Jimquisition: The Adblock Episode

[Atmos Duality]

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.

Well, as long as we're on the same page about that.

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.

Forgive me for not catching that; I've been a bit too literal minded as of late.
(I blame the hours and hours of equations I've had to derive)
I think I'll address this further down, just to keep this as short as I can.

I've done a search, but I can't find anything on public performances specifically and that seems to be the defining factor on this topic.
Note that I'm not dismissing the relevance or trying to be snarky, but the tragedy of commons seems to be strictly linked to anything that directly benefits people in more tangible ways than subjective entertainment.

As much as I'd prefer a better source than wikipedia, try these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem (related directly to Public Performance, which is identical to a Public Good; sorry for the confusion)

For the sake of argument, I can easily go along with the premise that entertainment is a benefit to society since it has obvious positive effects which make people more productive or less inclined to create chaos, but I would like to see it be mentioned specifically for this discussion. If you could link it

I guess the point here is, whether or not users have any responsibility moral or otherwise vs. sites like this one being responsible for taking the losses into account and thereby giving actual permission to circumvent advertisement or seeking alternative methods.

It's an ugly moral dilemma, because the nature of Ad-Blockers is similar in nature to piracy; when you eliminate moral incentives, you also eliminate regular economic incentive.

Granted, it's not quite as extreme as piracy, since there are many more non-profit content producers than non-profit game developers, but the concept still applies since they're both Information Goods.

Akin to that of how piracy, by economic mechanics, competes with equivalent goods on the market by generating an irrational amount of supply (infinite supply at low to no cost). Most Pirated games are functionally identical to their original counterparts, just as the Jimquisition is still the same whether or not an ad plays prior to it.

Tragedy of the Commons is a good theory to explain that, based on motivational behavior.
People want X, and will pay the lowest cost to obtain X.
But what happens when X disappears because the person/firm that creates X has no incentive to continue?
That's the real problem.

In fact, I've noticed some folks even taking serious offense to Jim just for having the audacity to try and charge some cost to view his show. I know that it's easy to adopt a mercenary "Not my problem, I'll just watch something else." attitude, but that's exactly the Tragedy of the Commons in practice.

But it must also count for less now that we have more ways of circumventing advertisement now. Downloadable podcasts, selective viewing, ad-blocking, TIVO recording and so on. The only place where I'm forced to watch advertisement is actually in the cinema and they're losing more and more customers as the years go by (and I've almost completely stopped going there, the exception being if someone else pays).

It encourages the debate of whether or not it's an acceptable strategy to force on people (and then require that they don't circumvent it), right? At least from an economical perspective, if not a moral or ethical one.

Well, there's all manner of things one can force onto a market; most of the relevant things being costs to the consumer.

But keep in mind that the advertising model and pre-pay model are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, costs from each model can be added directly to one another if implemented in that manner.

To demonstrate, I'll use Cable TV.
When Cable TV was new, it was advertised as a paid-for alternative to public access network TV.
Namely, that because you paid for the channels (and thus, the shows) it had no advertisements.

This model proved so popular, that the producers became emboldened, and raised the costs on the consumer to meet the increased demand; both in the form of rates (charging per channel instead of a group of channels, and later, pay-per-view) and eventually, they added in the cost of advertisements.

So in the end, Cable TV went full circle, because producers realized that they could get away with charging for selection over convenience; even if it defeated the original point of Cable TV!

Another, more recent example of additive costs in gaming would be The Elder Scrolls Online.
They are so confident in their game, they're charging an up front base installment cost, a monthly subscription, and it has microtransactions on top of THAT. (effectively all three gaming monetary systems in one package. Yikes!)

As much as we hate it, raising costs to meet demand is a regular, normal function of economics; the supply and demand curves change over time. Of course, there's only so much abuse that a market will take before it revolts. Sometimes that revolt can occur quite rapidly...speaking of.

Presumably it will cause an angry knee-jerk response from advertisers at some point like we've seen with DRM and anti-piracy organisations, which will then mellow out just as quickly and lead to alternative methods (like patreon or kickstarter).

That's kinda how this works: Popular systems ebb and flow with trends. Why are game companies suddenly shoving social media functions into every cranny of gaming? Because of "viral marketing" and exposure. Even if the additions add no function to the game save to annoy you.

