Prince Sues Musicians For Making A Tribute Album For His Birthday

Microsoft Hoarding Patents Like They're Going Out Of Fashion

Don't Blame Rick752 For Blocking Ads; Blame Those Who Made Ads Annoying

from the get-over-it dept

Thu, Jun 26th 2008 8:24am — Mike Masnick

The Washington Post is profiling the semi-anonymous Rick752, a mid-50s guy in upstate NY who puts together and maintains EasyList, an extremely popular list that powers the popular AdBlock Firefox extension. Basically, (for the 12 of you who don't know) it lets people surf without seeing advertisements. And, of course, this pisses people off, unreasonably. The article is full of examples of sites either trying to block AdBlock or begging people not to use it, along with quotes from people whining about how if ads are blocked there will be less content online.

Hogwash.

If the banner ads are bad content, then something like AdBlock and EasyList are simply a way of letting sites and advertisers know that the ads are not effective at all, but are annoying. That should be exactly what the advertisers and the sites want to hear, because that's the only way that they'll learn to make their advertising better. And the way you do that is by no longer thinking of them as ads, but recognizing that ads need to be good content.

I'm always fascinated by people who seem to think that interference with a business model is either a crime or unethical. In reality, it's simply a market changing, usually for the better. In fact, it's usually a sign of what customers really want and how to offer it to them most efficiently. That's all that AdBlock and EasyList are doing. They're letting advertisers and sites know that current ads just aren't effective. Rather than whining about it, it's the responsibility of publishers and companies to come up with business models that don't annoy users, but give them something of value. AdBlock and EasyList are just communicating that message back to them. Those that complain about it are basically just saying that they're too lazy to come up with a better business model.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: adblock, ads, banner blindness, blame, business models, easylist, rick752

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

some old gy, 26 Jun 2008 @ 8:34am

They corrupted the net, ABP fixed their corruption
Ads weren't just distracting, they are downright unbearable. Personally, I blame the webmasters for turning over control of the "content" of their sites over to the extremely sleazy advertisers. Not all sites did this, but enough did that it became accepted as the norm. Any site that uses flash ads deserve to have their advertising revenue reduced by those educated enough to use ABP. Same goes for anyone who ever used popup ads, especially popunder ads.

Ads really were tolerable when they were a few simple pics on the page. But then things got out of hand REALLY FAST.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Denis, 26 Jun 2008 @ 8:36am

Adblock saved my life
Well ok, not my life but my time. I hate using IE now because I cannot use adblock (not that I would want to use IE). I surf a lot (to much my wife thinks) and the last thing I want to do is be bombarded with ads about silly things.

I know what I want to buy, I will never buy, and never will, items from an ad online so adblock for me is a way to put blinders on it. IF I wanted to see ads, I can just open my local newspaper and read them there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse Chenard, 26 Jun 2008 @ 8:38am

And yet...
You yourself run ads on your site. How do you make money again? Oh thats right, from advertising. The only thing worse than your spouting off about the ads is your hypocrisy.

Regardless of your view of their monetization effort publishers deserve to be paid for the service they are providing. If the ads piss you off so much then send them an email. Give them some real feedback. I can promise you they will pull the ads that offend you. The approach of blocking any and all ads only serves to escalate the problem.

I mean really, if the ads are so annoying to you on a particular site, dont go there. Pretty simple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter Barker, 26 Jun 2008 @ 8:43am

Intertube Stent Procedure
What's the deal with annoying video and "Rich ads" on my intertub--ADVERTISERS ADVERTISERS ADVERTISERS ADVERTISERS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Emerson, 26 Jun 2008 @ 8:50am

I just want to block DoubleClick
The most annoying advertising entity on the web, since almost the beginning, has been Doubleclick, in my opinion. I've gone through many efforts to block Doublecrap, mostly because my browser would spend endless minutes trying to contact a Doublecrap server in order to display an ad (that I was going to ignore anyway). In the meantime, I can't view the content of the page because the browser is waiting for Doublecrap to respond. With ABP, that's no longer a problem. Ads from Doublecrap? Never see 'em, and now, don't wait for 'em, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Katz, 26 Jun 2008 @ 8:58am

Art instead
If you'd like art to replace the advertisements, I work on a firefox extension of ABP (that's right, an extension of an extension) that does just that. Only tangentially topical, but I think it points out that folks are looking for a better browsing experience, and Add-Art brings it to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Charabaruk (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:01am

Re: And yet...
Jesse: Yes, there are ads on Techdirt. But, in case you haven't noticed, Mike doesn't bitch about people blocking them, nor are they stupidly obtrusive like the ones that start playing loud audio, or cover up the content of a page, or throw pop-ups or pop-unders at you.

Read the article, over again, and this time PAY F--KING ATTENTION. ABP and EasyList exist because there are too many of those obtrusive, stupid ads that annoy the crap out of all of us. The ads here on Techdirt, at least since I've started reading it, are the good content type that don't get in the way and piss people off.

Next time, before your bitch about someone's supposed hypocrisy, you might want to actually understand what they're talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JB, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:06am

Re: And yet...
IDIOT, I do not want to see ads, so I use any means or blocking I choose. It's not up to you or any advertiser IF I BLOCK, HOW I BLOCK or whatever I surf.

You sound like a fairy designer defending ads. Sorry if I hurt your feelings PUSSY!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crosbie Fitch (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:13am

I don't have advertisements on my site
Come to Digital Productions!

Ad free - always has been, always will be.

Doesn't stop me advertising my site of course. ;-)

NB By 'ad' I mean space turned over to advertisers such that I effectively sell my audience's eyeballs to them.

I don't believe in selling one's audience to advertisers.

It's an indication of contempt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Norm, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:14am

Stupid article
We're going to block ads because they are ads - not because the are ads with "bad content" -
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:19am

Re: And yet...
I wouldnt even know which sites have annoying ads because I have been using adblockers for years and simply have no idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:23am

Google Ads
I have been thinking about this topic for a few days now. It astounds me how much money companies expend on advertising that appears to be 99% ineffective.

Google Ads are a great example of non obtrusive, applicable, and easy on they eye advertisements. But if Google is to continue in the long term I think they need to take advertising a step further and start right now. They should offer a new platform or modify the existing one to cater towards useful, artistic, content based ads. Also offer a tips section to advertisers that aids them in creating ads that work.

More and more people will use ABP, DVRs and such unless the advertising industry turns a new leaf. "Sheeple" are becoming a thing of the past. Bombardment advertising never was the answer. Instead of exclusively putting forth effort for the Super Bowl, try doing your job more often.

I shudder to think of a world without ads. I do not want a subscription to Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zealeus, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:23am

Business model
OK, so adblock is saying the advert business model doesn't always work? I'm curious- what is the alternative? It's been addressed some in this post already, but TD uses ads themselves. If everyone used AdBlock and no money was made of adverts, what kind of business model would be used to support the website?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:24am

Re: And yet...
Sigh, same old nonsense. Mike's said before that these articles serve to advertise the insight products that they sell, and that ads don't/barely (can't recall which) cover hosting.

Publishers "deserve" to get paid when they provide a service the consumer wants, and that evidently doesn't include invasive and annoying ads. Get over yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
C Sense, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:24am

Ads should be considered content
In the traditional sense of content, its what the site displays to the visitor. If the site chooses to display annoying or obtrusive adds, don't go to the site. Something that annoys the customer/visitor lowers the value of what you offer.

Why I can see why sites don't like AdBlock is that unlike TV ads that might be removed by some DVR device, sites are paid by impression or click; TV ads usually simply sell a slot for a fixed amount regardless of people watching. That means advertisers paid for time that doesn't reach the audience. AdBlock, conversely, takes money away from the sites. I can understand you thinking that they should make the ads better or entertaining, that would just be good advertising, but that isn't in control of the site hosting it.

