Publisher?s Club

[John Funk]

I use ad blocker like most intelligent firefox users, that leaves me with HD - not really bothered, and exclusive forums - meh.

You do know people have been banned for admitting their use of ad blockers right?

Which makes me wonder what the difference is between blocking them and just flat out ignoring them...its the same consequence; no money for escapist.

People have not been banned for admitting their use of adblockers, they've been banned for telling others to use them.

As Virgil pointed out, you don't know how advertising works on a site the size of ours. Clicking on links does nothing.

What do people get for practicing connection encryption? Does this also hurt the Escapist's revenue stream?

I have no idea; I don't know what connection encryption is.

If you're viewing the ads, you're giving us ad impressions, and you're doing just fine.

If you're NOT viewing the ads, you're hurting us. Not trying to guilt trip anyone or say they're bad people for using adblocker, just laying the facts straight out. If you use a program that blocks ads and consume our content, you are using resources but not offering anything in the way of compensation.

Connection encryption, young pokemon master, is a technique whereby one can disguise and/or spoof one's own Media Access Control ID number. Very useful in certain situations, whether you're a radical liberal, a privacy-minded citizen, or a tin-foil-hat paranoid.

Why would any clinical paranoid make a hat out of tinfoil? It shows up on almost anything that can detect fluctuations in in EM fields. Ever see Iron Eagle 2? All those old WWII pilots would get a missile fired at their old P-52s and Sopwith Hornets and they'd just chuck some Reynold's Wrap out the window and the missile would track that like chaff.

Doesn't having a subscriber base provide a rationale for blocking ads for free? I mean, the Escapist has offered an ad-blocker as part of a packaged product that one can pay for. However, there is nothing expressed or implied to prohibit users from using their own ad-blocker for free. The Escapist doesn't not work for Firefox, and there is no automated pop-up asking me to turn it off.

Isn't it just good capitalist competition to use which ever ad-blocker we prefer, so long as we don't violate the rules?

You're missing the point.

We get money from people viewing our advertising campaigns (Well, not directly, it's a bit more complicated than that but that's a simplification of the matter). If you are subscribing, you do not have ads, but we get monetary compensation in other ways - that is, from the subscription fee. This is also the reason that we're able to do things like offer full-content RSS feeds, which involves letting people view our content without going to the site (and hence giving us an ad impression).

If you are using an adblocker, we aren't getting an ad impression from you, but you are still taking up resources. You are consuming something that took time to create by someone who was on our payroll, you are consuming bandwidth, etc.

With one, we still get financial compensation so it evens out. With the other, we get absolutely nothing and in fact lose out a bit, since you're using our resources.

You're correct that it's not illegal, and that a high percentage of our readers use Firefox - disabling a browser is not an option. We can't technically stop you from using an adblocker of your own. But, we really would prefer it if you didn't, because you're hurting us by it.

It's not just us. Any site our size; if you use an adblocker, you're hurting it. It's like going to a restaurant but not paying your bill, to borrow someone else's example. Well, more like going to a restaurant but not signing off on the card that has someone ELSE pay the bill for you.

I suggest you read the Ars Technica article Virgil linked earlier, because it sums the situation up nicely.

 

[Alar]

I suppose ten dollars is worth it. I've always enjoyed many of the videos and articles on this website, as well as the forums. And besides, if it isn't worthwhile, I have a year to reconsider before I get charged again.

 

[John Funk]

You're missing the point.

I suggest you read the Ars Technica article Virgil linked earlier, because it sums the situation up nicely.

I think I get the point just fine, you're missing my point.

Instead of asking nicely to turn my ad-blocker off, you should offer material incentives. That's how capitalism works. The Escapist made the call to give away the milk, I have no reason to buy the cow, though I suspect phase II probably entails locking 'Bessie back up.

I'm playing my own game of chess with Virgil.

I use ad blocker like most intelligent firefox users, that leaves me with HD - not really bothered, and exclusive forums - meh.

You do know people have been banned for admitting their use of ad blockers right?