Going back to market revolts, remember Cable TV? Well it enjoyed success for so long that its pricing scheme bloated; so much that when internet streaming sites opened up, people flocked to the new, cheaper alternative in droves.

It's such a fitting irony how high Cable TV prices indirectly spurred Cable Internet sales because people wanted a better connection to stream cheaper and more varied content.

Given enough time, any business model can and will be exploited. That's the nature of the market, and why economics assumes Greed as a primary motivator.

So, what will follow internet streaming services?
Who knows?
Maybe we'll see blending of mediums with Augmented Reality and TV.

Or maybe old cable TV channel producers will step up their game and offer better shows, both online and on the old tubes.

Or maybe the major media market will do something that grossly oversteps its boundaries and experience a crash in response (think SOPA, but potentially bigger), thus creating a surge in book sales and traditional literature.

(snipped for less clutter)

Wow. That's brutal honesty for you and I can't tell you how much I appreciate reading a post like that, in what seems like a fucking ocean of hypothetical and useless posts that permeate this site.

Brutal honesty's my middle name.

"Brutally ignorant" is more accurate. Or perhaps "brutally pretentious".

"Your financial status is not my responsibility because we have no relationship."

Maybe I should start using that line day to day; I'm sure it will save me a lot of money.

"Hey, we have no real relationship, so I'm just going to take your TV. Hey, don't complain to me, I'm not responsible for your financial future."

 

[dskod1]

Dear Jim,

I have watched all your videos up to date and started watching them about a year ago. I am an avid user of adblock to get rid of those pesky ads (as my mindset was). Every time I would see a message on a site telling me to stop adblock to support the site I often would ignore it thinking "what harm could me not seeing ads do?" After watching this video not only do I now realize how wide spread this is but also how selfish I was being.

A lot of people, including myself, support the internet verbally by signing petition and venting our outrage against those people that would regulate the internet (even though this is already done to some extent). I do now realize that by watching and even seeing ads (that I ignore anyway) I could support all those free services I get from the youtube channels to the escapist site.

Anyways I just wanted to thank you for the video and I have now uninstalled and deleted the adblock extensions from my chrome. I will now let ads run with pride (ignoring those that mock me for not using adblock) knowing that just by running the ads I can support the videos, and in turn, and industry that I love and enjoy.

Thanks,
Dylan

 

[lacktheknack]

Everyone already knows my stance on adblocking, so I'm not going to rant about it.

I will say, though, this thread has been one hell of a trap.

 

[Hazy]

Everyone already knows my stance on adblocking, so I'm not going to rant about it.

I will say, though, this thread has been one hell of a trap.

No doubt we'll have some gold medal grabbing Olympic swimmers after all of the hoops we've dove through in this thread.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

The ads aren't really too big of an inconvenience. Ads that stream in a video for example, I treat it like I would watching something on TV, mute the audio, or take the opportunity to get up and grab a snack or use the bathroom, whatever.

Doesn't that just push the problem up the chain? You want to be supported by ads, so you ask people to leave ads on, so you can get paid.

But the advertiser bought the ads to be seen. Why should they buy ads for your videos, if you're telling people not to watch them, anyway? They aren't getting the value out of buying the ads if people are letting them run but not watching.

Bottom line, ads really aren't that bad as some folks wish to claim, but they can get worse if people keep blocking them.

How does that work? If people are blocking ads because they are annoying, it doesn't make any sense that they would get more annoying. If anything, advertisers should be making them less annoying so people will unblock the ads.

Above all though, I'd like to see content creators like Jim Sterling continue to be supported as I like what he does and I wish I could do it too.

How about finding a way to do it that everybody doesn't hate?

 

[Olas]

Wow Jim, I'm surprised just how accepting you are of adblock, though I guess telling adblock users to fuck off probably wouldn't win any sympathy, and sympathy is all you can really count on when it comes to this.

For me it's not an issue, as I am a pub-club member. I think it's really great that the Escapist gives us that option and I wish more sites did the same. The fact that they do really makes it hard to sympathize with the people complaining about how bad the adds are, but I get that some people don't use the site frequently enough for it to be worth their while.

 

[IceForce]

Looks like the mods are out in force for this thread. What vigilant guardians of the community you all are! I'm sure the act of banning people for admitting to using Adblock has drastically decreased the number of Adblock users on your site

I love how Jim's humble position of respect and understanding is instantly undermined by the moderators. I had no idea what the rules were regarding this topic but I am not the least bit surprised. Hypothetically speaking, if Jim had convinced me of anything it would have been immediately undone upon viewing the comments and seeing how people are treated here.