Essentially you are preaching to one party (those wanting to advertise) about making better Ads as a solution for a problem another party (The site owner) has. I am afraid that simply won't have pull. Until a new model is discovered, they will simply find more creative ways to deliver adds avoiding AdBlock. You may believe its not a problem and the market will work itself out, and you may be right, but at this moment it does remove a level of reward for content providers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:27am

Complain to the website?
To the poster above who suggested people complain to the website who runs offending ads. Let's think about this: suppose you're Yahoo Mail. Now suppose you get $1 million from LendingTree (for example) to run their "1% mortgage" flashing Flash ad. Or suppose you get $1 million from the smiley-emoticon site (which also installs spyware when you install their smileys).
Now suppose Yahoo's users complain about the ads.

Remember, you're in charge of Yahoo: do you pull the ads because a few (or a few hundred) people complain or do you continue to take $1 million in revenue from these advertisers?
Do you really think the Board of Directors will be happy that you turned down a $1 million account because a few people complained?

Now, granted, I don't know the actual amount that companies spend on advertising, but it does come down to user-complaints versus income issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:29am

Re: And yet...
publishers deserve to be paid for the service they are providing.

No, they only "deserve" what they can get. And if they can't get money from banner and flash ads anymore, then they obviously need to find another way to make money.

The notion that by viewing the content of a website you are somehow obligated to view the ads is ludicrous. If I want to watch a television show, I'm not obligated to watch the ads (since I can mute them, do something else, etc), yet I can still view the show. If I want to look at a website, I'm still not obligated to view the ads, and I can still view the website.

Just because you are able to earn money with a business model does not mean that you should always be able to earn money with that model.

The only thing worse than your spouting off about the ads is your hypocrisy.

Except that the ad revenue is simply supplemental income for Mike, and not the main revenue source. Meaning that he uses a different method of making money from the site.

If you don't know what you're talking about, perhaps you should hold off on the insults.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jarrod, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:30am

Toleration
I could tolerate banner advertisements though. Pop-ups, pop-unders, flash - "games", sounds, music, strobe-effect, and roll-over expanding, you're a winner click to claim your prize, your computer isn't protected click here for a scan, etc. are all forms of advertisements that only annoy and waste bandwidth. So if it weren't for all that invasive crap, I'd happily view a few more ads to help support a site that I've found worth viewing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Charabaruk (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:37am

Re: And yet...
@Jesse: You, sir (and I use that word very loosely) are the actual idiot. You rely on insults and attacks, thus betraying your self-loathing for all of us to see by transferring it to someone who appears to have an opposing viewpoint. Anon in #14 offers a further erosion of your original comment. However, as you would rather behave as a low-life troglodyte, I have nothing more to say to you. Flame in hell, troll.

@DanC: Lovely misquoting going there, but I caught your attempted slight of hand. For anyone reading this, I refer again to comment #14, where a helpful Anon has written:

Publishers "deserve" to get paid when they provide a service the consumer wants, and that evidently doesn't include invasive and annoying ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Charabaruk (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:38am

Re: Toleration
So if it weren't for all that invasive crap, I'd happily view a few more ads to help support a site that I've found worth viewing.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH
[ link to this | view in thread ]
some old gy, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:38am

Now that I think of it...
Intellisense. Intellisense is what initially drove me to convert to firefox so I could use ABP. I was extremely annoyed by these underlined words that constantly obscured the content on the page that I was trying to read. That was the straw that broke the camels back tho, not the only mitigating factor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:40am

Re: Ads should be considered content
AdBlock, conversely, takes money away from the sites.

A little nitpicky, but you can't take away what was never received. Adblock might lower their ad revenues, but it doesn't "take money away."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
C Sense, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:47am

Re: Complain to the website?
@John

I see what you are saying, but here is where I think it is different. You state they recieve 1 million, but generally the people we are talking about get paid by impression, not an upfront cost. If you went to the Yahoo Board of directors and said "People are compling about this ad we are showing and I think we are losing users over it. This ad stops us from getting impressions from other ads which generate revenue." I am pretty darn sure they would pull the ad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Twinrova, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:53am

No subject
If the banner ads are bad content...
This just made me laugh out loud!!!!

Proof that ADS and CONTENT are different things no matter how effective you make the ad.

Consumers do not want ads infiltrating their content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Iris, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:54am

We don't know if the ad content is good or bad
I've used AdBlock for years, and for all I know the ad content is spectacular (I doubt it, though). I'll never see it to find out. So the "data" the advertisers get back simply from being blocked doesn't really help them.

As for what advertisers "deserve," if the CPM data on which their ad rates are based factor in a certain percentage of blockers, then that make sense. But if a large percentage of a site's visitors are blocking the ads and that's not accounted for in the rates, then the audience size is being misrepresented to the advertisers and the rates are probably inflated. But that's an issue to be settled between the site(s) and the advertisers. Not the visitors.

As for Google Ads, I find them completely ignorable. Except for when they piss me off: I work with an animal rescue, and Gmail insists upon serving me ads for puppy and kitten mills. As many would point out, however, that makes them easier to find, and...{insert evil thoughts here}
[ link to this | view in thread ]
some old gy, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:58am

Re: No subject
No, you're just tainted by invasive advertising. When advertising is done right, noone minds it at all. This loathing of all ads stems from the fact that you are sick of being abused by ads. And now you are angry at ALL ads, not just the ones that were abusing you. Yes, its a form of discrimination. Hrmm, maybe rick752 should make seperate "intrusive" and "non-intrusive" lists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:04am

I must have been one of the 12. Didn't know about AdBlock now I do and man I'm happy with it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:05am

Re: Re: And yet...
Who is relying on insults and attacks? Hypocrisy again eh. When you come up with a real response (and maybe learn a little more about the economics of the internet) feel free to chime back in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Devon, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:07am

hey nerds and geeks...
what is a "firefox extension" ? I use Office Vista, not the google fire browser. Is it like moving the due date back for more time on a presentation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:07am

Re: Re: And yet...
Lovely misquoting going there, but I caught your attempted slight of hand.

Not sure what misquoting I'm being accused of (or the sleight of hand either, for that matter). I didn't take anything out of context, so I'm a tad confused.

I simply have an issue with the notion that a web publisher somehow "deserves" to be paid for online content. If they are able to secure payment for their content, more power to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:08am

Re: Re: And yet...
Yeah the problem is though that ABP denies the sites you are visiting to make money. I am not a troll but I am just saying that there is a better way. And again, if you dont like the ads on a site you dont have to go there.

It would be nice if there were a better way but right now this is how the economics of the internet work. Until that changes all you are doing is undermining the very content you are enjoying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:10am

Actually some of us (like me) just don't like ads. I turn on the TV solely to watch my show. I go to a website solely to read the articles. I pop a DVD in the player solely to match the movie.

I don't have a lot of free time and I don't want to waste any of it by having anyone trying to sell me something. I never go to these sources wondering what the ads are today. I don't care if they are great, intrusive, old, boring, or whatever. I don't like ads.

So, for some of us, technologies like adblock will never serve to improve the quality of ads because I'll always use any (legal) blocking tools I have. I'm sorry if someone's business model depends on ads because, regardless of their quality, they annoy me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mobiGeek, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:13am

Re: Stupid article
Wrong. If the ad was content that was relevant to you then you'd pay attention. That is the point.
And how do "content" and "advertising" differ anyway? "Annoying ads" and "bad content" are the same thing. So are "good/relevant ads" and "good/relevant content".
For example, how does an article on the trend of social networks differ from a good advertisement from Facebook (i.e. a valid message describing what social networks are, who is out there, with focus on the market leading service)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Wigle, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:13am

Re: They corrupted the net, ABP fixed their corruption
I agree. To be honest, when AdBlock misses an ad on a page I don't automatically block it anymore because I'm starting to see some reasonable, unobtrusive, and relevant ads on some sites. Mind you, they tend to be tech sites with ads that benefit that particular tech company but maybe that's what I like about it. A few simple static picture or, even better, text ads on a site is perfectly acceptable to me. It's this war of "How obnoxious and in your face can I make my ad?" that has made me choose to block large portions of content. The site owners and advertisers need to react to the feedback, not force their way of doing things on us out of laziness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:15am