Which makes me wonder what the difference is between blocking them and just flat out ignoring them...its the same consequence; no money for escapist.

1) Yes. I suggest you stop.
2) You obviously don't know how online advertising works. Here's a good summary. [http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars]

What if took ad blocker off the escapist but used it on other sites, happy?

Yes, thank you!

See? This kinda crap makes me think that you guys deserve to have people block your ads for free, seeing as your own advertising director, someone who I'm sure has a good grasp of economics and capitalism, doesn't care if we don't give ad impressions to other sites, so long as we give them to the Escapist. That is hypocrisy, and you should have done unto you as you would have done unto others.

Of course, now that I have used The Escapist against itself, I imagine I have a suspension coming my way, as well as the removal of the post. Don't think I haven't noticed you guys started doing that.

Used the Escapist against itself? Hardly.

Of course we'd prefer that people didn't use adblocker at all when visiting the sites they love, because it hurts them. If you ask me, I'd ask people to stop using it on all sites that depend on ads for survival because it's common damn courtesy. In that respect, I'm in 100% agreement with the writer on Ars Technica.

However, from a business side of things, we're just concerned with what you do here, on our site. The rest isn't any of our business (quite literally), and while we'd LIKE to say "please turn off your adblocker," our discussion right now is just limited to the E. You're seeing hypocrisy where there is none.

Giving incentives? That's exactly what we're doing with the subscription, dude. We're giving incentives for not seeing ads.

We could pull an Ars Technica and make it so that if you're using an adblocker you can't see any of our content, but we'd really rather not do that. Instead, we're just putting it out there: If you like The Escapist, and you enjoy the content that we provide, then you should just know that using an adblocker hurts us.

We can't force you to turn it off, for this site or any other. We're just letting you know how it is, and giving you other options to not see ads but still support us.

And the only post deleted was a double post, in which case you'll notice the original is still up.

We ban for being rude, we ban for mod sass, we ban for breaking our forum TOU; we don't ban for smug paranoia.

 

[chronobreak]

doesn't care if we don't give ad impressions to other sites, so long as we give them to the Escapist. That is hypocrisy, and you should have done unto you as you would have done unto others.

Of course, now that I have used The Escapist against itself, I imagine I have a suspension coming my way, as well as the removal of the post. Don't think I haven't noticed you guys started doing that.

His job isn't advocating against ad-blocker software all over the internet, it is to advise in the best interests of this site. Don't try to blow up a small piece of advice into some character-defining moment, which would have nothing to do with the Publisher's Club anyways, and certainly wouldn't be any of your business, barring any further stretches of the imagination.

With all due respect, I don't think I have seen an overall positive post from you regarding this website so far. Why are you so insistent on looking for problems where there aren't necessarily any to begin with? You come off like you have a vendetta.

 

[Myan]

See? This kinda crap makes me think that you guys deserve to have people block your ads for free, seeing as your own advertising director, someone who I'm sure has a good grasp of economics and capitalism, doesn't care if we don't give ad impressions to other sites, so long as we give them to the Escapist. That is hypocrisy, and you should have done unto you as you would have done unto others.

Of course, now that I have used The Escapist against itself, I imagine I have a suspension coming my way, as well as the removal of the post. Don't think I haven't noticed you guys started doing that.

First, I am not the 'advertising director', I work in the advertising production of things. Second, don't put words into my mouth. I said no such thing to Liberaliter. He merely asked if we were happy that he turned off his ad blocker, I replied that yes, I was. I absolutely did NOT say "block all the other sites". Given that I know just how hard advertising on the web is first hand, I would never suggest such a thing.

I believe you may just be looking for a fight because we DARE make money to pay our rent, bandwidth bill and employees. Wow, how terrible of us.

Seriously, just step away from the keyboard and relax.

 

[RvLeshrac]

You're missing the point.

I suggest you read the Ars Technica article Virgil linked earlier, because it sums the situation up nicely.

I think I get the point just fine, you're missing my point.