I don't like jumping onto conspiracy theories, but it's almost like it was done on purpose.

> Lull everyone into a false sense of security by claiming the rules are relaxed in this thread, then hit them all with the full force of the mod hammers.

It would be a brilliant war strategy, if this was actually a war.

 

[Remus]

Everyone already knows my stance on adblocking, so I'm not going to rant about it.

I will say, though, this thread has been one hell of a trap.

On the other hand, this means a lot more work for the mods and other Escapist staff, with all the wrongful warning submissions I'm almost positive have been sent as a result of expressing an opinion in this thread.

 

[IceForce]

Why does it feel like Jim set up a trap "that which shall not be named" for anyone using said thing that shall not be discussed? Calling it now Jim just went full SIINNDRRIII on us to flush out any users of said rule breaking offense. Well played Jim well played.

Looks that way. Either Sterling lied or the admins lied to him.

The mod who wrote the mod message in the OP might not've seen Jim's comment further down. Or the mod Jim spoke with must not've passed the message on to the other mods.
Something doesn't add up here.

Regardless of the reason, what has happened here has probably been the worst possible way this could've been handled.

 

[MetroidNut]

professional guide to decreasing adblock usage: make a video demonstrating sympathy and understanding for adblock users' concerns, but kindly asking them if they would consider supporting you regardless

professional guide to increasing adblock usage: punish anyone who admits to using adblock

 

[lunavixen]

I used to use adblock because the ads kept causing firefox to crash, but it seemed to have been fixed for a while, but now they're back with a vengeance as is the temptation to start using adblock again. I especially hate ads on Deviant Art or various Wikis that are obnoxiously loud or ads that overlap large parts of the screen so you can't see about a third of the page, and there is no way to turn them off or silence them. I'm also pretty sure there is a special circle of hell for pop up ads that open in another tab and take me to that tab when I never even passed the mouse over them or knew that they were there. Most of the ads on youtube are fine because, though irritating, you can either skip them or silence them. I'm perfectly fine with non invasive and non malicious ads, I wish content creators would screen their ads partners better.

 

[VeoKye]

I'm not a big fan of commenting on videos whenever I have nothing constructive to say but I really wanted to say this: the Escapist is the first website I ever actually took time (whole 3 seconds, mind!) to whitelist BECAUSE I wanted to support in some way. I usually only watch Zero Punctuation and the Jimquisition (occasional exception notwithstanding), but it felt like the least I could do to support something that I enjoy and that I get basically for free.

On another note, I don't get what the hate is all about. If anything, the Jimquisition has always felt honest and upfront to me. I may not always agree with the opinions expressed therein, but I don't go on hating Jim just because he dared to share his viewpoint. The show makes use of an informal format and tries to provoke the viewers into thinking for themselves by deliberately instigating resentment or dislike toward the host thereby forcing them to form their own opinions to serve as rebuttal, but what most people seem to forget is that the host isn't Jim Sterling the person, but Jim Sterling the character, a deliberately extreme personality meant to serve as a buffer. It's a brand of self-deprecating humor that is MEANT to offend.

I say all this because I recently went through the past episodes of the Jimquisition and was astounded when several episodes (like the Mass effect fanfic one) were read way too literally. I know I'm not going to change minds or even saying anything particularly original, but it is something I wanted to say for some time now: lighten the hell up. Just because some dude on the internet is saying stuff you don't agree with, that's not a reason to HATE the guy. It' just silly, isn't it? Or am I just weird?

Anyhoo, great episode as always and, for what it's worth, you have my support, Jim. Keep it real and tell it like it is. We all love you precisely for your candor.

 

[ClanCrusher]

I decided long ago to compromise and join the publisher's club. Been with them for almost three years running now and I'm happy to support the video makers here without the advertisers getting in the way. I do the same with pretty much every site that gives me the option.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

The ads aren't really too big of an inconvenience. Ads that stream in a video for example, I treat it like I would watching something on TV, mute the audio, or take the opportunity to get up and grab a snack or use the bathroom, whatever.

Doesn't that just push the problem up the chain? You want to be supported by ads, so you ask people to leave ads on, so you can get paid.

