns of the ad-blocker to surf the web: it's like slipping on the ring of Sauron. Yep.

This came up in my Twitter feed a week or so ago. I know all the arguments for not using an ad-blocker. I sympathize with them, I really do. But I will not stop using mine. I will own it and I will hang my head in shame. You may call me what you like. You may question my integrity; my willingness to self-blindness; whatever. I won't stop using it. I will not put on the ring.

I didn't realize that running an ad-blocker extended my natural life, made me invisible, or corrupted my soul and turned me into an agent of unfathomable evil.

I run ad-blockers because ads suck. They suck because they're (a) for nonsense I'll never, ever buy, (b) interrupt my browsing experience, and (c) are often just stupidly offensive. I proudly run both Ghostery and Ad-Block Plus, because they make the Internet more bearable.

If and when someone provides something of value, I'll pay for it, but with cash -- not with my personal information, not with my browsing history, and not by clicking on ads. By way of analogy: I pay for cable television. I pay for an ad-free Kindle. I'll pay for an ad-free website if it's of value/interest. I won't be tracked or use an ad-supported browser.

I've been thinking of it not in economic terms but in anthropological and political philosophy terms. That is, our society's social contract no longer matches our behavior or that of our economic lives.

Ad-supported content made sense when everyone watched the same three television channels. It made sense when websites were first becoming a thing, since paywalls have huge downsides on the internet. But ads don't "work" like they used to...personally, I suspect that print ads have always had the same click-through (or equivalent) rate as online ads, it's just that with online ads we can measure it more precisely rather than doing estimates. Either way, the price that advertisers were willing to pay dropped immensely.

At the same time, people were changing their habits. More people are going out of their way to avoid ads (Netflix instead of cable, for example) and the old broadcast formats are struggling to be relevant online (Newspapers are dead. Long live the blog.) Search has replaced random browsing for products that you need, and Amazon has replaced Google search with let's just buy it from Amazon, because they have everything anyway.

Targeted advertising is also a thing, though it's too early to tell if it will work better or if enough people are savvy and creeped out by it that there's a backlash against that too.

What does this have to do with the social contract? Well, the old model was that the broadcasters would provide a continuous stream of content for free to us, paid by their sponsors. And then we would go out and buy the sponsor's products.

It turns out that we don't actually want always on-TV when we can instantly call up a show that we actually want to watch. And that we'll pay extra to watch without interruptions, because we started by viewing it as closer to renting from the video store rather than watching it on cable.

But the provide-content-for-free model is so deeply embedded in the internet that replacing advertising is problematic. I'm not sure that ad-block is the real problem here, just like piracy: I think piracy is morally wrong, but I recognize that it's a part of the culture and sometimes gives users a better product that they actually want. Piracy isn't what killed the music business (which is still around). The changing customer desires are what hurt the music industry, and the newspaper industry, and the movie industry (which just had a record year, so...). People always wanted something better than the newspaper, they just didn't have the option.

We don't have a solution for this yet, partially because the public and the big legacy players are talking past each other.

I don't mind ads. They just never bothered me that much.

I use adblock to avoid visiting a site that shows me ads but gives me nothing useful in return. Sometimes I'll find a site through Google only to discover the content has been SEO'd beyond usefulness just to lure me in.

I unblock sites I frequent to pay for what I get, but to use the toll road example from earlier in the comments, I don't like paying a toll without knowing where the road leads.

My opinion is simply that if you use an ad blocker, you lose the right to bemoan the death of your favourite site who can't afford to operate their free service when 50% or more of their users are blocking out the only revenue source they have.

Well, I always block ads, because they're annoying and a source of malware. Personally, I pony up and pay for websites that I'd miss if they vanished, so the only time I'd be really bemoaning anything would be when I had already chipped in, and thus was entitled to.

But watching whatever your product is doesn't mean I particularly care about it, and if I don't care about the content, I don't feel especially obligated to pay anything. Whether this makes me moral or not, that's just how I am. If I don't care about what you're making, I don't have any urge to pay you, directly or indirectly.

