News:

Bored?  Looking to kill some time?  Want to chat with other SMF users?  Join us in IRC chat or Discord

Main Menu

Adblockers, ideas for countermeasures?

Started by bladesb, April 10, 2013, 09:56:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Arantor

QuoteIn other words, if the ads are so repugnant to you that you don't want to see them, then fine, you don't need to visit the site.

Why must it be a binary choice? Why can't there be a third option, e.g. paying a small amount each month/year/whatever to not have ads? There are sites out there which I support by paying, and don't see ads. They get money, I get better experience, what's not to like?

QuoteThat strikes me as a bit unfair, particularly if the site relies in some part on ad revenue in order to operate.

True enough - however consider it from the other angle. Even the people who *pay* get to see ads. The team to get see ads. Major contributors get to see ads.

I'm saying 'give me a choice'. Don't force me to view ads because if you're going to be like that, I can and will exercise my right to go elsewhere. But give me the option and you'll get a better member out of me. I know I am not alone.

bladesb

I do offer paid subscriptions to the site with the "no ads" option. Those members also get a separate private board, the ability to upload file attachments, larger PM inbox space, and some other perks.
SMF 2.0.4, "Green Bean" Theme

Arantor

In which case what's the problem? You're not forcing me to watch ads in that situation, you're offering the chance to contribute monetarily to the site to help with its upkeep.

I wonder how many of the people who want to prevent ad blockers use them themselves.

mashby

Hmm. I understand that you run ads on your site and that there might be users who have an ad-blocker plugin installed in their browser. From a marketing perspective, I'd consider those folks as non-qualified people who you wouldn't want to market to in the first place.
Always be a little kinder than necessary.
- James M. Barrie

bladesb

When you offer a paid subscription with no ads as an incentive, people blocking ads with their browsers don't have an incentive to pay for a subscription.
SMF 2.0.4, "Green Bean" Theme

Arantor

So offer them something else that they would actually pay for and do the no-ads thing as a bonus.

bladesb

Quote from: mashby on April 20, 2013, 11:53:53 PM
Hmm. I understand that you run ads on your site and that there might be users who have an ad-blocker plugin installed in their browser. From a marketing perspective, I'd consider those folks as non-qualified people who you wouldn't want to market to in the first place.
Sure, but impressions count as well as clicks. When I get 25000 page views a day and only 3000 ad impressions, I am losing revenue.

Quote from: Arantor on April 20, 2013, 11:57:11 PM
So offer them something else that they would actually pay for and do the no-ads thing as a bonus.

I am open to suggestions. :)
SMF 2.0.4, "Green Bean" Theme

mashby

Quote from: bladesb on April 20, 2013, 11:55:51 PM
When you offer a paid subscription with no ads as an incentive, people blocking ads with their browsers don't have an incentive to pay for a subscription.
Can you see how that can be perceived as "ads are annoying me"?
Always be a little kinder than necessary.
- James M. Barrie

busterone

Quote from: bladesb on April 20, 2013, 09:29:33 PM
Quote from: Arantor on April 11, 2013, 12:12:40 PM

But it's my right - and you can't take it away from me - to not see your ads.

I agree you have the right not to see adds on the site of your choosing by choosing not to use that site. But I don't agree that you have the right to access content without seeing ads. In other words, if the ads are so repugnant to you that you don't want to see them, then fine, you don't need to visit the site.

Blocking ads while continuing to use a website is the "real world" equivalent of eating all the free samples at the grocery store without any intention or interest in buying any of the products. You get to enjoy a benefit (in our case, site content) while offering nothing in return. Granted, if you don't like a cheese sample at the grocer, you are under no obligation to buy it. But if you do like it, is it fair and ethical to keep coming back for more "free" samples and never actually buy a block of cheese? -snipped-
I don't agree with your analogy whatsoever.  No site ever makes any money off of me via ads even if I don't block them since I never click them anyway. I find most sites are extremely annoying with their ad placements to the point of being a complete distraction to any actual content that I may be there to read.  I ran the ad experiment six years ago, and to be completely honest, the revenue was simply not near enough to warrant leaving them on my site and bugging the hell out of my members.  I don't have any sort of bonus payment plan either. I simply have a donation button and have not had a single month since 2008 that there was not enough in the paypal account to keep the site running.  The donations have been extremely generous over the years.  I am not in it for a business either, but there has been a profit nonetheless. If I had to run a bunch of ads on my sites in an attempt to make a living above and beyond paying for the hosting, I believe I would look for another line of work myself. In my real life work, I make more in an hour than an entire month's worth of ad revenue on a forum. 

