Jimquisition: The Adblock Episode

[Aardvaarkman]

I
If I do not click advertisements, and if I do not buy the products, and if I do not want to subconsciously ingrain nonsensical bias, then it almost guaranteed that advertisements shown to me would not result in a profit for that company. Because of this I feel that it should not matter (in theory) for the companies running advertisements on the Escapist if I view their ads or not.

This highlights one of the biggest and most sordid problems with online advertising. The Escapist doesn't care if you buy the advertiser's products. They only care that you see the ads. Notice how they don't say "go and buy our advertiser's products" but instead say "please don't block our ads."

If this was being done in the interest of the products being advertised, then they wouldn't care if you saw the ads or not, only that you buy the products.

The root problem of all this is that the interests of the various parties involved are orthogonal. There are no truly shared interests here. You have these parties:

1. Content creator
2. Merchant (company being advertised)
3. Advertising network/agency placing ads
4. Publisher publishing content and ads
5. Audience

None of these interests completely align:

The content creator wants their work shown to the audience, and hopefully receive some compensation for it. But they don't want their content to be adversely affected by advertising or restrictions from publishers. They are not directly interested in advertising other than a means to an end.

The merchant wants to sell their product or service, and engages an advertising network to do so. However, the advertising network is in the business of selling ads, and isn't directly concerned with the sales of the company's products.

Meanwhile, the publisher generates income from selling ad views, but has no direct concern for the profits of the advertising network, particularly their revenue from other sites.

Finally, the audience doesn't care for much other than viewing content by the content creator. But they have to negotiate all those intermediaries to get that content - unless it's made available directly from the content creator (via donation, direct sales, etc). The audience's level of attachment to the content creator can lead to all these complicated negotiations such as unblocking ads, if the audience feels the content creator deserves that effort.

Bottom line: it's a big hot mess.

I think by far the most interesting dichotomy here is that between publisher and merchant. The merchant desperately wants to sell their product, but doesn't care at all about the publisher. Meanwhile, the publisher desperately wants to show the merchant's ads, but doesn't care at all about the merchant.

The most closely aligned interests in this arrangement is that between the publisher and advertising network. Which is why you end up with things like forum rules beholden to such networks.

 

[ClockworkUniverse]

So, I stopped using adblock months ago.

But since this seems like a good place to mention it, I'd just like to say this:

That Jeep ad? The one that's been on the site for ages? Spreads out and plays a video if you mouse over it for even a frame? If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about.

Entirely because of that ad, I will never, under any circumstances, purchase, drive, or regard with anything but loathing, a Jeep. I kind of wonder if whatever marketing company works for Jeep actually thinks that abomination will move product, or if they just don't care.

It's, well, the sort of thing that makes people use adblock. I'm not planning to go back to it just over this, but it's astoundingly obnoxious, and I don't think the Escapist is doing itself any favors by hosting it, since in the long run, that sort of thing will almost guarantee fewer ad-viewing audience members.

 

[Trelmayas]

Yet someone comes out and straightforward says "I use Ad-Block here but this is why and i wish i didn't have to" and they get instantly moderated.

This thread isn't supposed to be a 'confession booth' for adblock users.

Discussion of the effects adblocking has on sites and site content is allowed here, this can be done without advocating or admitting to the use of said software.

People are trying to explain to you why they use adblock on this site, with the hopes that we can work together so that it's not necessary. After watching Jim's video, I put the Escapist back on my whitelist, but if the ads continue to be as hazardous and obtrusive as they once were, I may reconsider this.

I would hope those who run the Escapist would be kind enough to listen to these problems and work with us. Based on the warnings I've seen, this may not be the case.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

But how is that solely the consumer's fault? It was the creator/publisher who decided to release it for free with advertising support.

I'll have to stop you here because you've already ignored what I explicitly established.
To be blunt: If it's advertised it's not strictly free. No exception.

Advertisements are not a monetary cost, they're an opportunity cost. Both are costs to the consumer.

I didn't ignore it - I just took it as read. I was using "free" as a shorthand for "free of monetary cost" - and "ad-supported" as the cost paid.

I absolutely agree that the time spent watching an ad has value. That's why I said that it was seen as an economic benefit to release it this way rather than charge money directly.

They would not have done that unless they saw an economic benefit to releasing the content that way. The consumer would not have been able to take that content for free unless the publisher chose to release it that way.

And that's the simple solution to the ad-blocking dilemma - publishers should just charge money for their content, and not allow public ad-supported access. Problem solved.

While that's certainly an option, it's not a strict "solution" to a problem when you're just trading one cost for another.

Ah, you see, that statement was rather tongue-in-cheek.

I reduced it to a "simple" solution because of all the whining and hand-wringing over things like piracy and ad-blocking. If ad-blocking is so damaging, then why don't they just move to a non-advertising model? That would eliminate the ad-blocking problem altogether.

