Log in

View Full Version : More Mobile Advertising Heading Your Way


Darius Wey
05-21-2008, 02:00 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/may08/05-20MobileBrowsePR.mspx' target='_blank'>http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/...leBrowsePR.mspx</a><br /><br /></div><em>&quot;Today at Microsoft Corp.&rsquo;s online advertising leadership forum, advance08, Brian McAndrews, senior vice president of the Advertiser &amp; Publisher Solutions Group, announced the availability of display advertising across two popular Windows Live for mobile services, the launch of new markets for Windows Live for mobile services, and upcoming advertising plans for its Live Search Mobile offering. This marks the first year that mobile advertising has played a leading role at the industry event that brings together some of the most influential thought leaders of the global advertising community. Announced today, advertisers can now extend their campaigns to social media through Windows Live for mobile in France, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. by creating banner ads that will be visible across Windows Live Messenger and Windows Live Hotmail. This builds upon Microsoft&rsquo;s initial launch of mobile advertising for MSN Mobile in, France, , Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. where mobile ads are available alongside premium MSN Mobile content. Advertising on Windows Live for mobile is already available in Spain, and later this month will be available in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, further extending its availability for advertisers. All ads placed on these two popular services will adhere to Mobile Marketing Association (MMA) guidelines.&quot;</em><br /><br /><img border="1" src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/spt/auto/1211364003.usr2.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br />Microsoft has just announced an expansion in the availability of display advertising across its mobile services. You can already see an example of it at <a href="http://mobile.live.com/" target="_blank">http://mobile.live.com/</a> (screenshot above). I know there's a vocal crowd out there who are strongly against ads in any way, shape, or form, and will go out of their way to block them, 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'm all for mobile advertising - if a business wants to create awareness of their mobile applications and services, they should have a right to do so. My only hope is that given the small displays that mobile devices are endowed with, these ads don't end up being too &quot;in-your-face&quot;.

pmgibson
05-21-2008, 03:52 PM
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.

Darius Wey
05-21-2008, 04:53 PM
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.

Glad you asked. I ought to elaborate on this. There's a difference between allowing an ad to display and ignoring it, and allowing an ad to display and actually being forced to read/watch it. I don't think businesses should ever make consumers do the latter - that's severely limiting freedom of choice.

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.

The comment is not directed toward those who provide the software. It's directed more toward those who use the software knowing full well that blocking ads eats into a site's revenue. And I've tacked that point on to the end because I know there are users out there who aren't fully aware of the impacts that ad-blocking software may have on the lives of other people, so it's unfair to blame them for wanting to block ads for personal reasons.

But I know of people who do have that knowledge and do use ad-blocking software on ad-supported sites and services. They enjoy the benefits of these sites and services, but choose to block ads because of their general dislike of visual clutter. They're taking something from the providers and giving nothing in return.

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.

Agreed. I made a similar point toward the end of my original post. Mobile displays are small enough as it is, so the issue of ad sizing and placement is something we need to pay particular attention to.

pmgibson
05-21-2008, 05:01 PM
It's directed more toward those who use the software knowing full well that blocking ads eats into a site's revenue.

I am confused now.

I am not fully aware of how revenue is generated for a site by ads. I just know that it is. What I don't understand is how ad-blocking software prevents that revenue from being generated.

Could you explain -- perhaps if more of us understand the effect, we'll be more selective in blocking the ads.

Darius Wey
05-21-2008, 06:18 PM
I am not fully aware of how revenue is generated for a site by ads. I just know that it is. What I don't understand is how ad-blocking software prevents that revenue from being generated.

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.

Pony99CA
05-21-2008, 09:29 PM
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

yslee
05-21-2008, 09:33 PM
Right, so what next, DRM for websites?

I find it curiously hypocritical that tech sites complaining about fair use are starting to go down the potential slippery slope that has plagued RIAA and MPAA; namely, it starts with calling their customers thieves.