bladesb

Different ads have different pay arrangements. Some ads pay per click, some ads pay per thousand impressions. If you are not blocking ads, each time your browser loads a page, that counts toward a payment if the ads pay per thousand impressions. Nobody clicks on a billboard either but the advertisers definitely pay to lease the space.
SMF 2.0.4, "Green Bean" Theme

bladesb

Quote from: mashby on April 21, 2013, 12:00:53 AM
Quote from: bladesb on April 20, 2013, 11:55:51 PM
When you offer a paid subscription with no ads as an incentive, people blocking ads with their browsers don't have an incentive to pay for a subscription.
Can you see how that can be perceived as "ads are annoying me"?

I suppose so.

What I don't understand is what is so annoying about them. I have seen sites that have too many ads to count, and I have seen sites with just one or two ads. If they arent interfering with the actual navigation of the site, ( aren't popup, etc.) I guess I don't understand the objection. Unless the objection isn't to the ad so much as to what it represents, income for the site owner. I have seen people object to the idea that a site admin profits from their site and I don't understand why.
SMF 2.0.4, "Green Bean" Theme

Arantor

OK, let me explain.

There's various parts to it.

Firstly: it's your choice to show ads. It's my choice to not look at them if I choose. You can't make me view the ads and if you want to get fussy about it (and not respect the fact that it's my right), I'll just go elsewhere. There is bound to be another forum that can fill my needs and that is more tolerant to my personal views.

Second: tracking. Now the argument is that unless I'm doing something bad, it shouldn't matter that I'm being tracked. This is, of course, nonsense. I object to the fact that a third party company is compiling a list of the places I go in order to show me better ads - and that would roll over and turn it over to a government if one asked. We're approaching the point where privacy is no longer a right, it's increasingly becoming passe or even considered inappropriate to want privacy (the 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' mentality)... it's of course wrong because whether I have anything to hide or not is irrelevant, whether I choose to disclose my activities with a third party should be my choice, not some faceless corporation's. (It's why I don't get why people are willing to hand over privacy in exchange for free stuff)

Thirdly: I accept that sites have to make money. I object to the fact that I'm giving them content and *they*'re getting paid for it and then have the gall to make me watch ads. If I didn't give them content, they wouldn't have so many people viewing = less ad revenue. This site is a classic example: even the team and major contributors, even those who *pay* an annual subscription still get to see ads.

I've made nearly 50,000 posts. I don't know how many of those brought people here but it's a fair bet that a number of them brought people here. That's ad revenue being generated out of my work. And I'm not seeing anything for it. (The fact in this case is that I don't mind, I know the money's going to a good cause)

winniethepooh

#32
Quote from: Arantor on April 21, 2013, 12:31:32 AM
OK, let me explain.

There's various parts to it.

Firstly: it's your choice to show ads. It's my choice to not look at them if I choose. You can't make me view the ads and if you want to get fussy about it (and not respect the fact that it's my right), I'll just go elsewhere. There is bound to be another forum that can fill my needs and that is more tolerant to my personal views.

Second: tracking. Now the argument is that unless I'm doing something bad, it shouldn't matter that I'm being tracked. This is, of course, nonsense. I object to the fact that a third party company is compiling a list of the places I go in order to show me better ads - and that would roll over and turn it over to a government if one asked. We're approaching the point where privacy is no longer a right, it's increasingly becoming passe or even considered inappropriate to want privacy (the 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' mentality)... it's of course wrong because whether I have anything to hide or not is irrelevant, whether I choose to disclose my activities with a third party should be my choice, not some faceless corporation's. (It's why I don't get why people are willing to hand over privacy in exchange for free stuff)

Thirdly: I accept that sites have to make money. I object to the fact that I'm giving them content and *they*'re getting paid for it and then have the gall to make me watch ads. If I didn't give them content, they wouldn't have so many people viewing = less ad revenue. This site is a classic example: even the team and major contributors, even those who *pay* an annual subscription still get to see ads.