Because they make (or think they will make) more money with advertising (even with the existence of ad-blocking) than they would by selling with an up-front cost or subscription. If you can still make enough money despite ad-blocking, without even having to "sell" your product, then it seems that ad-blocking not that bad of a problem to have.

This is why I think attacking ad blocking is a short-sighted attempt to mask much deeper problems.

 

[TheMemoman]

All right, you got me with your fucking humble honesty... you eloquently ethical, righteous fuck... AdBlock is off for The Escapist.

You got me thinking, about minor inconveniences, fuck the the police, and how sometimes misfired rebellion can hurt others, even when the cause is righteously in the best regards for mankind. Rock The Casbah and all that jazz.

 

[Pyrian]

Hmm. Fair enough. The site deserves something given the amount of time I spend on it, and the ads do suck. The pubclub's only about 8 cents per weekday. That won't break my bank.

 

[Neta]

Why not just assume that people are going to block ads to begin with and then work around that?

Instead of saying "adblocking is bad so don't adblock" you should say "please whitelist us - here's why you should".

 

[WeepingAngels]

So, I stopped using adblock months ago.

But since this seems like a good place to mention it, I'd just like to say this:

That Jeep ad? The one that's been on the site for ages? Spreads out and plays a video if you mouse over it for even a frame? If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about.

Entirely because of that ad, I will never, under any circumstances, purchase, drive, or regard with anything but loathing, a Jeep. I kind of wonder if whatever marketing company works for Jeep actually thinks that abomination will move product, or if they just don't care.

It's, well, the sort of thing that makes people use adblock. I'm not planning to go back to it just over this, but it's astoundingly obnoxious, and I don't think the Escapist is doing itself any favors by hosting it, since in the long run, that sort of thing will almost guarantee fewer ad-viewing audience members.

The server guy said that they pay 3-4 times more for ads like that. Intrusive ads are what advertisers want, people hoping to teach something to advertisers don't understand them. There is a reason ads have spread everywhere within the public eye and beyond and it isn't because consumers want to see them.

 

[Verkula]

I actually forgot that I'm using adblock for the last couple of months now, so yeah, enabled(I mean this site is enabled on it) now.

 

[ClockworkUniverse]

So, I stopped using adblock months ago.

But since this seems like a good place to mention it, I'd just like to say this:

That Jeep ad? The one that's been on the site for ages? Spreads out and plays a video if you mouse over it for even a frame? If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about.

Entirely because of that ad, I will never, under any circumstances, purchase, drive, or regard with anything but loathing, a Jeep. I kind of wonder if whatever marketing company works for Jeep actually thinks that abomination will move product, or if they just don't care.

It's, well, the sort of thing that makes people use adblock. I'm not planning to go back to it just over this, but it's astoundingly obnoxious, and I don't think the Escapist is doing itself any favors by hosting it, since in the long run, that sort of thing will almost guarantee fewer ad-viewing audience members.

The server guy said that they pay 3-4 times more for ads like that. Intrusive ads are what advertisers want, people hoping to teach something to advertisers don't understand them. There is a reason ads have spread everywhere within the public eye and beyond and it isn't because consumers want to see them.

I understand that, and wasn't really expecting to convince anyone, and hey, if the Escapist gets paid more for it, that's at least a benefit on some level.

Mostly, this thread was a convenient opportunity to do a quick mini-rant on something that had been bothering me. Was pretty cathartic, actually, even if I've already devoted more time to this discussion than to that ad.

 

[WeepingAngels]

So, I stopped using adblock months ago.

But since this seems like a good place to mention it, I'd just like to say this:

That Jeep ad? The one that's been on the site for ages? Spreads out and plays a video if you mouse over it for even a frame? If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about.

Entirely because of that ad, I will never, under any circumstances, purchase, drive, or regard with anything but loathing, a Jeep. I kind of wonder if whatever marketing company works for Jeep actually thinks that abomination will move product, or if they just don't care.

It's, well, the sort of thing that makes people use adblock. I'm not planning to go back to it just over this, but it's astoundingly obnoxious, and I don't think the Escapist is doing itself any favors by hosting it, since in the long run, that sort of thing will almost guarantee fewer ad-viewing audience members.

The server guy said that they pay 3-4 times more for ads like that. Intrusive ads are what advertisers want, people hoping to teach something to advertisers don't understand them. There is a reason ads have spread everywhere within the public eye and beyond and it isn't because consumers want to see them.

I understand that, and wasn't really expecting to convince anyone, and hey, if the Escapist gets paid more for it, that's at least a benefit on some level.

Mostly, this thread was a convenient opportunity to do a quick mini-rant on something that had been bothering me. Was pretty cathartic, actually, even if I've already devoted more time to this discussion than to that ad.