Re: Re: Re: And yet...
if you dont like the ads on a site you dont have to go there.
That's not very different than blocking the ads. I have a policy of not blocking ads unless/until they're annoying. That is, anything with sound, movement, opens a new tab/window, or that significantly delays the loading of the page. Once that happens, I will block all ads on that site. So if you want me to see the ads, then don't make them annoying. Once I know you're willing to make them annoying, then I can no longer trust that you won't make all of them annoying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mobiGeek, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:15am

Re: Re: Ads should be considered content
That's not nit-picky at all. It is completely relevant and accurate.
On top of that, there is NOTHING in the specification of the Web that says that my browser must do exactly what the web author wants it to do. In fact, the specification of the Web is exactly that the client can do whatever it wants with the copy of the content that it downloads. If it wants to go fetch embedded images/ads...that is completely up to the client, not the web author/publisher.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trevlac, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:19am

Re: Re: And yet...
Ads on Tech Dirt? I had no idea. Adblock must be doing it's job. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SomeGuy, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:20am

Re: And yet...
So, Techdirt makes most of it's money from the Insight community. This blog is here to promote the expertise that can be found in the Insight community -- just look at the end of any of Tim's articles where it pitches him as an analyst. Mike sells webspace to advertisers because they're willing to give him money for it. If someone offered you money, no strings attached, would you turn them away?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mobiGeek, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:20am

Re: hey nerds and geeks...
If you really care to know, start here:
http://www.getfirefox.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Falindraun, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:22am

Re: And yet...
Advertisers and publishers never "deserve" to receive anything. They should only receive what they "earn". Which imho is complete elimination. I don't want to see ads on TV, in print, or on the internet. If I want a good or a service I will find you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kilgore Trout, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:23am

Consistency
I would hope that the people that are upset about web site visitors blocking advertisements are consistent in their ad-loving. As in, I'm sure they don't fast-forward through the commercials when they watch their DVR-ed American Idol, right? RIGHT???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:23am

Re: Stupid article
Ever see the "I'm a Mac" ads? I specifically seek those out, because they're entertaining and informative. Yeah, they're ads, but they're -good content-. I'm willing to spend my time watching them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:25am

Re: Business model
Techdirt is supported by the Insight community, which makes money by selling economic reports and analysis. The Techdirt blog advertises the expertise of the Insight community. The ads you mention are just gravy; if they went away, Techdirt would still be here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rendarkin, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:26am

Re: Re: Stupid article
How does "content" and "advertising" differ? "Good/relevant ads" and "good/relevant content" the same thing?? Are you serious?

Advertising: (from dictionary.com):
1. the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., esp. by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.

The purpose of advertising is to inform you of something the advertiser would like you to buy. Content on a webpage can be anything - including ads, but also anything else.

If I click on a link taking me to a page telling me (just for example) how to drywall my garage, the instructions on how to drywall my garage is the content that I'm looking for. That's what I want. That's all I want. I don't want any other distractions. I may have all the materials and everything else I need, so don't give me helpful ads for your drywall products. If I need materials, I'll go to a site that sells materials and shop there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:29am

Re: Re: Re: And yet...
Yeah the problem is though that ABP denies the sites you are visiting to make money.

Untrue. Adblock might lower their advertising revenues, but it doesn't deny them the ability to make money. It does effect one method of making money on the internet.

It would be nice if there were a better way but right now this is how the economics of the internet work. Until that changes all you are doing is undermining the very content you are enjoying.

And programs like Adblock help influence the economics of the internet by limiting the effectiveness of one business model, which will lead to the development of other, more effective models.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GearsofPeace, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:29am

What's the confusion?
The article seems pretty straightforward. Its not about ads in general, its about annoying and obtrusive distractions while browsing. I only regularly visit sites that don't resort to those types of ads, so don't bother to use an ad-blocking extension or whatever people use. Ads don't bother me. Distractions and popups do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:30am

Re: No subject
How is "banner ads are conent" proof that ads and content are different things?

Techdirt is an Ad for the Insight community.

"I'm a Mac" is entertaining content I carry on my iPod.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:33am

Re:
But the movie advertises the talent of the actors, the vision of the director, and the discression of the Studio. Have you never said, "Oh, ActorX was good in That One Movie, I think i'll check out their new one"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:36am

Stepping into my flame suit...
The idea that people only block ads because they are annoying is really not true. If tomorrow we somehow were all guaranteed that ads would no longer be annoying, would you choose to not block them? Of course not. Given the choice, people will always block ads regardless of whether they find them annoying or not. No matter how many measures are taken to make the ad unobtrusive, ads are always seen as an interuption and therefore people will want to block them. Case in point, video ads on the web - if you watch Hulu, you'll get one 15 or 30 second commercial at each break, far less than television. But people will still strive to block that one ad - yet they love the fact that the content is free. People's logic is completely backwards, and eventually it will be self defeating. Or, they just don't care and figure everyone else will pay for them. But eventually if enough people block ads, free content won't be around anymore - that's a mathematical certainty. The argument that publishers should just find different ways to make money is flawed. If you're an entertainment provider, there are two methods: pay model, and advertising. 90% (probably more) of the folks complaining about ads would not go the pay route.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:39am

Wait a second
Doesn't this kind of ignore the whole issue at hand?

If the status quo model for revenue is pay per click, then wouldnt these sites never make a dime off the people who use AdBlock anyway even if they didnt use AdBlock? Its also a huge exaggeration to say that this is something that EVERYONE is doing.

Firefox has about 40% market share and of those people what percentage use adblock (20%)? The way I see it, these are people who would NEVER click an ad in the first place, so where is the issue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
some old guy, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:43am

Re: Stepping into my flame suit...
I don't mind Hulu's ads at all. I think the site is awesome with its current ad policies. That might change, who knows. But for not, the ads are extremely well done and not worth the effort to block.

However, I do hate how the studios are (mis)managing the content that is available. Most popular shows only have 4 or 5 episodes available at any time. Or they will have one season of many, which is neither the first nor most recent. Totally annoying, that is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:45am

Re: Wait a second
If the status quo model for revenue is pay per click, then wouldnt these sites never make a dime off the people who use AdBlock anyway even if they didnt use AdBlock?

This is not correct - pay per click is the main model for google, but not for the majority of ads on the net - the ones that people strive to block. Those are paid generally on an impression basis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheDock22, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:45am

Just realized how much I love AdBlock
I've always had AdBlock so I never realized until this article that TechDirt has advertising! I turned it off and sure enough there they were.

I personally like the ads in Gmail. Link and short description, but all txt based. I like reading them as I am reading my emails to see how accurately Google matches ads with my "interests". I do click on a good number of those advertisements too, so kudos Google!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:49am

Re: Stepping into my flame suit...
I don't mind Hulu's ads at all. I think the site is awesome with its current ad policies.

That's my point - most folks would block the ads regardless of how conscious Hulu is to not overly annoying folks with ads. If ad blockers become as prevelant as popup blockers, then Hulu will have real problems and definitely would not be around in its present form.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:49am

Re: Stepping into my flame suit...
I STRONGLY disagree with this. I WISH ads were useful and entertaining, and if I could be guaronteed that they would be I'd happily give them a look-through. A good ad tells you about a good product or service and why that product or service would be good for you. Why would I not want to know about things that could honestly benefit me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Charabaruk (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:52am

@DanC: Okay, I might have been a bit too harsh on you, but it sure did look like you were taking Anon's comment from #14 and rewriting it to mean something different. From the moment I saw both your posts it seemed to me that you're practically agreeing on just about the same thing, but phrasing it differently, and that your post was giving him a lump for not agreeing. So, I'll rule it as miscommunication, and my thinking it was something else.

@Brian: I don't block ads by choice. I've used AdBlock on everything in the past, when some of my favourite sites used horrible, content-blocking Flash ads (one particularly annoying one from ATI comes to mind). Now, if I find a site that insists on obtrusive ads, I'll block them, and nasty ad providers I'll block either through AdBlock, the firewall, or the hosts file. I have no problem with ads, and I'm pretty sure there are many others like me, who just want to avoid the bottom of the quality barrel.