Generally, the best way to get revenue out of me is to just outright ask for it, like GWJ does. I pay GWJ more than I pay Consumer Reports. I'm sure many go even higher.

There's a really good chance I'll just shrug and ignore the plea, because there has to be something special about what you're offering. But the only way you're probably going to monetize me is voluntarily and directly, not through advertising. If you don't ask, you have zero chance; if you ask, you have a small one. So ask!

Sometimes I'll find a site through Google only to discover the content has been SEO'd beyond usefulness just to lure me in.

I am glad our video games and gaming blog about the hottest new PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Nintendo games, doesn't do that. While we are committed to talking about video games, video gaming, gaming, gamers, video gamers and games, we refuse to stoop so low as to try and black hat our way into search results. Sure, we may or may not someday have Exclusive Information on Playstation 4 or know the Xbox New Console Release Date, but that doesn't mean we'll back down from our ideology. I know a lot of people are looking for blogs about Justin Bieber, the Pope, #VeronicaMars or Hot Nude Photos. But that's not us. No sir.

...

Twilight

Elysium wrote:
Sometimes I'll find a site through Google only to discover the content has been SEO'd beyond usefulness just to lure me in.

I am glad our video games and gaming blog about the hottest new PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Nintendo games, doesn't do that. While we are committed to talking about video games, video gaming, gaming, gamers, video gamers and games, we refuse to stoop so low as to try and black hat our way into search results. Sure, we may or may not someday have Exclusive Information on Playstation 4 or know the Xbox New Console Release Date, but that doesn't mean we'll back down from our ideology. I know a lot of people are looking for blogs about Justin Bieber, the Pope, #VeronicaMars or Hot Nude Photos. But that's not us. No sir.

...

Twilight

Of course not. You're bought and paid for by Dannon Light & Fit Erotic Yogurt Fan Fiction Heavy Industries. We know which side your bread is buttered on.

You know, and this reminded me that I've been thinking about re-subscribing to Ars Technica... so I pop over to their subscription page, and it's got a button "click to see our best offer" and then all this sleazy free crap you supposedly get for subscribing. And then it's auto-renewing.

I'll tell you, that page makes me feel dirty, like I'm signing up for a porn site or something. If they'd just outright asked me for fifty bucks, I'd have given it to them three minutes ago. But this 'best offer' sleaze is repellent.

I probably should tell them that, too. Hmm.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Elysium wrote:
Sometimes I'll find a site through Google only to discover the content has been SEO'd beyond usefulness just to lure me in.

I am glad our video games and gaming blog about the hottest new PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Nintendo games, doesn't do that. While we are committed to talking about video games, video gaming, gaming, gamers, video gamers and games, we refuse to stoop so low as to try and black hat our way into search results. Sure, we may or may not someday have Exclusive Information on Playstation 4 or know the Xbox New Console Release Date, but that doesn't mean we'll back down from our ideology. I know a lot of people are looking for blogs about Justin Bieber, the Pope, #VeronicaMars or Hot Nude Photos. But that's not us. No sir.

...

Twilight

Of course not. You're bought and paid for by Dannon Light & Fit Erotic Yogurt Fan Fiction Heavy Industries. We know which side your bread is buttered on.

Jeff Goldblum Erotica.

Scratched wrote:

I see articles like this and laugh. Good. Advertisers screwed themselves by over-reaching in every way possible, and now their toys are getting taken away (at least for a while, until the next cycle of the arms race).

Yep. I took it a step further this year, with installing Ghostery on Chrome. Blocks all those tracking pixels that you don't even see. There's a lot of nasty stuff out there on the internet.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/a4jIA1R.png)

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Elysium wrote:
Sometimes I'll find a site through Google only to discover the content has been SEO'd beyond usefulness just to lure me in.