Instead of asking nicely to turn my ad-blocker off, you should offer material incentives. That's how capitalism works. The Escapist made the call to give away the milk, I have no reason to buy the cow, though I suspect phase II probably entails locking 'Bessie back up.

I'm playing my own game of chess with Virgil.

I use ad blocker like most intelligent firefox users, that leaves me with HD - not really bothered, and exclusive forums - meh.

You do know people have been banned for admitting their use of ad blockers right?

Which makes me wonder what the difference is between blocking them and just flat out ignoring them...its the same consequence; no money for escapist.

1) Yes. I suggest you stop.
2) You obviously don't know how online advertising works. Here's a good summary. [http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars]

What if took ad blocker off the escapist but used it on other sites, happy?

Yes, thank you!

See? This kinda crap makes me think that you guys deserve to have people block your ads for free, seeing as your own advertising director, someone who I'm sure has a good grasp of economics and capitalism, doesn't care if we don't give ad impressions to other sites, so long as we give them to the Escapist. That is hypocrisy, and you should have done unto you as you would have done unto others.

Of course, now that I have used The Escapist against itself, I imagine I have a suspension coming my way, as well as the removal of the post. Don't think I haven't noticed you guys started doing that.

Used the Escapist against itself? Hardly.

Of course we'd prefer that people didn't use adblocker at all when visiting the sites they love, because it hurts them. If you ask me, I'd ask people to stop using it on all sites that depend on ads for survival because it's common damn courtesy. In that respect, I'm in 100% agreement with the writer on Ars Technica.

However, from a business side of things, we're just concerned with what you do here, on our site. The rest isn't any of our business (quite literally), and while we'd LIKE to say "please turn off your adblocker," our discussion right now is just limited to the E. You're seeing hypocrisy where there is none.

Giving incentives? That's exactly what we're doing with the subscription, dude. We're giving incentives for not seeing ads.

We could pull an Ars Technica and make it so that if you're using an adblocker you can't see any of our content, but we'd really rather not do that. Instead, we're just putting it out there: If you like The Escapist, and you enjoy the content that we provide, then you should just know that using an adblocker hurts us.

We can't force you to turn it off, for this site or any other. We're just letting you know how it is, and giving you other options to not see ads but still support us.

And the only post deleted was a double post, in which case you'll notice the original is still up.

We ban for being rude, we ban for mod sass, we ban for breaking our forum TOU; we don't ban for smug paranoia.

I have no problem with you disabling ALL the content for people who block ads. I think *EVERY* website should block ALL content for people blocking ads. Even the sites that don't use ads.

 

[Loves2spooge]

Paying for ad removal is like paying extra for organic food. And charging for hi-res video streams? Tut, tut...

No offense, but this is nonsense; it's compensating for insubstantial advertising revenue, veiled as a benefit to members.

Also, you might want to avoid any 'Overpriced DLC' stories too, lest you want a "pot, kettle, black" situation in the forums.

 

[Alar]

I have no problem with you disabling ALL the content for people who block ads. I think *EVERY* website should block ALL content for people blocking ads. Even the sites that don't use ads.

Why? Ads can be highly annoying, especially the pop-up variety. When you go to these websites, you're looking to see the content that they have to offer, not the ads that they use to fund themselves. I use Ad-Block Plus, and yet I'm still willing to pay ten dollars for one year of browsing this website without them, as well as for the other benefits.

Am I purchasing this because -just- I want to get rid of ads? Not solely, no. Getting rid of them is a benefit, because even ad blockers don't remove 100% of the ads. Just the really annoying ones.

I don't think you should punish people for wanting to have a less annoying experience when browsing the internet. In fact, seeing ads pop up in the middle of livestream broadcasts (on example of annoying ads) is almost enough to make me tear my hair out.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Paying for ad removal is like paying extra for organic food. And charging for hi-res video streams? Tut, tut...

No offense, but this is nonsense; it's compensating for insubstantial advertising revenue, veiled as a benefit to members.

Also, you might want to avoid any 'Overpriced DLC' stories too, lest you want a "pot, kettle, black" situation in the forums.

$20/year is too much for a magazine subscription... for a magazine updated daily? With video content? Seriously?

Sure, I'd much rather have a free site to visit. I also loathe all the Z*nga articles. But I'm reasonably certain that I get $20/year out of the site.

Of course, I may have already gone through a year of content before Amazon processes my payment.

Why? Ads can be highly annoying, especially the pop-up variety. When you go to these websites, you're looking to see the content that they have to offer, not the ads that they use to fund themselves. I use Ad-Block Plus, and yet I'm still willing to pay ten dollars for one year of browsing this website without them, as well as for the other benefits.

Am I purchasing this because -just- I want to get rid of ads? Not solely, no. Getting rid of them is a benefit, because even ad blockers don't remove 100% of the ads. Just the really annoying ones.

I don't think you should punish people for wanting to have a less annoying experience when browsing the internet. In fact, seeing ads pop up in the middle of livestream broadcasts (on example of annoying ads) is almost enough to make me tear my hair out.

Nothing wrong with blocking pop-up or pop-under ads. I don't think any reasonable person would ever argue against blocking pop-up or pop-under ads. That's why the majority of sites try to police them out of the ad stream.

Look at YouTube for why streams have ads. Look at the cash Google haemorrhages keeping YouTube largely ad-free. Millions on top of millions lost - YouTube provides absolutely no benefits to the company that owns it. Yet they still keep it running for the people who enjoy it, because they have millions TO haemorrhage.

You might also note that Flash ads, traditionally the bane of existence for internet users, have gotten LESS annoying over time. The Mucinex ad running in the corner has a Mute button, and defaults to Muted. The flash ads all over IGN's site (usually) no longer take over the entire page by default.

And since I'm using a several-years old notebook with no issues, I have to assume that they've gotten less CPU-intensive over time.

These things point to advertisers attempting to get your attention with less-intrusive methods, responding to complaints about their previous advertisements. I'd think the least you could do is stop blocking them.

(As an aside, if you find particular ads to be annoying, a better option is to complain to the people who run the website. Site operators are going to respond far better to someone pointing out a crappy ad than they are to people who are eating their bandwidth and not providing them with any revenue.)

 

[Alar]

Nothing wrong with blocking pop-up or pop-under ads. I don't think any reasonable person would ever argue against blocking pop-up or pop-under ads. That's why the majority of sites try to police them out of the ad stream.

Look at YouTube for why streams have ads. Look at the cash Google haemorrhages keeping YouTube largely ad-free. Millions on top of millions lost - YouTube provides absolutely no benefits to the company that owns it. Yet they still keep it running for the people who enjoy it, because they have millions TO haemorrhage.

You might also note that Flash ads, traditionally the bane of existence for internet users, have gotten LESS annoying over time. The Mucinex ad running in the corner has a Mute button, and defaults to Muted. The flash ads all over IGN's site (usually) no longer take over the entire page by default.

And since I'm using a several-years old notebook with no issues, I have to assume that they've gotten less CPU-intensive over time.

These things point to advertisers attempting to get your attention with less-intrusive methods, responding to complaints about their previous advertisements. I'd think the least you could do is stop blocking them.

(As an aside, if you find particular ads to be annoying, a better option is to complain to the people who run the website. Site operators are going to respond far better to someone pointing out a crappy ad than they are to people who are eating their bandwidth and not providing them with any revenue.)

While you haven't completely convinced me that I should disable my ad block to try to view these products, you've given me something to think about, at the very least.

One reason I also don't like ads is because they are almost never about something I'm actually interested in. I suppose the downside of using an ad block program could be that, eventually, it will inadvertently (or intentionally, depending on how you view the situations, considering they're meant to block ads in the first place) block something that I would -want- to see.

Still, this has shown me one thing: I'm starting to enjoy the Escapist forums more than I thought I would.

 

[John Funk]

doesn't care if we don't give ad impressions to other sites, so long as we give them to the Escapist. That is hypocrisy, and you should have done unto you as you would have done unto others.