Otherwise, you sound pretty logical and right to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Justina, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:54am

I remember when online target marketing banner ads really worked. As a consumer, going back as far as say 1997, I remember finding the banner ads that popped up at the top of my Yahoo! mail page to be useful.

Now, I'm a googleite, having long since abandoned Yahoo! and their increasingly overbearing ads that sing, dance and play movies, and clog up my internet pipes. I find myself ignoring content ads almost completely because now, most are either junk, scams or from companies I don't recognize.

In the old Yahoo! days, I did the following: applied for a Chevron gasoline credit card, opened a bank account, and at lesat two credit card accounts, based on 'relevant banner ads' that popped up on my screen. Today, with the rise of internet fraud and realistic-looking phishing fake banner ads, I refuse to click on anything presented to me as an online advertisement.

Back in the old days, when you could still trust online ad content, and I was totally p--d off at my bank (Wells Fargo, thieves and bandits in three-piece suits), I typed in keywords in the Yahoo search engine, like 'I hate my bank' and 'Wells Fargo sucks!' until a relevant ad popped up, leading me to open a bank account with a competing financial institution. Eight, nine years later, I'm still perfectly happy with that bank. This happens to be a company whose primary business isn't banking, and without target banner advertising, I never would have known they offered this service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JP, 26 Jun 2008 @ 10:57am

How many times can you say the exact same thing in this article? repeat, repeat...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JS Beckerist, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:04am

Re: Adblock saved my life
Plus, think of the bandwidth you're saving not having to load the flash files and all that.

I also use PeerGuardian that acts as a firewall. If you turn on the "advertisers" list, then the sites don't even resolve to their IPs (they resolve to your own localhost) so you don't even download ANYTHING!

Google Text ads don't bother me, and in fact I've unblocked them from adblock. I don't mind clicking the occasional link to help a webmaster out if they actually give me ads worth clicking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:05am

Who says annoying ads aren't effective?
If the banner ads are bad content, then something like AdBlock and EasyList are simply a way of letting sites and advertisers know that the ads are not effective at all, but are annoying.

Your point is based on what I believe is the false assumption that annoying ads aren't effective. Who says annoying ads aren't effective? ("HeadOn!") Most people may think of advertising as a bit of a sleazy business, but they're not stupid. Almost all ads are annoying, so if annoying ads aren't effective, that would mean that almost all ads aren't effective. This is either not true or the companies that advertise have been throwing their money away since the dawn of advertising.

We may not like it, but annoying ads work. Less annoying ads may work better, but probably not enough so to make it worthwhile for most advertisers. Now, perhaps ad blockers will change the model a bit, but not because annoying ads aren't effective, but because people finally have a means to avoid annoying ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:07am

Who says annoying ads aren't effective?
If the banner ads are bad content, then something like AdBlock and EasyList are simply a way of letting sites and advertisers know that the ads are not effective at all, but are annoying.

Your point is based on what I believe is the false assumption that annoying ads aren't effective. Who says annoying ads aren't effective? ("HeadOn!") Most people may think of advertising as a bit of a sleazy business, but they're not stupid. Almost all ads are annoying, so if annoying ads aren't effective, that would mean that almost all ads aren't effective. This is either not true or the companies that advertise have been throwing their money away since the dawn of advertising.

We may not like it, but annoying ads work. Less annoying ads may work better, but probably not enough so to make it worthwhile for most advertisers. Now, perhaps ad blockers will change the model a bit, but not because annoying ads aren't effective, but because people finally have a means to avoid annoying ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:08am

Re: Who says annoying ads aren't effective?
Now, perhaps ad blockers will change the model a bit, but not because annoying ads aren't effective, but because people finally have a means to avoid annoying ads.

You mean, because now we can make annoying ads ineffective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mobiGeek, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:08am

Re: Re: Re: Stupid article
Advertising is the distribution of information to get people to consume your product/service. Information is content.
If the content on your website is good, people consume your service. Content is advertising.
Thinking of the two as separate can be done today mainly because "advertisers" typically put out bad content. That is, they often have an extremely narrowly focused and lopsided message. A smart advertiser would put out content that their target audience actually wants to see/hear/read. In other words, they'd become "content providers".
Don't let the current stereotypes cloud your thinking. Ads and content are one and the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:09am

Re: And yet...
You yourself run ads on your site. How do you make money again? Oh thats right, from advertising. The only thing worse than your spouting off about the ads is your hypocrisy.

As I've made clear multiple times, as a publisher, it still makes us some money, but it's a tiny fraction of our revenue, and if it goes away so be it.

It's not hypocrisy to say that ads aren't very effective for getting an advertising message across while still using them as a publisher. My point is that the companies that sell through brand advertising are going to discover it's not worth it.

Then, those sites that rely solely on banner ads will be in trouble.

The real issue is that if the ads are bad and annoying so that people want to block them, then that's going to hurt everyone a lot more than an ad blocker.

Regardless of your view of their monetization effort publishers deserve to be paid for the service they are providing.

No one deserves their business model. You have to earn it. If you piss people off, then you don't deserve anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mobiGeek, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:09am

Re: Re:
Precisely. It is that exact line of thought that had me go see The Happening. Damn, was that ever a mistake...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mobiGeek, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:09am

Re: Re:
Precisely. It is that exact line of thought that had me go see The Happening. Damn, was that ever a mistake...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:10am

Just Doesn't Matter
Maybe I'm in the minority, but it just doesn't matter what the ad says, is about, etc. I don't click ads, period. I barely even notice the "Sponsored Links" on the right hand side of a Google search. My mind is trained to just skip over ads. I think a lot of people are actually like this. All the sleazeball advertisements ("Free IPOD!" and "Protect your computer!") have ruined all the others. I look at an ad and think "Malware download."

Advertisers need to find a new model, that's for sure. Advertisements need to be directly related to the page I'm viewing (if I'm on Guitar site show me an ad for a guitar, not a car), should look natural and be undistracting (no music, no "games"), and shouldn't interfere in my browsing (those annoying ones which rolldown and cover everything).

The most effectives ads I've seen are those that the site probably isn't even getting paid for. Reading a forum where someone recommends a certain TV tuner card because it works well with Linux is going to result in me looking up that card and company and probably buying it. Seeing a blog review the new Asus eeePC will get me interested, not some ugly flash banner which screams at me to click here now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:10am

Re: Stupid article
We're going to block ads because they are ads - not because the are ads with "bad content" -

No, you're wrong. You read this post, right? And it's an "advertisement" for Techdirt. You didn't block it because it was relevant content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:14am

Re:
I view the comments threaded instead of the list view, and tend to skim over some of the posts. I honestly didn't even notice comment #14 until you pointed it out. My comments were in response to Jesse's post only.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mobiGeek, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:15am

Re: Stepping into my flame suit...
You are still thinking of content and ads as separate things. They are the same thing.
The reason you think of ads as separate is that you still think of it as "information that someone else wants to push on me". But that is exactly what content providers are giving you. You just happen to go "looking for news"...which is information that someone is "trying to push on you".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JS Beckerist, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:16am

Re: Re: And yet...
Me too, and yet I still had ads on my own site.

Note: I say had, because in 7 years of me owning the .com I made a grand total of $250 in advertisements (and I was told that was EXCEPTIONAL!)

Didn't even cover hosting costs and I'd rather my visitors feel like they are on a homepage than a business (I don't care about making money off the site.)

Come to think of it, the ads might go back up now that Adblock is around simply because people have an opportunity to opt-out from seeing them. Hmm so is this a case of Adblock INSPIRING the use of ads?! I believe so!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:18am

Re: Business model
OK, so adblock is saying the advert business model doesn't always work? I'm curious- what is the alternative? It's been addressed some in this post already, but TD uses ads themselves. If everyone used AdBlock and no money was made of adverts, what kind of business model would be used to support the website?