I am glad our video games and gaming blog about the hottest new PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Nintendo games, doesn't do that. While we are committed to talking about video games, video gaming, gaming, gamers, video gamers and games, we refuse to stoop so low as to try and black hat our way into search results. Sure, we may or may not someday have Exclusive Information on Playstation 4 or know the Xbox New Console Release Date, but that doesn't mean we'll back down from our ideology. I know a lot of people are looking for blogs about Justin Bieber, the Pope, #VeronicaMars or Hot Nude Photos. But that's not us. No sir.

...

Twilight

Of course not. You're bought and paid for by Dannon Light & Fit Erotic Yogurt Fan Fiction Heavy Industries. We know which side your bread is buttered on.

I forsee another "Welcome Perverts" article in the future....

I am OK with sites putting up ads to pay the rent.

If your ad isn't embedding evil magic to track me or relying on scripting that could easily be a drive-by browser injection attack, you really don't have to worry about me not seeing your ad. I whitelist javascript with NoScript and prevent some tracking with Disconnect in Firefox, so that can limit what some ads can do and does affect what I see.

But if your ads are pictures and text that doesn't try to technologically entrap or track me, and instead uses that real estate to creatively entice me to click through, then hey I might click through. It has happened. A few times. In the almost 20 years I've been on the internet.

Anyone ever seen a web ad that actually made you go, wow, that's an awesome ad! I'd go to YouTube just to watch more of these!

Yeah, me either. But one thing I have noticed that has actually been kind of effective on me are ads that appear after I searched for whatever the thing is in the ad. The ad doesn't change my mind about purchasing, but it keeps said thing in my mind for much longer than it normally would have stayed (10.8 seconds), increasing the likelihood that I will buy it when I'm ready to. The ads are colorful but static, showing the product, and clearly stating the brand and product name and price. That's been about the most effective web advertising I've come across.

mateo wrote:

Even if you have ABP off, if you aren't going to click and buy, no amount of impressions will keep my ad dollars on a site.

Absolutely. I've been an avid www user since the thing was put in front of me around '91, but I've never used any ad blocker and don't know at all where or why this discussion is happening. The number of ads I have intentionally clicked in over twenty years of web browsing: zero. Even if I search google for a site or product, and it appears at the very top with the sponsored link, I scroll down a few inches until I see what I'm looking for in the real search results. The Internet is suppose to be free. A site has to be particularly useful and important to me, like GWJ and Wikipedia, before I donate.

Malor wrote:

some ad came on that was so annoying and intrusive that it basically wrecked any ability to focus on the web page underneath. And I remember saying, very clearly and definitely, that I was sorry, but they had crossed a bright line, and that I was taking matters into my own hands, and Opting Out.

When that happens or the page does something inelegant like break a 500-word article into three or more pages, or play any music at all that I can't immediately disable, I opt out, too, but not with an ad blocker. I just don't return to that site, ever, for any reason.

I've never in my life bought anything after clicking on an ad. I think using that as a metric is incredibly stupid. Do TV and print advertisers expect people to drop what they're doing and go buy stuff? I'm pretty sure they do not.

Advertising can show me a product exists, and when I need such a product, I will remember the ad, but that's it.

edit: I don't use an adblocker, I just disable javascript for certain sites. I'm fine with picture ads that don't move.
edit2: thinking about it, I might not have ever clicked on an ad either.

TheHipGamer wrote:
mwdowns wrote:

Saw a comment on Metafilter about what it's like when one turns of the ad-blocker to surf the web: it's like slipping on the ring of Sauron. Yep.

This came up in my Twitter feed a week or so ago. I know all the arguments for not using an ad-blocker. I sympathize with them, I really do. But I will not stop using mine. I will own it and I will hang my head in shame. You may call me what you like. You may question my integrity; my willingness to self-blindness; whatever. I won't stop using it. I will not put on the ring.

I didn't realize that running an ad-blocker extended my natural life, made me invisible, or corrupted my soul and turned me into an agent of unfathomable evil.