MadSci
05-21-2008, 10:04 PM
Blocking Ads is stealing? :eek: OMG! I must rush off right away to turn in ComCast and every Cable/Satillite Provider out there - they all block adds on broadcast channels and substitute their own! Maybe there's a big reward in it for me:rolleyes:

OK, a site that has no retail hook has to pay the bills if it is to remain a subscription-free service, and Banner ads is one way to possibly do so. But Microsoft doesn't need to clutter up my precious visual real estate with ads for FedEx in order to keep the servers turned on!

Screen space on my device is valuable. I have less than 3 sq" to work with, and it costs me ~$120/month, so if Microsoft and Fed Ex want to commandeer 0.5 sq" of it, they owe me at least what I have to pay for the 'privilige' of carrying their ad around with me. Otherwise they are 'stealing' from me!

With that 0.5sq" costing me about $20/month, plus the purchase and depreciation of the phone, those Pirates will be stealing a lot from me, as compared to the ~$0.01/click that they might lose from FedEx if I block them. So if I block the ads, my actions will be far less 'criminal' than theirs.

Besides, didn't Microsoft build a banner/pop-up blocker into Internet Explorer? OMG! - Another desperate 'thief' for me to turn in for the Reward! Gotta go make a phone call!

:p

MadSci

Underwater Mike
05-21-2008, 10:43 PM
Working for one of the largest publishers in the world, I can report that ad blocking software categorically prevents an impression from being registered. The mechanics of what happens is beyond me, although I do know that the earlier attempts at ad blocking added entries to the HOSTS file to prevent proper DNS resolution.

As to your other comparisons (i.e., TV, DVDs, etc.), the ad industry position is that it's just like blocking online advertising and that -- if not stealing -- you are failing to honor your end of the ad-supported publisher/audience "contract."


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

blazingwolf
05-22-2008, 12:05 AM
As to your other comparisons (i.e., TV, DVDs, etc.), the ad industry position is that it's just like blocking online advertising and that -- if not stealing -- you are failing to honor your end of the ad-supported publisher/audience "contract."

I don't remember signing an agreemeant with them. Just like I didn't agree to receive add text messages on my phone. Since when is permission a given?

The day the block me from fast forwarding through commercials on my DVR is the day I set them on fire, the DVR that is.

Darius Wey
05-22-2008, 04:48 AM
I find it curiously hypocritical that tech sites complaining about fair use are starting to go down the potential slippery slope that has plagued RIAA and MPAA; namely, it starts with calling their customers thieves.

This isn't about finger pointing nor are we focusing entirely on tech sites. We're talking on a broader level here.

It's a matter of principle. If a publisher is willing to offer an ad-supported service, they know full well that the ads are what puts money in their pocket to help keep that service running. They trust that their consumers will allow those ads to be displayed. Wouldn't you, as a consumer, feel obliged to honour that moral agreement? I suspect that's the "contract" that Underwater Mike is hinting at. It need not be in black and white and signed at the bottom.

The concept of "stealing" is subjective, and I can understand - in fact, I was expecting everyone to have a different definition and opinion of it. I should mention that there's a difference between labelling something as an act of stealing, and labelling something as analogous to stealing. My original post specified the latter. In the real world, if you steal something, you suffer the legal repercussions. That's not going to happen when you use an ad blocker, but it doesn't detract from the fact that you're taking something for nothing.

Personally, I feel that if a consumer chooses to enjoy the benefits of an ad-supported service, they should at least help the publisher out by allowing those ads to be displayed. Especially the smaller publishers - it might actually go beyond helping them keep the service running and actually helping them put food on the table for their family.

griph
05-22-2008, 07:06 AM
How on earth can individuals blocking ads be construed as stealing - utter crap! I'd like to see advertisers try that arguement in court when I turn off adds in PocketPCThoughts allowed under my subsription!

Advertising is all very well - but as far as I am concerned its an invasion of my privacy and uncontrolled advertising is just SPAM! Next we will be told that it is illegal to block SPAM - after all they are in most cases advertising!

Darius Wey
05-22-2008, 08:27 AM
How on earth can individuals blocking ads be construed as stealing - utter crap! I'd like to see advertisers try that arguement in court when I turn off adds in PocketPCThoughts allowed under my subsription!