Of course, now that I have used The Escapist against itself, I imagine I have a suspension coming my way, as well as the removal of the post. Don't think I haven't noticed you guys started doing that.

His job isn't advocating against ad-blocker software all over the internet, it is to advise in the best interests of this site. Don't try to blow up a small piece of advice into some character-defining moment, which would have nothing to do with the Publisher's Club anyways, and certainly wouldn't be any of your business, barring any further stretches of the imagination.

With all due respect, I don't think I have seen an overall positive post from you regarding this website so far. Why are you so insistent on looking for problems where there aren't necessarily any to begin with? You come off like you have a vendetta.

Yeah, I've seen your works before, and I can tell you from sore experience that you and I are not gonna see eye to eye on this. So, unless you're looking to gain my special attentions, I suggest you PM me in the future.

Paying for ad removal is like paying extra for organic food. And charging for hi-res video streams? Tut, tut...

No offense, but this is nonsense; it's compensating for insubstantial advertising revenue, veiled as a benefit to members.

Also, you might want to avoid any 'Overpriced DLC' stories too, lest you want a "pot, kettle, black" situation in the forums.

Good to know I'm not the only 'smug paranoid' here.

I have no problem with you disabling ALL the content for people who block ads. I think *EVERY* website should block ALL content for people blocking ads. Even the sites that don't use ads.

You're the kind of people Republicaning up the internet.

Giving incentives? That's exactly what we're doing with the subscription, dude. We're giving incentives for not seeing ads.

Your definition of 'incentive' is different from mine. Once again, you have not really thought about what I said.

Where is the incentive to pay for something I can do for free? If you want me to watch the ads, I need more incentive than being asked politely. Drunks and bums ask me politely for money every day, and I don't give it to them either. As for compensation, I write at a college level and I've never mechanically damaged the Escapist's operations. You're welcome.

First, I am not the 'advertising director', I work in the advertising production of things. Second, don't put words into my mouth. I said no such thing to Liberaliter. He merely asked if we were happy that he turned off his ad blocker, I replied that yes, I was. I absolutely did NOT say "block all the other sites". Given that I know just how hard advertising on the web is first hand, I would never suggest such a thing.

Yes, but you did imply it. Or you didn't make it hard to infer. John Funk, who seems to have a better control of his temper these days, was observant enough to realize that wording is important, why weren't you?

Look, I realize a lot of the staff at the Escapist is under twenty-five, and perhaps this is the first job many of that staff might call a part of their careers. Now that you have decided to be a pay site, or move in that direction at least, you boys and girls have to realize that everything you say means something and you should think twice, at least, about what you're posting. Seeing as this was a writing enthusiast website before it started morphing into a video game pay site, I would think that this would be common knowledge.

Attitude, dude. Curb it, now. Disagreeing, expressing dissent - these are absolutely fine. The moment you become a dick about it, it ceases to be fine. This is the only warning I will give you.

I'm not sure what exactly the cause of your vendetta is, but you really don't seem to grok how these things work. We cannot force you to not use adblock. The only incentive that we can really offer to people who are leeching our content and not giving anything return is letting them know that they're damaging the sites they love.

We're not asking you for handouts; we're just pointing out that you aren't paying your restaurant bill.

 

[John Funk]

Attitude, dude. Curb it, now. Disagreeing, expressing dissent - these are absolutely fine. The moment you become a dick about it, it ceases to be fine. This is the only warning I will give you.

You and I have a different definition of 'dick', as well. Chrono and I are having a very civil PM relationship, of which I'm very proud, and RvLeshrac had that one coming. It's difficult to give you credit for controlling your anger when you use threatening language needlessly. I've been threatened and given warnings by people who could actually do something about it, so please, don't try to act like my father, you're nowhere near old enough.

I'm not sure what exactly the cause of your vendetta is, but you really don't seem to grok how these things work. We cannot force you to not use adblock. The only incentive that we can really offer to people who are leeching our content and not giving anything return is letting them know that they're damaging the sites they love.