Haha. No, it doesn't. I was more taken with the visual from the films...sticking the ring on an seeing the evil spirits and the Eye of Sauron.

mwdowns wrote:
TheHipGamer wrote:
mwdowns wrote:

Saw a comment on Metafilter about what it's like when one turns of the ad-blocker to surf the web: it's like slipping on the ring of Sauron. Yep.

This came up in my Twitter feed a week or so ago. I know all the arguments for not using an ad-blocker. I sympathize with them, I really do. But I will not stop using mine. I will own it and I will hang my head in shame. You may call me what you like. You may question my integrity; my willingness to self-blindness; whatever. I won't stop using it. I will not put on the ring.

I didn't realize that running an ad-blocker extended my natural life, made me invisible, or corrupted my soul and turned me into an agent of unfathomable evil.

Haha. No, it doesn't. I was more taken with the visual from the films...sticking the ring on an seeing the evil spirits and the Eye of Sauron. :)

Drat! Here I was hoping that I'd end up feeling like butter spread too thin...in 200 years.

Gremlin wrote:

I've been thinking of it not in economic terms but in anthropological and political philosophy terms. That is, our society's social contract no longer matches our behavior or that of our economic lives.

Ad-supported content made sense when everyone watched the same three television channels. It made sense when websites were first becoming a thing, since paywalls have huge downsides on the internet. But ads don't "work" like they used to...personally, I suspect that print ads have always had the same click-through (or equivalent) rate as online ads, it's just that with online ads we can measure it more precisely rather than doing estimates. Either way, the price that advertisers were willing to pay dropped immensely.

I'm on the same page.

When you think about it, the only reason for TV, radio, and print as we know it, is to pass along advertising to consumers. Without ads, they would not exist in their current state.

If that's not the case then why is PBS adding more commercial advertising in light of reduced government funding? Radio, TV, and print mediums exist as a platform for advertisers and nothing else.

Why do we see the same BS TV shows over and over again? It's simple, people will sit down and watch anything, producers know that and they simply regurgitate the same product over and over. Why do magazines have the same cover story again and again, albeit using different words? How many times can a radio talk show host talk sh*t about the opposing party? It's not the material they are pushing, it's the space for ads they care about.

TV, radio, and print were suckled on the teat of ads, they would not have become what they are without them.

The internet was not founded on ads and its growth is not because of ads. The other mediums became ad delivery vehicles in order to grow.

Advertisers have subverted the medium and have tried to force the TV, radio, print model on us. I refuse to participate.

"But ads allow websites to produce a better quality product" (annoying voice). Bullsh*t. They subvert the medium and annoy the user.

"But ad revenue has allowed the internet to grow, to improve, websites now look pretty and can do all sorts of neat things" (annoying voice). Bullsh*t. I would be very surprised if a single website is better with ads and I would love to see a metric that proves the web is better due to ad revenue.

The "big site" supported by "big ads" is not going to happen. Sites that have quality content that are supported by a loyal user base will always flourish in this environment.

I'm an ad blocker and proud of it.

(I did turn it off for GWJ, didn't realize they had an ad)

Tim

Dammit, we're only the 5th link on google if you search for playstation 4 jeff goldblum erotica

...

er... a friend said.

Comparing the use of an AD blocker to stealing intellectual property is a stretch.

Skipping TV commercials and time shifting programming was likened to stealing at one time. So I guess anti AD blocker creative types only watch programming at the time dictated by the programmers and attentively watch the advertisements during every commercial break.

Don't blame the customers, find a better business model. TV producers did with DVDs, digital copies of shows without advertisements, etc.

This thesis rubbed me the wrong way because it appears that creative types are likely to accuse their customers of stealing instead of realizing they have a broken business model. If my customers are not giving me money or behaving the way that I want them to behave, I have to adapt. It would be unheard of to publicly state that they were stealing from me or are immoral.

Please don't my comments too personally, I very much like this site and the culture. My comments are more generally directed at the attitude exhibited by many in the creative fields.