That's different, though. That's a subscription benefit, which you paid the publisher for.

An advertiser is not the same as a publisher. Advertisers provide the ads, and pay publishers to publish the ads; with dynamic ad content, there's usually an ad server acting as an intermediary to channel funds between the two parties, and also to ensure that the ads displayed are of relevance.

If you disable ads, whether through a subscription benefit or ad-blocking software, the advertisers aren't paying for that. They're not liable to pay the ad server, and ultimately, the publisher, for ads that never get displayed. Therefore, the advertisers are not going to take you to court because of it... although, I have seen stranger things in life before. ;)

So, this notion of disabling online ads is one that primarily affects the publisher. If a consumer pays them for the privilege, they're still pocketing money to keep the service running. No harm done. If a consumer uses ad-blocking software, they're enjoying the benefits of the service without offering anything in return. That forces the publisher to find other avenues to keep the service running, or shut it down when the cost becomes too great - and this point actually highlights the vicious cycle present here, because a consumer also has something to lose when their favourite ad-supported service has been forced into retirement.

Of course, there is rarely a legal agreement involved in any of this. Most publishers simply trust that consumers will do their bit to help keep their favourite ad-supported service running.

Underwater Mike
05-22-2008, 03:40 PM
Darius did such a good job of elaborating that I won't restate all his points. The only question I will pose to those people who take issue with the implied contract in ad-supported media -- and, obviously, I'm not talking about something over which you'd go to court -- is this: Is your desire to avoid ads great enough to lead you to pay for the content you consume? If the answer is "no," then you see why there are ads all over the sites you visit.

WRT intrusive forms like pop-ups and -unders, interstitials, roll-overs, etc., advertisers pay for what works, and those forms, in the aggregate, offer better yields than simple banners or inline text ads. You may find them annoying, but they do what they're supposed to do.

Jason Dunn
05-22-2008, 08:02 PM
Darius did a good job of explaining things in this thread, so I'm not going to jump in with my own opinion, but it seems I should finally go ahead and write up an article (likely on my personal blog - I'll link to it form here) about how online advertising works. There's unfortunately a great deal of ignorance about this topic, and that ignorance ends up helping no one.

mbranscum
05-22-2008, 08:05 PM
I am so thankful I do not use MSN Live software! :)

Jason Dunn
05-22-2008, 08:34 PM
Ok, I'll add one comment to this thread...

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.

Like most interactions online, it boils down to a use of resources. When you visit any Web site, you're using the resources of that server. That server is being paid for by the owner of the Web site. To offset the costs of that server, and hopefully even to make a profit, the owner of the site puts advertising on the site. Because the owner of the site doesn't charge anything to the user (let's say your average tech site here, not something that's subscription-based) he's relying on that advertising to pay for the server, but more importantly for the time of the people generating that content.

So it breaks down like this:

Visitor consumes content + uses server resources
Web site owner pays for content + server with ads
If user blocks ads on owner's Web site, user is consuming resources and stopping owner from generating revenue...and that's unethical (you can call it a number of words, theft doesn't quite line up with what happens, but it's definitely not ethical).

When I had to drop $1200 to get 8 GB of RAM in my server, where do you think that money comes from? Advertising. What do you think allows me to write content all day, do reviews, videos, giveaways, etc? Advertising. People that block ads are denying me my living, and if enough people do that, everything you see on all my sites fades away.

Hopefully that helps explain things a bit. :)

pmgibson
05-22-2008, 09:03 PM
As to your other comparisons (i.e., TV, DVDs, etc.), the ad industry position is that it's just like blocking online advertising and that -- if not stealing -- you are failing to honor your end of the ad-supported publisher/audience "contract."


The WHAT????

See, I think we're starting to see attitudes that make my original comment about being "required" to view advertising whenever and wherever the advertiser chooses to display it, not such a ridiculous idea after all.

I had no idea that the ad industry took this view.