Again, if the *content* is good, then there's no problem. You're reading Techdirt, even though it's an "ad" for our business.

People watch BMWFilms because they're interesting films, despite the fact that they're "advertising" for BMW.

People watch the Super Bowl for the ads, because they're more entertaining than the game.

Advertising is not Techdirt's business model, but we do have some ads, but it's more to learn about the advertising process. It's a tiny fraction of our revenue, which is made by selling Insight services to clients.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James the Admin, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:22am

I did not know ether.
But know I do! and boy is it sweet. I swear it must have increased load time for pages that usually are plastered with ads by at least 50%.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:23am

Re: No subject
Proof that ADS and CONTENT are different things no matter how effective you make the ad.

Huh? Not at all. Ads are content. And content are ads. Always. Any bit of content advertises something, and any bit of ads are content.

Where's the proof? I pointed out that ads can be *bad* content, and that's true. And that's the problem I'm pointing out.

But it doesn't change the fact that ads are content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:25am

Re: Re: Re: And yet...
It would be nice if there were a better way but right now this is how the economics of the internet work. Until that changes all you are doing is undermining the very content you are enjoying.

Not at all. You are simply making it clear that the business model is not effective.

That's not "undermining" the content, it's pushing the publisher to find better ways to monetize.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:27am

Re:
Actually some of us (like me) just don't like ads. I turn on the TV solely to watch my show. I go to a website solely to read the articles. I pop a DVD in the player solely to match the movie.

And when you watch that TV show, it's advertising that show to you. And when you watch that DVD, it's advertising the actors and directors.

You DO like ads. You just only like them to be good content. If it's bad content, such as banner ads or commercials, then you get annoyed.

I don't have a lot of free time and I don't want to waste any of it by having anyone trying to sell me something. I never go to these sources wondering what the ads are today. I don't care if they are great, intrusive, old, boring, or whatever. I don't like ads.

Yet, you watch TV shows and movies, which are advertising themselves. You just don't think of them as advertising, because the content is good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
snowburn14, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:29am

What customers want
"In fact, it's usually a sign of what customers really want and how to offer it to them most efficiently."

That's easy. Customers want the best of everything, and they want it for free. You can cease your market analysis now. Trouble is, that doesn't put food on the tables of those who supply it.

"I'm always fascinated by people who seem to think that interference with a business model is either a crime or unethical."

And I'm always fascinated by people who seem to think that trying to protect your current business model is either a crime or unethical...

That being said, I use adblock myself (at least when I'm at home and can install whatever I wish). Like some of the other posters, I try to limit my block list to ad servers, or even specific ads on occasion, that are the most intrusive and detrimental to my enjoyment of the "real" content. If the ad just sits quietly to the side and doesn't get in my way, I'm glad to provide the site a little more ad revenue.
I've seen people argue that getting rid of ads and the revenue they generate doesn't mean there will be any less content available, because there are plenty of other ways the sites can make money. That's simply untrue. It's like saying we don't need fossil fuels because there are alternative energy sources available. Not everything lends itself easily to such a change it what drives it. Some could make the change almost seemlessly, some would need a major overhaul. It's no surprise that would be met with a fair amount of resistance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:30am

ADs SUCK plain and simple - The less the better!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:59am

Re: What customers want
That's easy. Customers want the best of everything, and they want it for free. You can cease your market analysis now. Trouble is, that doesn't put food on the tables of those who supply it.

Not true at all. People will pay for value. They always have, always will.

And if you can leverage free stuff to get them to pay for something of value, that DOES put food on the table.

And I'm always fascinated by people who seem to think that trying to protect your current business model is either a crime or unethical...

I never said that it was a crime or that it was unethical. I just said that it was stupid, because it won't work.

And that's true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony, 26 Jun 2008 @ 12:19pm

Re: Ads should be considered content
"TV ads usually simply sell a slot for a fixed amount regardless of people watching."

I used to work in the TV advertising business. The prices for ads are set based on viewership. The more viewers a show has, the more you pay. Ads run during peak viewing hours cost more than run-of-station (which usually ends up meaning 2-4am)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peet McKimmie (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 12:21pm

Re: I did not know ether.
I swear it must have increased load time for pages that usually are plastered with ads by at least 50%.
I hope you meant decreased...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
M Slade, 26 Jun 2008 @ 12:25pm

Re: And yet...
>>I mean really, if the ads are so annoying to you on a particular site, dont go there. Pretty simple.

Or just block them, which is effortless and doesn't limit the content you get to see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hegemon13, 26 Jun 2008 @ 12:33pm

Re: Re: And yet...
Seriously, I think Jesse's post is dead-wrong. He clearly did not research Techdirt's revenue sources before he made his comment. It is also clear that I am not obligated to download any content from a website that I don't want to. Not going to the site is one solution. Using AdBlock is another. Both are valid ways to avoid downloading unwanted advertisements.

@Chris: HOWEVER, despite the fact that I disagree with Jesse's post, I cannot in any way support the offensive hypocrisy of your own post. You say "You rely on insults and attacks, thus betraying your self-loathing for all of us...", and then follow that up with "low-life troglodyte" and "Flame in hell, troll." Seriously, is this satire, or are you really that blind to your own hypocrisy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jon, 26 Jun 2008 @ 12:45pm

AdMuncher
Alternative to Adblock and a little word of mouth? advertising here... I have been using AdMuncher for a few years now and love it. I had never heard of the AdBlock firefox extension till the news of Rick752 came up so I can not make a comparison on the offerings.

No, I do not have any affiliation. Just pimping a product that has been amazingly effective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GearsofPeace, 26 Jun 2008 @ 12:50pm

Obviously there are ads that people do enjoy
Just go on YouTube, and look at all the commercials there. Not ads preceding the "content" on YouTube. The ads ARE the content. Advertising can be entertaining and even useful. Flashing banner ads, popups, and popunders rarely, if ever, qualify for this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rendarkin, 26 Jun 2008 @ 1:31pm

(originally anon)

Actually some of us (like me) just don't like ads. I turn on the TV solely to watch my show.

And when you watch that TV show, it's advertising that show to you.

Mike, that's like the joke about the kind of answers engineers give. While technically you may be correct, it's completely meaningless to say "if you like watching something, then it reinforces your desire to watch it again." It's not what we're talking about.

Your long-standing equating of "ads are content; content is ads" goes too far outside of what people consider "ads". I know that's part of your ongoing point: that we collectively need to re-think what it means to be an ad. However, what 99% of people are complaining about are commercials - distinct ads in various media. What adblock stops are commercials. The 30-second ads wedged between portions of Lost are commercials. The 8 movie previews Disney automatically plays in front of my copy of Dumbo on DVD are commercials.

No matter how good that content is, there will always be people who don't want the intrusion at some given point. We don't want commercials; we want to watch our show. Now if somehow selling opportunities are interwoven into the narrative, that may or may not be OK, depending on the details. I clearly recall Total Recall as having quite jarring product placement for the time.

My point is that not all content IS ads (obviously all ads are content), as most people consider ads to be. NOT all content is selling something. And a lot of people don't WANT to be thinking about buying things or getting offers while they're just trying to watch a fun show.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2008 @ 3:31pm

Hogwash
They are looking at it like this because it hits them where it hurts. I use ABP but I let a few sites through, if I trust the site owners to serve me ads I want to see. Penny Arcade, for example, will only host Ads for games they like, so I let the ads through.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hope you don't mind, 26 Jun 2008 @ 5:30pm

I block your ads
Hi people,

Just letting you know that I block the ads Techdirt has on its rss feed. Reason: I don't like image/flash based ads. If there was a discrete one line of text ad links at the bottom of each item, I would be happy to have them visible. (I might even click on one occasionally). Otherwise, great and informative content.

Cheers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RabidWolf, 26 Jun 2008 @ 7:06pm

Wow
Amazing. 85 comments in around 4 hours!

I hadn't heard of AdBlock until I saw the article via iGoogle at work. I sent myself a link to this so I could check it out.
It will install the next time I fire up FireFox and I will decide how useful it may be to me.