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about people who say that threads like this are an opportunity for advertisers to learn where the limit is. They know where the limit is and their job is to push the limits.

I should also add that the more tolerant consumers are of ads, the more ads they will get served to them by advertisers.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

i used to not give a single shit about ads and didnt bother with adblock, UNTIL a few months back, when this annoying new tab kept popping up about some mother i dont give a shit about making tons of cash or whatever, to this day i dont know if this ad came from a site or a virus or whatever, the point is after exploring many solutions to this terrible ad which would pop continually over and over again no matter how many times i closed it, often opening many tabs at once, i decided to try adblock and so far it has been the only way to get rid of the thing, i will unblock this site but i usually dont unblock sites because to this day i dont know what site, if any, was poping the ad


so you can thank scummy spammers for the existence of adblock too, not just advertisers

 

[Hellfireboy]

Dear God that was a lot of warnings to get that post up.

 

[AtheistConservative]

I think one of the biggest issues is that the advertisements are a poor fit to the audience. They annoy the audience and are often completely irrelevant to audience members' interests. But it doesn't have to be like that. There are plenty of products and services that I buy that I'd be totally up for seeing an ad for. As long as that ad doesn't ruin my browsing experience that is.

For instance, I don't like online gaming in general, but I do love single player RPG's. No matter how many times some half topless princess tells me to that I can rule the kingdom or whatever, I'm not playing. Some new RPG on the other hand? Let me know so I can even consider it. I almost missed Fallout 3 back in the day because I had never heard of the franchise, and only by chance did I see an ad on TV for it. Fallout 3 is now one of my favorite games.

 

[DjinnFor]

I'm sure some people wouldn't use adblock on sites that didn't use audio-visual ads that loudly autoplayed in the background whilst watching videos or reading articles and were impossible to mute and forced repeated reloads of the same webpage to get rid of. Or relied on scripting, since we all know thanks to facebook that letting advertisers run scripts is the quickest way to brick your valued customers PCs. Or outright crashed browsers for no reason. Or were literally fraudulent redirects to scam sites and other such nonsense. Or, worst of all, relied SolveMedia.

God damn, you tempt me daily, Escapist. You really do. The minute my anti-virus software alerts me of a potential abuse of scripts, that will have been the last straw. I draw the line on "supporting content creators" when I suffer actual damage to my personal property brought on by nothing short of negligence on your part.

 

[Blue_vision]

Thanks Jim. I've never disabled my adblock for any site, and I always try to compensate by supporting producers more directly. You've convinced me to finally get a publisher's club membership. So congrats, I guess. And good video, as usual.

 

[Hellfireboy]

I would also like to point out that I did this because you managed to appeal to my deeply held belief that nothing is free and what appears free is actually an offset cost. I didn't pay for it but someone somewhere did somehow. I would like nothing more than for the word "free" as it relates to products or services to be entirely removed from the lexicon.

 

[Matt K]

I agree with a lot of these posts that the main problem for us viewers is the manner in which these ads as done. Personally I'd have no issue with static ads (or 15-30 sec videos for actual videos but not trailers since they're ads in and of themselves) that the site maintained the code for. Personally I've gotten viruses from a number of ads because no one seems to police these codes before they go live. Heck I most likely go one from a site a love who uses banner ads but he has no way of vetting ads before they run. Plus another issue is the bandwidth for these video ads. For instance at work there are bandwidth limits and I had ads for a 15 min video from Nostalgia Critic that was 3gb in size. Ad in the annoyance with loud autoplaying videos, hover over videos, etc.

I have to agree with Scrumpmonkey, the use of various blocking software is the viewers way of rejecting this type of annoyance. No one is saying they don't want sites to make money but they're saying its not worth having to deal with these issues to them. The industry is going to have to change the way ad's made and placed on sites or they're going to die off. Personally I think a change is going to be the best for everyone. Sites need better ways to vet the ads they run before they go live. Its the sites job to attract viewers and part of that job I believe is to ensure that said viewers encounter as little hassle as possible. Those type of tools would be very beneficial as it would allow for better and safer ads and also less intrusive.

 

[Neta]

If your advert is obnoxious and intrusive, then it deserves to be blocked. There's a high chance it's going to infect your computer with adware or malware so better to be safe than sorry.

If, however, it's a harmless little image-only banner, then it's not a problem.

Unfortunately if you've been using the obnoxious and intrusive adverts and gotten blocked because of it, then the user isn't going to know when you've learned your lesson and switched to the more user-friendly and disease-free adverts.

 

[Ross Tuddin]

I don't use an Adblocker however I go through random periods of time when I don't get ads before the videos as an example of just watching this video. I don't know why that happens but even if these down times in ads didn't happen i still wouldn't use an adblocker (even when I marathoned half of the shows). I get ads frequently when watching Twitch and I support content creators and websites using ads to continue to do the things that they like and allow me to watch their hard work.