Oh, wait, it just occurred to me, this comment is sarcasm right? Right?

pmgibson
05-22-2008, 09:31 PM
Like most interactions online, it boils down to a use of resources. When you visit any Web site, you're using the resources of that server. That server is being paid for by the owner of the Web site. To offset the costs of that server, and hopefully even to make a profit, the owner of the site puts advertising on the site. Because the owner of the site doesn't charge anything to the user (let's say your average tech site here, not something that's subscription-based) he's relying on that advertising to pay for the server, but more importantly for the time of the people generating that content.

***long quote trimmed by mod JD***

My apologies for making you angry. If you review my original post, you'll see that I made exception for ad supported free sites. And I'm fully aware that the ad revenue is why you can make the site free. But I'm not stealing from you because I choose not to look at the ads. Do you consider me to be stealing from you because I don't *click* on ads that I'm not interested in? If I come to your site and don't click on every ad on the page, then I have used the page without giving you benefit of all the revenue possible from the page. By the definitions used in this thread, that's stealing. But if anyone thinks that I'm going to click through all the ads on a page just to make sure the site owner gets his/her full share of revenue, they're crazy.

It all comes down to balance. If ads weren't annoying, popups for stuff I'll never buy, like online dating, or if they weren't right smack dab in the middle of text I'm interested in, I wouldn't want to block them. The ads on PPCT don't annoy -- I don't have to close extra windows when I'm finished -- I don't have to weed through ads in order to read text. So I'm not blocking them. But if the ads ever get to the point where I can't see the site information because of popups, ads in the middle of text, etc., then me blocking the ads won't be the problem. Not visiting the site at all will be the problem. And isn't one part of ad generated revenue being able to show advertisers that it's worth advertising on your site because of the number of hits you get on your site?

Sorry if this comes accross as a little steamed, Jason, but the tone of your post left me somewhat irritated. I feel like I'm being taken to task for voicing an opinion that differs from yours.

But, here's what I'll do. And what I suggest.

Let's all get rid of our ad blockers. And when you find a site that is just too annoyingly filled with ads, stop going to that site. Completely. Don't use their resources without "paying" for it. Make it so that the in-your-face, annoying advertising doesn't do what it's designed to do (like Underwater Mike said). Then maybe they'll either change their advertising formats or go out of business. But don't hold your breath while you're doing it........

pmgibson
05-22-2008, 09:35 PM
I should mention that there's a difference between labelling something as an act of stealing, and labelling something as analogous to stealing.

True in the sense that there are repercussions for committing the act of stealing and not for doing something that some people view as "like" stealing.

But it's still insulting to be accused of it.

Jason Dunn
05-22-2008, 09:43 PM
See, I think we're starting to see attitudes that make my original comment about being "required" to view advertising whenever and wherever the advertiser chooses to display it.

The whole TV industry is eventually going to be turned on its head...and a lot of things are going to get broken along the way. Eventually the local cable companies are going to be nothing more than bit pipes - we'll get all our TV shows from the networks who are creating them. Things are going to change, no doubt about it...

Jason Dunn
05-22-2008, 09:54 PM
My apologies for making you angry.

Angry? Nope, not at all. I apologize if you perceived my post that way - I certainly didn't intend to come across that way. I'm like the Hulk - when I'm angry, you know that I'm angry. :D

But I'm not stealing from you because I choose not to look at the ads. Do you consider me to be stealing from you because I don't *click* on ads that I'm not interested in? If I come to your site and don't click on every ad on the page, then I have used the page without giving you benefit of all the revenue possible from the page. By the definitions used in this thread, that's stealing. But if anyone thinks that I'm going to click through all the ads on a page just to make sure the site owner gets his/her full share of revenue, they're crazy.

No, you misunderstand how that works - there are different types of ads, and most of them don't require clicking. The scenario we're talking about here, the scenario that Darius originally raised, is people who use ad blockers. Ad blockers that stop the ads from loading. No ads loading means no income for the site owner. There are two main type of ads:

CPM (Cost Per Mille): These are ads that earn the Web site owner income when they load. No clicking is needed (virtually every ad you see on all my sites). You don't need to look at them.

CPC (Cost Per Click): These are the ads where no income is earned for the site unless they are clicked on. This is like Google AdSense.

So basically, I'm not asking you or anyone else to look at the ads, click on them or anything else. Just let them load. Does it help me even more if you click on them? Sure, because it means the advertiser is more likely to renew their ad campaign again. But I'm not going to ask or expect people to do that.

People that use ad blockers stop the ads from loading - they're using our server resources, reading the content that we create, and stopping us from earning any income from it. To me, that's a form of theft. It's unethical.

It all comes down to balance. If ads weren't annoying, popups for stuff I'll never buy, like online dating, or if they weren't right smack dab in the middle of text I'm interested in, I wouldn't want to block them.

This might surprise you, but I agree completely. I don't use ad blocking software, but because I use Firefox and IE7, I automatically block pop-up ads. Do I get irritated at ads that are in my face? Yeah, you bet. And I refuse all ads that I think cross the line and are irritating. I hope that people find the ads on my sites to be reasonable and non-irritating.

Sorry if this comes accross as a little steamed, Jason, but the tone of your post left me somewhat irritated. I feel like I'm being taken to task for voicing an opinion that differs from yours.

That's funny, I didn't think you sounded "steamed" at all. But at the risk of offending you further, I don't think this is matter of "opinion". I'm paying for the server. This is what I do for a living. This is how I pay my bills and buy food. I don't particularly care if someone "thinks" that by blocking ads they're not hurting me - they are, and there's no arguing that. But that's not you, so we're not actually disagreeing about this. ;)

Let's all get rid of our ad blockers. And when you find a site that is just too annoyingly filled with ads, stop going to that site.

I think that's a fantastic idea, and it would be great if everyone did that. :) Myself, whenever I go to any site, I always click on an ad - I'll just do a quick scan of the page, click on something I find interesting, and check it out later. That's my way of giving back to the site that I found interesting enough to stop and read.

bsoft
05-23-2008, 02:43 AM
Well, if you guys equate blocking ads with "stealing", then I'm not going to read your sites.

I don't block ads, and I even click on them - because I want to support sites that do work to bring me information.

But configuring my browser not to display certain content isn't "stealing". The whole notion is absurd. Am I "stealing" if I use a text-based browser that doesn't display ads? Or if I read an ad-free RSS fead rather than visiting the site?

There's been this wholesale abuse of the word "stealing". Downloading music illegally isn't "stealing", it's copyright infringement. Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. Copyright law does not give you "ownership" of content, merely a limited monopoly on its distribution.

So, I guess, that's where we are left. You have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. And I have the right not to visit your site.

Darius Wey
05-23-2008, 06:30 AM
But it's still insulting to be accused of it.

We've presented information on how the ad-supported model works and how ad blocking might be regarded as a form of theft. What you perceive as a result of processing that information is beyond our control; I apologize if you believe someone has made a direct accusation to you of being a thief, but no one in this thread has.

It seems that the discussion here has gone beyond the nature and ethics of ad blocking to the semantics of the words, "steal" or "theft", with an unnecessary fixation on their legal definitions and ramifications. At the end of the day, everyone thinks differently, and so there will always be a partition separating those who regard it as a form of theft, and those who don't. That is why this debate has ensued for years. But I believe that education goes a long way here. Even if someone disagrees with another's opinion on ad blocking, they have at least heard, and hopefully respected, what ad blocking means to them, and vice versa.

I've seen people completely alter their stance on ad blocking after dealing firsthand with the costs of running an ad-supported service. That's not to say that the publisher is always right. I do believe that they have a responsibility to ensure that the ads offered aren't overly intrusive and an irritation (for example, pop-ups), and I know Jason feels the same here, which is why the Thoughts Media sites feature ads that don't cloud the content that readers actually come here to read. It's all about trusting each other and working together to make the Web a great place to be in for both the consumer and the publisher. :)

Sheena
05-23-2008, 05:34 PM
Well, count me among those that felt insulted by been considered a thief. Yes, I understand a site can use the revenue, but it also needs to be accessible & flexible enough to attract visitors. PPC Thoughts is one of my favorite places in the web & I visit it frequently, but there are hundreds of others where I go too. I pay dearly for broadband access & try to husband my resources to the max by using filters, blockers, RSS, newsletters, offline reading, etc. Above all, my time is the most precious resource & I won't waste it looking at things that at best I'm not interested in, & at worst are annoying; things that take double the time & space to load; things that cover 1/3 of my screen real estate.