If it can prevent a heavy pile of large ads that delay a website while it waits for their server to adjust, great. If it causes more issues than it is worth, it will be removed.

I don't mind ads on websites. I do mind ads that take longer to download than the rest of the entire page, or bleat and flicker at me with sound or pictures.
I can flip past ad pages in a newspaper, but if I had to wait until something downloaded before I could turn the page, or the ad flashed at me while I tried to read the article, I would cover it or stop reading the newspaper. TV is more linear and really doesn't count. Ads are, perhaps, the original basis for newspapers, radio and TV, but the ads were either easy to ignore (newspapers), or a minor annoyance that did not continue to intrude the entire time one was watching the sponsored content.

That's my 2 cents, anyway.

Hope you enjoyed this, brought to you by the wonderful folks at...

Grins,

RW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Silverwolf, 26 Jun 2008 @ 9:10pm

Adblock / Avoiding Sites
This is a reply to all the people (in some actual cases webmasters) who keep saying if you don't want to see the ads than you should not visit the site.

Ads are sold based upon a multitude of factors, some ads are sold based upon page impressions, ad impressions, total web site visitors, clicks, etc... Blocking the ad from being displayed (with Adblock for example) will affect some of those factors but not others.

The point is that If I visit a particular website and spend twenty mins clicking through content, that website logs that activity and now has another unique visitor which makes the site that much more valuable. EVEN IF I NEVER SAW A SINGLE AD WHILE I WAS THERE.

What your proposing (Avoiding sites altogether that have annoying ads) is much more damaging to the sites than using Adblock to avoid just the ads.

In that case, the ad wouldn't be seen or clicked on anyway AND the website would have one less visitor and half a dozen clicks.

You people are starting to sound like Prince. Take half a second to think before you start shooting yourself in the foot would you please ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 26 Jun 2008 @ 11:14pm

Re:
Mike, that's like the joke about the kind of answers engineers give. While technically you may be correct, it's completely meaningless to say "if you like watching something, then it reinforces your desire to watch it again." It's not what we're talking about.

But it is exactly what we're talking about.

Your long-standing equating of "ads are content; content is ads" goes too far outside of what people consider "ads".

And that's the problem.

However, what 99% of people are complaining about are commercials - distinct ads in various media. What adblock stops are commercials. The 30-second ads wedged between portions of Lost are commercials. The 8 movie previews Disney automatically plays in front of my copy of Dumbo on DVD are commercials.

Sure. And that's because commercials are bad content.

No matter how good that content is, there will always be people who don't want the intrusion at some given point.

Absolutely. So don't use intrusive ads. That's the point. Intrusive ads are bad content.

We don't want commercials; we want to watch our show.

I agree completely.

Now if somehow selling opportunities are interwoven into the narrative, that may or may not be OK, depending on the details. I clearly recall Total Recall as having quite jarring product placement for the time.

I'm not talking about product placement either, though it's a sub-segment of what we're talking about. If the product placement is jarring, then, again that's bad content.

My point is that not all content IS ads (obviously all ads are content), as most people consider ads to be. NOT all content is selling something.

That's where you're wrong. All content is advertising something, whether on purpose or not, and whether your realize it or not.

And a lot of people don't WANT to be thinking about buying things or getting offers while they're just trying to watch a fun show.

I never said otherwise.

You seem to think I'm saying that all content is trying to get you to buy something. I never said that at all. I just said all content is advertising.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Quantity Surveyor Man, 27 Jun 2008 @ 12:03am

Ads are eating up your bandwidth
So you sift through 50 web pages, and 50% of those pages is ads. Now think of all the ISP's with bandwidth caps. You surf, and you PAY to see ads.

Thanks but no thanks. I already pay my ISP for the use of the line. I'm not going to pay extra to be advertised at. Easylist is a great way to stop paying for "content" you just don't give a crap about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2008 @ 4:37am

Re: Re:
The sloppy semantics in this post/thread are driving me batty.

If we're going to talk with any logic and common sense, we should start with our vocabulary.

An "ad" refers to something other than itself. Its goal is to direct you away from itself toward something else.

TV shows, movies, articles, novels, nonfiction books, etc. are not, in any primary sense, "ads" as they are completely self-referential. They refer you to the ideas, arguments, emotions, etc., that they attempt to create.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 27 Jun 2008 @ 6:52am

Re: They corrupted the net, ABP fixed their corruption
> Same goes for anyone who ever used popup ads,
> especially popunder ads.

I've never been able to figure out what the point of a popunder ad even is.

Why send me an ad, then instantly hide it from my view before I can even read it? Isn't the point of advertising to get people to look at your ad? And if you're going to hide it from them, why bother sending it in the first place?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 27 Jun 2008 @ 7:05am

Re: Re: Ads
> And when you watch that TV show, it's advertising
> that show to you. And when you watch that DVD,
> it's advertising the actors and directors.

That's a rather broad and self-serving definition of "advertising". Using that definition, then everything you do and experience in life is nothing but an advertisement for itself.

If I like watching movies, then the movies are advertising themselves to me.

If I go out and play football with my friends, then the game and my friends are advertising themselves to me.

If I spend time with my girlfriend, she's advertsing herself to me.

If I eat a good meal, the food is advertising itself to me.

The list goes on. When you define advertising so broadly in order to define it as "content", then absolutely everything becomes advertising and the term loses all meaning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse, 27 Jun 2008 @ 7:10am

Re: Re: What customers want
Mike, you seem to have blinders on here. Regardless of whether you personally like the business model it is what it is. Not only that, it is not just the internet that works this way. Most of the entertainment and information you consume has been subsidized in some way. Its a fact of life and not something that just changes on a dime. You are fortunate to have such high value content that it appeals to businesses that need to know what you know. Can that really be said of the blurbs you publish to the web? Probably not. Just because your content lends itself to being sold does not mean that case is true for everyone. Heck I imagine if you had to sell your Insights to the crowd here you would be forced to find a new job very quickly. Bottom line is consumers dont pay for content unless it is compelling. Until there is a system of micropayments or something along those lines consumer facing websites have to support themselves with advertising (or find another source of income to subsidize their loss leader as you have done).

Anyway, my point is that you have a good situation that not everyone has. Should those other folks just pack up and go home because the warm fuzzy for everyone business model does not exist (and may never)? I think not. Imagine the dearth of content if that were to happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse, 27 Jun 2008 @ 7:18am

Re: Adblock / Avoiding Sites
This is not true. Websites get paid when the ads display. They do not get paid off of their server logs. With AdBlock the advertisers ad server is never called. The website still incurs cost to process and deliver your request however (in addition to whatever overhead they had to produce the content).

I agree 100% that if the ad is annoying block it or close the page and send an email to the webmaster. If they get enough emails about an annoying ad they will not run it anymore. If their visitations go down over the life a campaign they will see that too and probably figure out the cause. By blocking it you do not alert them to your aversion to the advertisement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 27 Jun 2008 @ 9:07am

Re: Re: Re: What customers want
Should those other folks just pack up and go home because the warm fuzzy for everyone business model does not exist (and may never)? I think not. Imagine the dearth of content if that were to happen.

This is the standard doom-and-gloom argument you always get when things change. Some adapt to the changes, some don't. In other words, "Adapt or die". The question that should be asked is "Why should those other folks receive special protection for their business model?" Simply because you were able to make money using one business model does not grant you the right to always make money from that business model.

Your argument is that because all those other guys currently rely on ads, we should somehow place the internet in a vacuum so nobody has to worry about finding other ways of making money. Sorry, but stagnation is not a solution.

At it's core, a website is simply a text document that is interpreted on the client side to display the site. Knowing this basic fact, an entire advertising structure was placed on a system where the consumer's internet browser retains control over the structure of the site. And now some consumers are exercising that level of control in order to remove things that annoy them, including ads. Complaining about ad-blocking is essentially trying to argue against the way the internet works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 27 Jun 2008 @ 11:57am

Re: Re: Re: Ads
When you define advertising so broadly in order to define it as "content", then absolutely everything becomes advertising and the term loses all meaning.