I've made nearly 50,000 posts. I don't know how many of those brought people here but it's a fair bet that a number of them brought people here. That's ad revenue being generated out of my work. And I'm not seeing anything for it. (The fact in this case is that I don't mind, I know the money's going to a good cause)
finally i agree with you on something.
"But I'm tryin' Ringo.I'm tryin' real hard to be the Shepherd."

bladesb

Quote from: Arantor on April 21, 2013, 12:31:32 AM
OK, let me explain.

There's various parts to it.

Firstly: it's your choice to show ads. It's my choice to not look at them if I choose. You can't make me view the ads and if you want to get fussy about it (and not respect the fact that it's my right), I'll just go elsewhere. There is bound to be another forum that can fill my needs and that is more tolerant to my personal views.

I view a privately owned website as "their site, their rules". There is no "right" not to view ads. You have the right not to visit a website altogether, but you don't have a right to not see an ad any more than you have a right to tell people they can't wear clothing with an advertisement on it. I am not aware of any such right to be free from viewing ads codified in law anywhere. Members of my site are made aware of the ads in the registration agreement, and in order to register an account, it is agreed upon that I will display ads. Blocking those ads is a breach of the registration agreement as far as I'm concerned. I would probably allow it anyway even if I could "block" the ad blockers. But I want to let those people who block ads know that they are doing the site a disservice.

QuoteSecond: tracking. Now the argument is that unless I'm doing something bad, it shouldn't matter that I'm being tracked. This is, of course, nonsense. I object to the fact that a third party company is compiling a list of the places I go in order to show me better ads - and that would roll over and turn it over to a government if one asked. We're approaching the point where privacy is no longer a right, it's increasingly becoming passe or even considered inappropriate to want privacy (the 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' mentality)... it's of course wrong because whether I have anything to hide or not is irrelevant, whether I choose to disclose my activities with a third party should be my choice, not some faceless corporation's. (It's why I don't get why people are willing to hand over privacy in exchange for free stuff)

You can disable cookies without blocking ads. The ads you see won't be targeted ads, but you could still see random ads, so tracking cookies isn't a compelling argument for denying revenue to a site you use.

QuoteThirdly: I accept that sites have to make money. I object to the fact that I'm giving them content and *they*'re getting paid for it and then have the gall to make me watch ads. If I didn't give them content, they wouldn't have so many people viewing = less ad revenue. This site is a classic example: even the team and major contributors, even those who *pay* an annual subscription still get to see ads.

If everyone thought their content was so valuable to a site that they all objected to viewing ads, then the site would not "get paid" for any of it. Nobody is forcing any of us to watch ads, unless using the site is somehow compulsory. Any of us could log out and never see another ad if we choose.

Would you stop using this site if there was no way to prevent it from "getting paid" as a result of the content you generate?

QuoteI've made nearly 50,000 posts. I don't know how many of those brought people here but it's a fair bet that a number of them brought people here. That's ad revenue being generated out of my work. And I'm not seeing anything for it. (The fact in this case is that I don't mind, I know the money's going to a good cause)

If it's work to post content, then you should be compensated for it. If you enjoy using the site even if they don't pay you anything, then it isn't really work.
SMF 2.0.4, "Green Bean" Theme

kat

#34
That's like saying that you are obliged to watch the ads, on TV, not go and make some tea, or something. Fast-forwarding through ads on videos, too. People get paid to display ads, anywhere. But, nobody is obliged to see them.

Forcing people to look at ads is just gonna piss some people off, and your site may suffer, as a result.

If you want to do that, that's fine. But, you can't force people to look at ads, wherever they are.

And, since you mentioned it, I have the ads, here, blocked, too.

bladesb

Quote from: K@ on April 21, 2013, 04:26:43 AM
That's like saying that you are obliged to watch the ads, on TV, not go and make some tea, or something. Fast-forwarding through ads on videos, too. People get paid to display ads, anywhere. But, nobody is obliged to see them.

Forcing people to look at ads is just gonna piss some people off, and you're site may suffer, as a result.

If you want to do that, that's fine. But, you can't force people to look at ads, wherever they are.

And, since you mentioned it, I have the ads, here, blocked, too.


Well, you are certainly correct, nobody is obligated to view them.
SMF 2.0.4, "Green Bean" Theme

Arantor

Apparently they are if they want to access that content. Can't have it both ways.

Advertisement: