How I Learned to Stop Blocking and Love Ads

[Hooch Tan]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars' target='_blank'>http://arstechnica.com/business/new...es-you-love.ars</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"My argument is simple: blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love. I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, or makes someone the son of the devil. It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1267903992.usr20447.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>Well, maybe not love ads, but come to accept them as the price to pay for viewing websites I enjoy.&nbsp; A long time ago, I too used ad blockers, but these days, I do not bother.&nbsp; I get the whole idea about ads being annoying and intrusive.&nbsp; They can distract from content, slow down your computer and in some strange way, some would make me feel violated.&nbsp; All I want to do is view a web page, and there is this banner that whenever I accidentally mouse over, it says "Hello!!!!!"&nbsp; When it comes down to it, I see it like a website saying, "Here's some content we think you might find interesting.&nbsp; All we ask is that you see a few ads in return."&nbsp; I think that is a pretty reasonable request.&nbsp; Sites that serve obnoxious ads consistently, I do not visit them for a few months, checking back every so often to see if they have changed their ways.&nbsp; Those sites that keep their ads respectful, I regularly visit.&nbsp; If the content of a site is so good that I want to read it, I figure it is worth the price of a few ads.&nbsp; That is my rationale.&nbsp; What is yours?</p>

[Macguy59]

Except when ad servers have slowed to a crawl making the entire web page very slow to load. I don't block ads per se but I do block flash which of course does block some ads. Jason made his thoughts on the subject clear to me very recently when he essentially told me that he wasn't interested in helping with a page render problem (though I was pointing out the odd db errors I was seeing at the bottom of the front page and not asking for help) because of blocking ads (some).

[crimsonsky]

The ads that most bother me are the Vibrant pop-ups. I can't stand those and they almost make some pages unreadable as far too many terms are linked to Vibrant ads. I've blocked those via OpenDNS settings. Other than that, I can live with the ads on most sites and if a site is too ad-busy (yeah, I'm looking at you Mac360), I just avoid it. I understand that ads are the price we pay for free access to many sites and as long as they don't overdo it, I'm fine with them.

[Hooch Tan]

One thing I did not touch in my original post, but Ars writer Ken Fisher did is the simple fact that if you do block ads on their site, you are costing them. They are providing a service to you, delivering the webpage, and you are depriving them of income. In the comments section, one of them does mention they are investigating other possible ways of generating revenue too, so I don't think that they are standing still and trying to develop a more robust business model. Like anything else, content sites must constantly evolve to adapt to reality.

That being said, I don't think people can play ignorant of that fact anymore. People who are blocking ads at sites who operate by CPM (revenue by impressions) are explicitly contributing to costing a site real money. Personally, I am not okay with that, which is why I do not use an ad blocker. For others, well, I believe it is a personal choice and I would not stop someone from installing an ad blocker. But they should acknowledge what they are doing.

[jeffd]

I do not block ads..I block javascript. If you want ads.. use the tried and true animated gif. Anything more is wasting my system resources and opening me to vulnerabilities.

[doogald]

I do block some ads, will continue to block them. Intellitxt in particular bugs the heck out of me, and if I need to display ads in order to visit a site and it uses intellitxt, I'll just stop going there.

[Jason Dunn]

That being said, I don't think people can play ignorant of that fact anymore.

Oh how I wish that were true. :(

But we live in a post-Napster, Bittorent-happy world where the morally bereft think that if something is technologically possible, it must be "OK". Most people don't think about the repercussions of their actions - they put their own self-interests first and rarely give a thought to impact their decisions are having on others. And to make themselves feel better, they spout all manner of justifications for their selfish actions. This is the world we live in...and it's pretty depressing to someone like me who loves to create content and help people understand technology. :( I do it because I love it, but guess what, I have bills to pay just like everybody else...

[martin_ayton]

I do use an ad-blocker for general browsing, but where I find a site that I keep coming back to, or a site that I want to be there when I need it, then I just add that site to the Ad-blocker's white-list. For instance, all the Thoughts sites are in that list.

Sites where I spend, or am likely to spend money (amazon, expedia etc.) do not get this treatment: I'm already spending money with them, I don't feel the need to see their ads too.

[Hooch Tan]

But we live in a post-Napster, Bittorent-happy world where the morally bereft think that if something is technologically possible, it must be "OK". Most people don't think about the repercussions of their actions - they put their own self-interests first and rarely give a thought to impact their decisions are having on others. And to make themselves feel better, they spout all manner of justifications for their selfish actions.

I'm not sure about the whole morality of it. Personally, with my particular set of morals and ethics, I do not block ads. I consider it the price to pay for content. However, those same morals and ethics allows for others to have a differing opinion. But whether it is moral or not, the problem is with websites, there is an actual cost for serving them, and thus, someone has to pay. If ads cannot support it, and so far, no other viable solution has presented itself, then it means that a lot of content sites will eventually shut down. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

One worry I have is that if that trend continues, what will remain are the larger sites who have deep pocket backers and possible consolidation of medium sites. We are already seeing some of this with sites like jkontherun and Ars Technica both getting the sponsorship of larger corporations. While that is not necessarily bad, it does mean that the entry point for developing a successful website is getting higher and harder which can tend to limit innovation.

[Reid Kistler]

Don't use a specific ad blocker, although some security settings probably have the same result, at least for certain sites.

Would agree with the thrust of some of the comments concerning frequently visited sites: 1) IF the ads were too intrusive, a particular site would simply no longer get visited, and 2) If it is a site that is primarily a Vendor / Retail location (Amazon, NewEgg....) would be even less tolerant of In-Your-Face ads...

OTOH, do not usually object to those ads - including ones from Vibrant - which seem to be easily avoided (just don't move your mouse pointer over them...), with the tipping point being Objectionable Content (as subjective as THAT can be).

Some of the sites I visit (PCWorld is a good example) use an "entry display ad" before opening the main page, or when linking to a Continuation page. PCWorld's is OK: you can click "ignore" (or Continue...), a minor inconvenience that is well worth access to the site - especially as their ads tend to highly IT focused.

Increased screen size / resolution also helps: ads generally no longer intrude upon the material that is being sought - unlike the days of 800x600 displays!

Paying for web content is a difficult subject. Some sites get away with it, others do not - and many of the latter have simply disappeared. There was talk of "Micro Payments" at one time - essentially a PayPal type account that would be charged pennies - or even fractions of a penny - for site access.

And a number of software apps have tried the "ad ware" approach: Eudora is one we used for several years. You could either put up with ads in one corner of your display, or purchase the "full" version of the app....

In any event, it does cost money to maintain a site, even if it is NOT intended to provide income, and good citizenship suggests that one should be willing to at least put up with the ads on one's favorite destinations - and maybe even CLICK on them, or purchase from the associated vendor every now & then.....;)

[Jason Dunn]

...and good citizenship suggests that one should be willing to at least put up with the ads on one's favorite destinations - and maybe even CLICK on them, or purchase from the associated vendor every now & then.....;)

Well said! I personally have a "One Visit, One Click" rule - whenever I can, if I visit a site, I'll do a quick scan of the ads on the page and click on one that interests me. I figure it's the least I can do for the site in question offering me information that I want.