But it has to be that way if you want to create a business model that succeeds these days. That's the point. The old concept of "advertising" has to go away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 27 Jun 2008 @ 11:58am

Re: Re: Re:
An "ad" refers to something other than itself. Its goal is to direct you away from itself toward something else.

You can define it that way if you want. But if you do, then your business model will fail.

I'm talking about defining it in a way so that business models work.

I'd rather focus on what works than semantics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 27 Jun 2008 @ 12:03pm

Re: Re: Re: What customers want
Regardless of whether you personally like the business model it is what it is.

Um. No business model is what it is. The market is constantly changing. And if that market tells you your business model needs to change, it needs to change. You can't just say "that's my business model, it must stay!"

Most of the entertainment and information you consume has been subsidized in some way. Its a fact of life and not something that just changes on a dime.

Indeed. I never said anything different. Nor did I say the idea that information and entertainment won't be subsidized. I just said it needs to stop being subsidized by *bad content*.

You are fortunate to have such high value content that it appeals to businesses that need to know what you know. Can that really be said of the blurbs you publish to the web? Probably not. Just because your content lends itself to being sold does not mean that case is true for everyone.

Who the hell said that information would be sold? Not I.

You're arguing against a strawman.

. Bottom line is consumers dont pay for content unless it is compelling.

Indeed. In fact, I'd argue they almost never pay for content. That's why I'm always talking up the importance of "free."

You seem to be arguing against something I never said.

Until there is a system of micropayments or something along those lines consumer facing websites have to support themselves with advertising (or find another source of income to subsidize their loss leader as you have done).

And, micropayments will never work. I've discussed that at length too.

But, again, you seem to be arguing against somethign I never said. Yes, websites will support themselves with advertising. That's what I've been saying all along. But that content needs to be good. And it's not.

Should those other folks just pack up and go home because the warm fuzzy for everyone business model does not exist (and may never)?

You seem to be confused and again are arguing against something I never said.

I really don't know how to respond to you when you seem to think I said something totally different than what I actually said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lukjad007, 27 Jun 2008 @ 12:12pm

Ads aren't all bad.
I have nothing against a well placed decently presented ad. If it interests me I'll look at it. But when I can't see the page for the ads, I just want to scream. It's like living with a virus in my browser.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Xanthir, FCD, 27 Jun 2008 @ 12:19pm

Re: Art instead
If you'd like art to replace the advertisements, I work on a firefox extension of ABP (that's right, an extension of an extension) that does just that. Only tangentially topical, but I think it points out that folks are looking for a better browsing experience, and Add-Art brings it to them.

Ooh, very cool. Thank you for the link, sir!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Wilson, 27 Jun 2008 @ 6:36pm

Re: And yet...
Of course it might be too much to expect that the same webmasters and corporations that allow flash, java and video ads (all bandwidth hogs) that they should rethink the kind of ads they'll allow on their web site?

"Regardless of your view of their monetization effort publishers deserve to be paid for the service they are providing."

I hate to tell you this but in a free market the publisher only deserves to be paid if I find the service useful. If I don't find a site useful because of intrusive, annoying, clock cycle stealing ads then I don't support the publisher or the monetization effort. So I use AdBlockPlus to do this? So what?

Have you approached some of the worst offenders (ie ZDNet or C|Net) about removing their trashy ads? People have tried for years to no avail.

And how you you, Jesse, speak for every webmaster out there who wants to support the site with annoying, useless ads?

If you read the comments here and on the Washington Post carefully people are not saying they're anti-advertising. They're anti the kind of ad that opens itself over, under and around a site without permission, is loud, annoying as all hell and has nothing to do with the site in the first place.

Or have these people learned nothing from the small fact that most people don't object to the simple, relevant text ads on Google?

Relevant, well designed, non intrustive text ads work better and, I daresay, get more clicks.

ttfn

John
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Wilson, 27 Jun 2008 @ 7:00pm

Re: Re: Re: And yet...
Not every site, useful or not, has ads littering the place.

As for your "economics of the Internet" no one (once again, cause I know it's just far too simple for you) is saying all advertising is bad.

What qualifies is (1) Intrustive for it's own sake, (2) No relevence what so ever (3) downloading applets without my permission and waste valuable bandwidth and clock cycles (4) Malware loaded [Hi there, DoubleClick!] which includes cookies that I neither gave permission for or want (5) Just plain ugly.

People have outlined what they would accept though you seem to want (or perhaps design?) the spamware people are blocking here.

You also miss the right of the consumer (in this case me) to block stuff that I don't want on my system.

Want me to see your ad? Don't piss me off. Don't be DoubleClick etc etc and do be relevant, tasteful and NOT amimated.

ttfn

John
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Wilson, 27 Jun 2008 @ 7:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: What customers want : There's an old saying that goes...
something like this:
"I know what I said."
"I just don't know what you heard."

It works in this kind of situation beautifully.

ttfn

john
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Wilson, 27 Jun 2008 @ 7:28pm

Not at all true
And you ought to know that.

If you are running a web site that's dependent on being paid by ad impressions and you're not logging that then you don't deserve to be in business, anyway.

That said. Just check the number of unique visitors to the number of ad impressions. If the visitor count and page counts are higher than the ad impressions then, I'd suggest, as a webmaster it would be time to get off your lazy butt and look into it.

AdBlock goes after the worst offenders, after all, and not just all advertising. It can also block ad servers who have been known to invade privacy and distribute malware.

I haven't seen or experienced it blocking Google Ads either on their site or sites that subscribe to the service.

Of course, if the business model for your (or my) website is reliant on banner ads which sing, dance, block content and generally make a pest of themselves and I want to stay in business then perhaps I'd better look at what else is available in the way of advertising that would support the site.

Nor am I arrogant enough to tell people coming to my site that they can't use an ad blocker. It's their machine, it's their browser they can do what they want.

If enough of my visitors are doing that I'm the one with the problem, not my visitors.

Simple enough?

ttfn

John
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stuart Hannig, 29 Jun 2008 @ 12:32pm

Anyone who uses ADBlock is a THIEF and should go to Jail!
It's not ok to block ads. If you don't like the site, don't use it. If you go to a supermarket you can't arbitrarily decide that you only want 1 stick of gum, a handful of cereal and a cup of milk. And you can't choose to avoid paying for what you bought.

By blocking ads you're saying I'm not going to pay for what I've read or taken or used. I'm just going to steal whatever I can and I'm taking it for free. You might not click the ads if you show the ads but at least there was a chance that you could or that at least the ads were actually there and advertisers pay for the number of times the ad is shown to people.

Don't give me that same BS about how ads are annoying. Not all sites use those ads and they're only doing that because you're blocking ads. We have to make up for the money that ad blockers cost us. If I come in to your business or home and take some stuff you have there, hound you for information on how they work, then I go about using your electricity and water and then finally leave without paying for your products that I took with me or reimbursing you for the electrictiy and water - you'd be pissed.

Same way site owners are pissed when people come to our sites read our content, take whatever we're offering, waste our bandwidth loading videos and using our services, maybe even contact us to get something out of it and then leave all having blocked the ads that pay for the bandwidth you stole.

It's a crime, just like shoplifting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stuart Hannig, 29 Jun 2008 @ 12:37pm

Re: Re: And yet...
Don't blame us when everyone uses popups and spyware. I use Zango on one of my popular sites. And I don't care because most are using blocking software so if they want to do that then I'll make money getting them to install that software. I have a high transfer rate with 40% of new visitors downloading and installing it. It makes up some-whats for the ad blocking.

I ll be doing popups if they block that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 30 Jun 2008 @ 7:46am

Re: Anyone who uses ADBlock is a THIEF and should go to Jail!
It's not ok to block ads. If you don't like the site, don't use it. If you go to a supermarket you can't arbitrarily decide that you only want 1 stick of gum, a handful of cereal and a cup of milk.