But the advertiser bought the ads to be seen. Why should they buy ads for your videos, if you're telling people not to watch them, anyway? They aren't getting the value out of buying the ads if people are letting them run but not watching.

We already have the publishers complaining about viewers ripping them off with Ad Block, we've certainly had complaints from advertising networks being ripped off by publishers. How long until we get the companies buying the ads complaining about being ripped off by the whole system? This seems almost certain to end in a steep decline in advertising revenue.

Bottom line, ads really aren't that bad as some folks wish to claim, but they can get worse if people keep blocking them.

How does that work? If people are blocking ads because they are annoying, it doesn't make any sense that they would get more annoying. If anything, advertisers should be making them less annoying so people will unblock the ads.

Above all though, I'd like to see content creators like Jim Sterling continue to be supported as I like what he does and I wish I could do it too.

How about finding a way to do it that everybody doesn't hate?

 

[krickit]

Adblock plus disabled on the escapist here. If I have too many problems with it, it goes off the whitelist again.
As a child, before I discovered the magical add-on which disabled certain scripts, I had extreme difficulties reading most type due to animated advertisements. This lead me with flash ads, more often than not, to use the often fickle pause option or rewind to stop it playing with flashing graphics and moving parts. At worst on some sites, I had to use the zoom in function to the extent I had a blank ad, lagging the old chunky box I used to browse on to death. When it came to gifs, if I really had to, I would remove them via some convoluted method thanks to firefox.

I do stress that this wasn't out of irritation, it was the simple fact that it took so much longer to read a paragraph of text when I lost my place every five seconds due to a skeleton moving across my screen asking me to play a bland RPG, or even a single line due to the shaking fake dialogue box with a message about winning a US greencard.
Hear that, animated avatar people? I don't read your posts. Well, I skipped most of the thread. It was long!

My recent method with adblock is this: if I regularly browse a website, check disable on example.com. If the ads are intrusive, the exception is removed. This has been down to my own laziness, and I had been doing it in order of how much I actually like and would like to support the content creators... The escapist wasn't near the top of the list, and thus I am only disabling it as I was politely reminded.

 

[Burning Desire]

i dont use ad block. i like ads it helps you stay aware if you did miss something. although i do hate and i mean hate having to sit through a thirty to sixty second ad for tampons and not being able to skip it after ten seconds. then having it pop up on the next ten videos im trying to watch

 

[Deshin]

This whole thing is a venerable minefield so I'll have to be extra careful with my words. First of all I'll put up a link to an article on this very website which is very relevant:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/125398-Malware-Infections-Are-Usually-From-Legitimate-Websites

As well as a little story: Many years ago, back when I still played Final Fantasy X,I a massive wave of hacks happened in a short amount of time. People were getting hacked left, right, and center and found their characters completely stripped of equipment and money. In the end we found out that the FFXI wiki page and FFXI-Atlas (website used for maps, mob spawns, quest markets, etc) had malware in their ad banners that is what caused all the hacks. Said attack was orchestrated by a popular mmo gold-selling site and though they were finally caught and prosecuted the total number of hacked individuals was roughly 15,000; many of which never managed to have their equipment/money restored.

I believe that, for many people, using such programs isn't about removing ads for the sake of denying websites revenue or even to streamline their browsing experience but do so from a sheer security standpoint. A very popular website that attracts hardcore gamers from all over the world must be a very juicy target for anyone looking to datamine a few thousand mmo logins, and I believe many people just do not want to take the risk. It's made all the worse that we live in an age where, socially and legally, the victim is blamed for their computer being infected. If someone has their computer infected by a virus or malware the general consensus is "your own fault for not having proper protection in place".

I hope my post isn't construed as "advocating" or "encouraging" (which would be a rule violation); I've merely stated verifiable facts on the current state of affairs with a source from this very site.

 

[Silly Hats]

I use adblock, I always whitelist my regular websites though. I generally prefer buying merchandise to support that way as opposed to sitting through ads, it's a win win.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

"If everyone blocked ads from running, there'd be no show."

But... But... I'm a pub club member!

Actually i was meaning to ask in this thread about that. If we do have ad block up and running while we're in the Pub Club that shouldn't impact content creators, right? I have to admit i don't fully understand how advertisers and host sites decide on what amount of money goes where...