Understanding of my vendetta is not required for my writing to be true, and I 'grok' these things just fine, I'm perfectly aware that you can't force me to do anything, that doesn't upset me. And I take exception to the word 'leech'. As a published writer and experienced metalworker and computer technician I have decided to donate my time as a dissenting voice to your website for free. Once again, you're welcome.

We're not asking you for handouts; we're just pointing out that you aren't paying your restaurant bill.

And I'm pointing out that there was no restaurant bill. For years, until now.

What you call 'attitude', I call 'an inability to be convinced that this is anything other than a poorly executed attempt to make me pay for something I get for free'. If that punk, Kuliani, had not poorly worded his post, number two on the thread, and implied that I am a sub-user and lacking in class, I might have let it all go, but now I'm fired up.

I was not referring to your interactions with Chrono and RvLeshrac. My point remains - if you can't be civil and ditch the condescending attitude, we're going to have a problem.

The word leech is absolutely free in the context of someone using adblock, whether you take exception to it or no. You (generic you, here) are consuming resources and giving nothing in return. That is the very definition of "leech."

And there was a restaurant bill; you (again, generic you) just chose to ignore it / did not pay it.

The adblock is honestly not one of the prominent things in the PubClub package; it's just a neat extra. The rest of it is allowing our readers to consume content in ways that they - by their very definition - don't see ads. (Full RSS, podcasts, etc).

 

[Andronicus]

In relation to this whole debate over the ads vs subscription based model of revenue, I'm curious to know which is more profitable for you guys. Would the $10/$20 one would pay for a subscription be more or less than what you guys would get if one simply decided to allow the ads for a whole year? Is it purely dependent on how often you visit the site and, as a consequence, how often the ads are loaded?

 

[Break]

Your definition of 'incentive' is different from mine. Once again, you have not really thought about what I said.

Where is the incentive to pay for something I can do for free? If you want me to watch the ads, I need more incentive than being asked politely. Drunks and bums ask me politely for money every day, and I don't give it to them either. As for compensation, I write at a college level and I've never mechanically damaged the Escapist's operations. You're welcome.

You're- what? It's- that doesn't- what? What? So- what? They don't- why should they care? What are you even doing? They've made their place on the matter clear: "Here, have a free online magazine. Also, we'd appreciate it if you didn't turn off the ads, they're kind of how we support ourselves. Mm? You really hate ads? Well, you could just give us the money we'd have made from you viewing ads and we'll turn them off for you, but if you don't want to do that either, well, ok. We're not going to stop you from seeing the site. Again, kind of appreciate it if you supported us, but if you really don't want to... Well, sure. Look forward to next issue, we've got a great article about the effect that some videogames have had on other videogames."

And you're asking them for a goddamn incentive? Like they have to buy your favour with perks and bonuses, just so you'll turn off the adblocker? Are you serious? Here's your incentive: if too many people block the ads, the Escapist gets no money, their ability to produce content suffers, and eventually the business is no longer able to sustain itself and is liquidated. You don't care? Whatever! You go ahead and risk it! Bet on being in the minority. I can honestly say, here, that I hope it works out for you.

But don't... Please, do me a favour. Do everyone a favour. Don't ask for a... An incentive to stop adding your weight to the servers without recompense. Acting like you're entitled to all this, or something. I don't even understand. They're already giving you a magazine, they haven't banned you from participating in the community purely because you've outright stated that you block the ads, they're actively engaging you in a discussion about their business practises. I don't understand why you're asking for more! They don't care! Why are you- what are you doing? What is this? All they're doing is asking you to help them out with the costs of running the magazine. They're not trying to solicit your- what do you think this is? Do what you want! If pointing out that this is an easy way to help - at no real cost and very little inconvenience - isn't enough to persuade you, then that's the end of it! The end! This is their approach! If you don't like it, then that's fine! Because this the approach they're going with. If it's unsuccessful, then they'll try your way, I'm sure. Until then... I dunno, shoo! Be off with you! Enjoy your free magazine!
I'm going to go lie down for a while, I've clearly gotten overexcited...