Any site that cannot manage with a (big?) portion of its visitors enjoying their efforts for free should move to a paid-subscription-only format, although I dare say this perhaps wouldn't generate enough $ to offset the loss in popularity. As an alternative, a site can be set to not load properly when a filter is enabled. Take imdb for example. With ad filters on you can only see the text & links, not the images, & some secondary links do not load at all. I can disable the blockers when/if I need to go there. It's still free, but I have a choice, althought I don't visit as frequently as I would without that restriction.

I appreciate everyone's efforts to keep me informed, educated and/or entertained. I appreciate it's done for free in many sites like this. What I don't appreciate is the open concept that if I don't "give something in return" I'm stealing the bread right out of someone's mouth. When my finances allow, I join paid memberships & use site stores for purchases. Hell, I've been known to send voluntary contributions when things are going well. I think I deserve better than a guilt trip for not doing more to put $ in your pockets. Selfish of me to put my own interests first by some standards, but you're going to have to live with that.

Rosie

Jason Dunn
05-23-2008, 09:13 PM
But configuring my browser not to display certain content isn't "stealing". The whole notion is absurd. Am I "stealing" if I use a text-based browser that doesn't display ads? Or if I read an ad-free RSS fead rather than visiting the site?

You're right, "stealing" isn't the perfect word. There's really no perfect word for what it is other than saying "I'm using your server resources, and reading your free content, but I'm also blocking your ads and denying you the ability to make a living". So I'm not sure what word would be. I can't think of a single thing that scenario is analogous to in the physical world - every comparison falls short. The only term I can come up with is "unethical".

I appreciate that you're not the ad-blocking type, even if you're not going to visit this site any longer. If everyone was like you (allowed regular banner ads to load), there's be a lot more publishers that could afford to run their Web sites full time, and a lot more great content out there.

Jason Dunn
05-23-2008, 09:43 PM
Yes, I understand a site can use the revenue, but it also needs to be accessible & flexible enough to attract visitors. PPC Thoughts is one of my favorite places in the web & I visit it frequently, but there are hundreds of others where I go too.

It's a funny statement to say "a site can use the revenue". You make it sound like generating revenue is somehow just a "nice" thing to have - like it's optional. What do you do for a living? Is your paycheque optional? Try to put yourself in the shoes of the publisher and perhaps your opinion will change a little. I don't intent to sound snarky, but you seem to be dismissive of what I'm trying to do with these sites. Most of us small publishers try to eek out a full-time living doing this, and it's not easy, or stable.

I pay dearly for broadband access & try to husband my resources to the max by using filters, blockers, RSS, newsletters, offline reading, etc. Above all, my time is the most precious resource & I won't waste it looking at things that at best I'm not interested in, & at worst are annoying; things that take double the time & space to load; things that cover 1/3 of my screen real estate.

So you're saying that your broadband connection is somehow overwhelmed by the ads on Pocket PC Thoughts? I don't know what kind of broadband you have, so maybe that's the case, but for me the site loads in under 2 seconds - and the content displays in 1 second. If it ever takes longer than that, it's usually because our server is under a heavy load and blocking ads won't make that go any faster. Anyway, if that's too slow for you, then I don't really have a response for that.

But I will add that one of the reasons we provide full-content feeds is so that people can consume our content, largely ad-free (there are Feedburner ads at the bottom of some feed items) when they want to, and when they have the opportunity to, we hope they'll come to the site and let our banners loading pay for our continued existence.

