Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius Wey
Revenue generated from dynamic ad content is usually based on the number of ad "impressions" (i.e., displaying the ad) and ad "clicks" registered in a given time period.
Ad-blocking software has a direct and indirect effect. It directly affects the impressions, because it prevents the ads from being displayed. It indirectly affects the clicks, because if there's no ad to display, there's no ad to click. As a consequence, the external provider serving the ads will register no impressions and no clicks, which ultimately hurts the site owner as he/she pockets less revenue.
|
I agree about not getting clicks, but are you sure that ad blockers actually prevent the impressions? I can see two ways for the software to work:
- Basically rewrite the HTML to remove ad sections. That will block impressions.
- Rewrite the HTML to download the ad but hide it. That will generate the impression, but won't display that ad. (Of course, that's in some sense cheating the advertiser, but that's another issue.)
As for ad blocking being "stealing", I'll disagree. Do you fast forward through commercials on TV or DVDs? If so, isn't that basically like blocking ads?
And what about annoying forms of ads? I personally don't mind banner ads, but what about pop-ups or pop-unders, interstitials, Flash or in-line text ads? Is somebody who allows banner ads but blocks pop-ups stealing? (And don't get me started on those annoying in-line text ads. I'm glad Jason allows turning those off.)
I view ad blocking as harmful to the ad-supported model, but certainly not stealing. Depriving somebody of revenue is not necessarily stealing.
Steve