The manufacturers of those products can exercise control over how their products are sold. A web site publisher simply cannot exercise that same level of control because the text documents that make up a web page are interpreted on the client side.

By blocking ads you're saying I'm not going to pay for what I've read or taken or used. I'm just going to steal whatever I can and I'm taking it for free.

This is simply laughable. You don't get complete control over how your website is displayed because that isn't how the internet works. If a choice was made to put content on the internet in spite of this fact, then the publisher has no cause for complaint. Therefore, there is no moral issue.

If I come in to your business or home and take some stuff you have there, hound you for information on how they work, then I go about using your electricity and water and then finally leave without paying for your products that I took with me or reimbursing you for the electrictiy and water - you'd be pissed.

Sure, but that situation doesn't translate to ad-blocking, so it's a rather pointless comparison. You are talking about an abuse of private, physical property. When you put up a website, you are essentially offering an open invitation to view your content. That's where the level of control ends; you don't have the means to force how the content is viewed.

Another point: Since the files necessary to display a website are downloaded to the local machine, the end user has the right to make changes they want to the files on their computer. Adblock simply does this on the fly, editing the text document to remove ads.

It's a crime, just like shoplifting.

It isn't stealing, it isn't a crime, and it's nothing like shoplifting. As I stated previously, arguing against adblocking is trying to argue against the way the internet works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stuart Hannig, 30 Jun 2008 @ 6:35pm

Re: Re: Anyone who uses ADBlock is a THIEF and should go to Jail!
Your a dirty pirate if you think that. Thieves come to sites with adblock on and its stealing. I don't care how the Internet works. If you come to one of my sites like ChannelKing you have to view my ads. If you don't like it you can go to hell and go away.

I don't need filthy ad leechers there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 1 Jul 2008 @ 5:40am

Re: Re: Re: Anyone who uses ADBlock is a THIEF and should go to Jail!
Your a dirty pirate if you think that. Thieves come to sites with adblock on and its stealing.

Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. You can't actually counter my arguments, so you're going to resort to the "no, you're wrong" method. The insults just show that you really don't have any rationale to back up your statements.

I don't care how the Internet works.

That's fine, you don't have to care. However, since you still put content on the internet, it seems particularly foolish on your part to complain about it.

If you come to one of my sites like ChannelKing you have to view my ads. If you don't like it you can go to hell and go away.

As stated previously, that isn't true. You don't have the level of control necessary to enforce your demands, and I am well within my rights to control what I view on my computer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sailor Ripley, 3 Jul 2008 @ 6:35am

Re: Anyone who uses ADBlock is a THIEF and should go to Jail!
It's not ok to block ads. If you don't like the site, don't use it. If you go to a supermarket you can't arbitrarily decide that you only want 1 stick of gum, a handful of cereal and a cup of milk. And you can't choose to avoid paying for what you bought.

This must be one of the most pathetic non-RIAA/MPAA related analogies I have ever read...

content and ads are not the same. So content is not one stick of gum/handful of cereal/cup of milk and ads are not the other sticks/rest of the box of cereal/jug of milk

Just for that reason alone, the analogy doesn't apply

By blocking ads you're saying I'm not going to pay for what I've read or taken or used.

I wouldn't be paying anything anyway...whether I block the ads or not, no exchange of any kind of currency is involved. So again, a ridiculous statement.

I'm just going to steal whatever I can and I'm taking it for free.

Furthermore, I'm not stealing anything, for the exact same reason. Unless you put up a pay-wall, any content you make available on the web is (for) free, so nobody is stealing anything

Not all sites use those ads and they're only doing that because you're blocking ads.

Turning things around might be convenient for you, but that doesn't make it true. This is not a chicken and egg kind of situation...
Obnoxious ads came first, then came the adblockers, not the other way around, so please stop trying to feed us this fallacy that because adblockers exist you have to make ads more annoying. Frankly is just stupid to try to argue that, for three reasons:
first reason I already mentioned, nobody's going to believe adblockers came first.
Secondly, what kind of retarded business strategy would it be anyway? Adblockers are used because people don't like ads, so your solution to that problem is to make more annoying ads?
Thirdly, what kind of retarded business strategy would it be anyway? Adblockers are used and are effective, so your solution to counter that is....more ads?

Same way site owners are pissed when people come to our sites read our content, take whatever we're offering, waste our bandwidth loading videos and using our services, maybe even contact us to get something out of it and then leave all having blocked the ads that pay for the bandwidth you stole.

(yes, I skipped over your laughable analogy of you coming into my house etc... because it is that laughable)

Here's how it works in the real world: you put up content, offer things, maybe even allow visitors to contact you and you provide (at no charge to your visitors) the bandwidth to do all that. You're allowed the chance to earn some money by putting ads on your website, however, that's between you and advertisers. In no way, shape or form are any of your visitors involved in that deal so they have no obligation whatsoever to look at or click on the ads you display.

I kept the best for last...

You might not click the ads if you show the ads but at least there was a chance that you could or that at least the ads were actually there and advertisers pay for the number of times the ad is shown to people.

So when you watch a movie, show,... on TV, you dutifully sit through all the commercials? You never switch channels, go to the bathroom, etc...in short you never, not even for a second, refrain yourself from watching the commercials?
The answer to that question is obvious so why don't you shut your hypocritical mouth no matter how frustrated you are about people blocking the ads on your site because the ads apparently are annoying. Don't even think of responding that you do watch every second of the commercials, that's not going to make you virtuous or justified in your rant, it's going to make you a hypocrite AND a liar
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 10 Jul 2008 @ 1:45pm

Re: Re: Re: And yet...
Don't blame us when everyone uses popups and spyware. I use Zango on one of my popular sites.

Your solution to ad-blocking is to infect your users with adware and spyware, and annoy them with popups? You deserve to be blamed if you intentionally go out of your way to inconvenience and annoy your users.

If spyware and popups are your solution, then you are the one responsible for it. Pretending that adblocking is to blame for your ill-advised "solution" is a sad attempt at avoiding responsibility for your actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stuart Hannig (the real one), 30 Sep 2008 @ 12:03pm

Please no one listen to what he says
Guys, don't listen to what the user, with the same name as me, is saying. He is a no good idiot who has 'stolen' my identity. I don't know who he is and how he knows so much about me, but these are NOT my opinions. I don't even have a Zango account!

Some one is a low-baller who is too scared to express there own opinions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fanboy, 6 Apr 2009 @ 1:10am

Rick752
Rest In Peace buddy, you'll be missed :(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Snead Nesbitt, 24 Jun 2009 @ 7:08pm

Re: They corrupted the net, ABP fixed their corruption
Bless Rick752!

I had Adblock Plus -- after adding it as a sort of novelty -- and was running it and sort of liked it. Then I soon moved over to a new PC. I had not bothered to reinstall the add-on, Ad Block Plus.

But then something happened on my new PC. I hated the interfering banners. The got in the way. They didn't shrink when they were supposed to. They blocked functionality.

So I remembered that great add-on from my old PC and found it again. I installed it and feel great about doing so.

The trigger? In my case, an Estee Lauder ad that swelled up and blocked most of the New Messages on my Yahoo inbox. Yahoo had sold an ad that blocked my use of Yahoo.

Not only that (and this is something Canadians are used to), it also wanted me to click a "Find a Macy's near you" link in the ad.

Thing is, there are no Macy's in Canada. So I was getting an ad that I shouldn't have had. And ad that Estee Lauder should not have been paying for. And a real pain in the butt, interfering with my Yahoo "experience."

So I googled around and found out that Rick752 as apparently passed away. I'm sorry to hear that.

But he's definitely in Heaven now.

S.N.
[ link to this | view in thread ]

Prince Sues Musicians For Making A Tribute Album For His Birthday

Microsoft Hoarding Patents Like They're Going Out Of Fashion

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...

Recent Stories

Friday
19:39	Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)

More

Tools & Services

Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports

Company

About Us
Advertising Policies
Privacy

Contact

Help & Feedback
Media Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story

More

Copia Institute
Insider Shop
Support Techdirt

Brought to you by Floor64

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.