Any site that cannot manage with a (big?) portion of its visitors enjoying their efforts for free should move to a paid-subscription-only format, although I dare say this perhaps wouldn't generate enough $ to offset the loss in popularity.

I sure wish that were true, but it's not - the only content people will pay for online is pornography. Reviews and news? Nope. That model simply doesn't work. The only way sites like ours continue to exist is that, thankfully, most people allow site ads to load (whether through a conscious decision, or through simply being ignorant of how to install an ad blocker).

As an alternative, a site can be set to not load properly when a filter is enabled.

Yes, that's an option, but not a very good one. I go out of my way to stop irritating and intrusive advertisements from appearing on my sites, to give people the best experience possible - and screwing up the site for them, even if they are blocking ads, is something I'd really prefer not to do. But maybe if more people start running ad-blockers, I might be forced to do that. I sure hope not.

What I don't appreciate is the open concept that if I don't "give something in return" I'm stealing the bread right out of someone's mouth.

I don't imagine anyone appreciates being told that, but it's the truth. Sometimes the truth is hard to accept if it means looking at your own actions and acknowledging that they're hurting others. I realize taking responsibility for ones actions is a very un-cool thing to do in the era in which we live...but if you block ads, you're hurting me. Period. Maybe not in a way that I can perceive, but if even 10,000 other people did what you're doing, I'd feel the hurt in a very significant way and probably have to shut down the sites. That's a fact.

What's kind of silly about all this is that you're only being asked to "give" bandwidth - to allow ads to load on a page. It's not like anyone is asking for your credit card number - and I suspect your bandwidth is free. So what's the cost to you - perhaps one second on a page load? If you totalled up all the time you saved blocking all ads, would you really have much of anything? I could understand if somehow that ads loaded first before the content, and you had to sit there staring at the ads loading before you could read the content...that would suck. But that's not the way we work here, or the way pretty much every site I can think of works. So your objections ring rather hollow.

When my finances allow, I join paid memberships & use site stores for purchases. Hell, I've been known to send voluntary contributions when things are going well. I think I deserve better than a guilt trip for not doing more to put $ in your pockets.

That's great to hear that you do that when you can - but it changes absolutely nothing about what you're doing by blocking ads. You can't do something to hurt a site owner then do something "nice" to offset that. If you were a subscriber here and you used our feature to turn off the ads, that's would be a very different thing.

And to think I said I wasn't going to comment much on this thread. I guess I should know better. :)

Rob Alexander
05-24-2008, 12:18 AM
Some random comments on this thread...

1. Darius, you clearly have an excellent grasp of the English language so it's a bit disingenuous for you to complain that people are misconstruing your use of the word 'stealing'. You chose a negative, emotion-laden word knowing full well that it would cause offense. If you actually didn't know that, then you should have. Your use of the phrase 'analogous to' does nothing to mitigate the implied insult. If I were to say that believing we should not use ad-blocking software 'is analogous to being a low-life, sleazy, scumbag', you would hardly fail to take offense simply because of the word 'analogous'. Of course people feel insulted... you insulted them.

2. Darius, I'm not insulted by the stealing comment since I'm busy looking at the PPC Techs banner ad as I write this, but I am insulted by your assertion that, except for letting ads load, site users make no contribution to this site. (Post #13 "...they're enjoying the benefits of the service without offering anything in return.") Really? Let's take this thread for example and consider what we would have here without the contributions of your users. Post #1 - Darius says blocking banner ads is like stealing. Post #2 - Jason says, yeah, he agrees. There it is... that's the entire conversation unless your community contributes to the thread. How many people would come read that exciting thread? Not many, I imagine, and then where would your ad revenue be? You are looking at this as a one-way medium, but it's not. The contributions of your community are a major part of the content of this site. I've spent more time in this one thread (refreshing the banner ads as I move back and forth around the pages) than I have on the entire site in the past two weeks. It's not an interesting thread solely because of your original post; it's an interesting thread because of the contributions of your community.

