Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius Wey
but the fact is they are both a direct and indirect source of revenue for many businesses, so denying them that is analogous to stealing.
|
I have to put my two cents in here.
I understand the need for businesses to advertise -- if I were in business I'd want to advertise too. However, 95% of what I see is irrelevant to me. And it takes up screen space whether it's PPC, PC, or TV, that I'd rather have for the apps I'm running.
Context is also important. I'm more tolerant of apps on a site like PPCT which I know is heavily ad dependent for revenue. Or a site like PCMag.com -- I see their ads in the print mag -- it's the same for the website.
However, I'd rather not see ads on my homepage, where I'm trying to get as much news, stock info, weather, etc. as will fit on the screen. I know Yahoo (my homepage) also needs ad revenue to exist, but they have plenty of other pages where ads are more tolerable, than on my "personalizable, customizable" homepage.
But I have a question is about the stealing comment. If I choose not to view an ad, I don't consider that stealing from the business. If we start to think of choosing not to view an ad as stealing from the business, then it seems that the next step is going to be to require us to watch ads whenever and wherever a business chooses to display them.
Or is the comment directed toward those who provide adblocking software? I still don't consider this stealing. The makers of software are not forcing anyone to use it and I don't know of any that is out there blocking advertising in mass rather than being run on individual PC's and PPC's by user choice.
Ah well. Maybe eventually, there will be a balance struck between the needs of advertisers and the desires of individuals. If the advertisers become more selective in ad placement, then maybe individuals will become more tolerant of ads in places where they make sense -- when we don't have them all over everything we try to view.