Why you MUST not use an ad blocker - unless you want to pay for content

[SimuLord]

I'm in the PubClub. I've proven thusly that I'm willing to pay to support quality content if the content is good enough and the offer is reasonable.

But that little red octagon in the top right corner of my Firefox isn't going anywhere. Why? Because ads are intrusive, annoying, a waste of bandwidth THAT I PAY FOR (my ISP charges me if I go over 80GB a month, and as a Steam addict and ESPN3.com viewer for sports I routinely go over 80GB), and even if they did sell me a product I wanted, they're trying to sell me something and coming into the sanctity of my personal space---where I've set everything up to be as minimally marketing-intensive as possible---to do it.

Internet ads don't work. I block them to save everyone the bandwidth---the content server doesn't have to pay to serve them and I don't have to pay to watch them or look at them. If marketers want to make a profit from the Internet, browbeating users (basically what your argument comes down to, Ms. de Vere, is that I'm pirating the Internet---not the Escapist, since I paid for a PubClub membership, but the rest of the 'Net) into letting themselves be annoyed for someone else's benefit.

I support the AdBlock project (and its sister, Noscript, which does wonders to block Flash ads even if ABP is disabled) wholeheartedly and strongly encourage friends and family to use it on a regular basis. I am the bane of the advertiser's existence---the friendly activist.

If I'm "pirating the Internet", then ARR and yo ho ho.

 

[Wicky_42]

For those of you saying "I still don't want to see ads I'm still going to block them" - nobody expects you to look at every ad and memorize it. I glaze over ads for things I don't care about in magazines, and ignore TV commercials for erectile dysfunction medications. You can too!

However, I don't expect to read a magazine without ads, and if I do I expect to pay a lot more for it because they get their revenue from subscriptions (like the Canadian Politics magazine, The Walrus) - Pub Club members don't get ads because their subscription pays for the content.

See where I'm going here?

I know specialist mags that are literally 50% adverts and still cost money to buy, but the ads are nicely grouped together in the first thirty pages. There's no need to look at them, they just buy the space and it's up to you if you want to look at them. I barely watch TV because of the compulsory ad breaks. Your normal in-line image ads on websites I was happy with, then came the flashing adverts, the noisy adverts, the pop-up adverts, the expanding adverts, and then the cherry on the top, the compulsory 'runs-before-the-video-you-really-want-to-view' ads.

Is it any surprise that people turned to adblockers? No other medium has such invasive adverts, or offered such a comprehensive means of avoiding them. Your magazine analogy is basically miles off.

 

[Hateren47]

I fucking love ads. Without ads the Earth would spin out of orbit from the sun and blast through space as a frozen orb like a snowball across a school yard. Thank you ads. Thank you for keeping the internet, the world and me alive.

I'll just run 3 different virus and malware scans every day on start-up. At least they caught the key-logger on the hacked ad-server on the World of Warcraft site. So what's the problem?

Ad-block user should be banned from the internet. If they get their way we'll only have LordKat [http://www.lordkat.com/what-do-you-think-about-ad-blocking.html] left.

 

[Liberaliter]

I don't use ad blocker on sites I visit all the time (The Escapist, YouTube, Facebook and many others) but I keep it on for browsing and sites I am only going to go on once. There is security in blocking ads.

 

[Liquid Ocelot]

I began to use an adblocker program as soon as they started those BS talking ads that you can't turn off, or mute (In most cases). And because of those, I refuse to stop using it. There are so many others that aren't using an adblocker, and even more folk in the Publisher's Club (Which I would join if I had a credit card).

Point in case.. I'm not too worried about people stopping what they're doing.

 

[AngelicSven]

I love blocking AD's. Every time that one is blocked I get a sadistic little pleasure out of the fact I don't have to watch a thirty second commercial for amazing hair regrowth, a car that glides up mountains or a deodorant that turns women into mindless slaves with a range of 50 yards.

When I think of all the suckers that have bought hair cream that has no effect, a car that breaks down in peak hour on the highway and deodorant that smells like shit based on these advertisements that I have chosen not to watch.

I smile, then I laugh.

then... I'LL TAKE A POTATO CHIP AND EAT IT.

I get this feeling too. I'm very happy when my life isn't being taken away in little 30 second chunks because someone feels the need to tell me about something I absolutely don't care about. Ads hinder people from doing what they were doing, which they care about, to show you something you don't. Incredibly annoying.