3. Jason, you set the terms for the site so don't complain if people take you up on what you offer. As others have pointed out, you have the option of a subscription service, a service that denies information to those who block ads, a service with crazy, horrible pop-up ads, a service with discrete ads or even, as you first started out, a free service with no ads at all. No one is taking the food out of your mouth or denying you a living. (If this doesn't work, you can always start a different business or get a regular job.) People are responding, as individuals, to their own valuation of what you provide and the terms under which you provide it. You've explained why you believe this is the only balance of service/ads that will work for your site (and you're probably complete right about that), but then you just have to accept that some blocked ads are a cost of doing business. If you were a grocer, you'd have some fruit spoil without being bought. That's not your customers' fault for not buying enough fruit, it's just a cost of doing business. The grocer needs to find a balance between ordering too much or too little fruit and you need to find a balance between enough ads to make a living without making them so intrusive that you drive people to use ad-blockers. (I think you do a nice job with that balance, btw.)

4. It bugs me that the thread actually has taken on an adversarial tone. Jason, remember when you first started putting up ads? You told the community that you really had to do it to keep the site running and the vast majority of people said that, if that's what you need to do, you should do it. That's because we all want you to be successful and to be able to make a living out of this. May I respectfully suggest that you would receive a better response from your current community if you posted a thread asking people not to block ads on this site as a way to support what you do here, than if you call them thieves or tell them they are unethical. Most people will go out of their way to support a friend, but few people will be shamed or insulted into offering support.

5. On the original topic, my 22" wide screen desktop is an entirely different animal than my 2.8" HTC Touch. I'm content to have ads here of the type that Jason does, but I have little room for content on my Touch, much less room for ads. I wasn't planning to use MS Live anyway, but this would be a deal breaker for me. I'll pay for services if I need to but I won't shuffle through piles of ads looking for snippets of content on my phone.

Darius Wey
05-24-2008, 06:44 AM
1. Darius, you clearly have an excellent grasp of the English language so it's a bit disingenuous for you to complain that people are misconstruing your use of the word 'stealing'. You chose a negative, emotion-laden word knowing full well that it would cause offense. If you actually didn't know that, then you should have.

Considering that the word is hardly an expletive, I believe that it's as negative and emotion-laden as you want it to be. When focusing on a highly debatable topic such as ad blocking, if you can evaluate reasoning presented to you and accept the effects your actions has on others, I suspect that the word would hardly cause offense.

I know people who download and distribute music and warez via P2P like there's no tomorrow. Call it what you want - theft, copyright infringement, an unethical practice - they know and accept what they're doing, and acknowledge the ill-effects their actions have on the people who worked hard to deliver the original content. I've seen others tell them that they're "stealing", yet they don't even bat an eyelid.

If you cannot accept - and yes, this can be hard sometimes - you will take offense when people call you out for it.

Your use of the phrase 'analogous to' does nothing to mitigate the implied insult.

I used that phrase because I accepted that ad blocking was not a 1:1 match to stealing in the physical world. Some of the underlying principles still remain intact, but you're not going to suffer the legal repercussions as a result of your actions.

Now, perhaps I made the mistake of assuming that, regardless of one's actions, there would still be widespread acceptance and understanding of the effects ad blocking has on others. My use of the word, "stealing", was never meant as a direct or implied insult, so I apologize if it's had quite the opposite effect. And its juxtaposition with "analogous to" was certainly not done with the intention of mitigation.

2. Darius, I'm not insulted by the stealing comment since I'm busy looking at the PPC Techs banner ad as I write this, but I am insulted by your assertion that, except for letting ads load, site users make no contribution to this site. (Post #13 "...they're enjoying the benefits of the service without offering anything in return.") Really? Let's take this thread for example and consider what we would have here without the contributions of your users.

No, you've taken that statement out of context. I was focusing chiefly within the realm of ads and the returns offered by ads, and not specifically on Thoughts Media, but rather, a broader level.

Please do not think that I or Jason or anyone else on the Thoughts Media team does not value the contributions you and every other reader make toward promoting community discussion. Over the years, I have stressed countless times the importance of the community. My stance on that has not changed and it never will change.