 

[tahrey]

Well, should the sites I visit have the good sense to use good ol' static image or GIF banner and adsense text/mixed text & pic type ads, then I'm open to them.

If they're like the escapist and heavy with annoying, noisy, bandwidth wasting flash ads, then... I'm sorry. My flash-trojan blocking software automatically smushes them. It's nothing by active choice, but if I tell it to automatically allow them, then a whole load of other less savoury stuff is also automatically allowed, and I'm not going to go round a whole page clicking on all the temp-allow buttons every time. Maybe the fact that it's loaded the placeholder and recognised it as a valid (though not "safe") flash file is enough to attract at least the pageview revenue?

 

[Wes1180]

I do use an adblocker but it's mainly because of the pop up ads that flash and play loud music/sounds

I do plan on subscribing when I can, that reminds me does it automatically renew the subscription?

 

[mageroel]

Sure, I agree, but for fucks sake, let's get those youtube pre-video ads out of the way.. I don't mind clicking away some ads but it's just so damn annoying when you have to watch this stupid in-your-language commercial when you're actually watching something English or, I dunno, a 20 second video?

 

[Feriluce]

I never click adds anyway add-blocker or not, so your point is rather moot.

 

[Hollock]

The ads don't bother me. The only thing is I really hate are those Glee PSA ads that play on blip tv. videos. I'm so sick of "some people wanna do good, some people don't" and "is it recycling if you throw old batteries at clowns (WTF?) ". they've surpassed the starburst rock band ads as the worst in the world. I don't use adblockers anyways. what was this about again?

 

[microhive]

Get Firefox and Adblocker, makes surfing so much easier.

Silly Sleek, as if there are any other browsers to choose from.

The issue is that there are no other browsers that suppport entire blockade of ad object. For instance, Chrome doesn't block the ad, it merely hides it while Firefox actually blocks it entirely from even downloading.

Chrome doesn't allow extensions to hold as much power as Firefox does, which can be considered too much at times.

 

[Charli]

Then please stop breaking my very expensive computers by overloading the visual memory with throngs of ridiculous rubbish I didn't ask for.

Embeddings are fine.
A pop up here and there is fine.

6 pop ups, 3 roll over windows and obnoxious music playing while adware tries to invade my computers every orface is NOT FINE.

There are for some reasons we do block ads and if the companies cannot regulate their usage on certain sites that is their own damn fault.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Google Chrome: automatic ad blocker. Technically I'm not using one.

 

[orangebandguy]

I can live with ads.

It's just the ones that interrupt my videos or play when you rollover them even slightly that grind my gears.

That said I don't use ad-blocker. Mostly because I distrust all downloads by third parties, and some of the stuff advertised I buy anyway.

Although don't expect me to get a new car any time soon. ;D

 

[Lady Kathleen]

Now I'm confused. I surf all over the internet and encounter all sorts of ads. Ads that play on their own (which I can turn off or mute), ads thats that load before the article I want to read (which I wait for), but never pop up ads that give me viruses...

What kind of sites are you people going to? ^_^

So for those of you who don't want to see any ads, ever, and will adblock for a variety of reasons (too annoying, too repetitive, too dangerous), I can't tell you what to do, but I can ask you how you think people will people make money for their efforts?

A lot of you complained that watch ads uses your bandwidth. The people who run your favourite sites have bandwidth costs too. They might have staff to pay, or contractors to compensate.

In order for the internet to be viable, there has to be some way that the people that serve you content are compensated for their efforts.

Luckily, if you're not watching an ad, you have plenty of options. You can buy a t-shirt, order a book, a print, donate via paypal or some other form of micro-payment. Ads aren't the only way websites and content creators make money, but there are a lot of people who don't watch ads and gladly take free content, but balk at the idea of paying actual money for something. Why would I buy an Achewood book when I can read the comics for free? Because I really like Achewood and want there to be more Achewood in the future.

So here's an idea. Back in the golden, olden days of radio, when the spoken word was new entertainment, there wasn't really "advertising" as we know it now. It hadn't been invented yet. However the radio stations needed to pay writers and actors for creating the popular radio shows of the time. To make money, each show had a corporate sponsor. Show might have been called something like "The Burmashave Family Hour with Allan Ball" (a name I made up) - Allan Ball was the draw, but Burmashave paid the bills, mandated the inclusion of Burmashave into the storylines, and had final say about what was acceptable content. (ie, that storyline is too racy, Burmashave is a family product, so there will be no implications of sex in this show.)

This could be one option instead of the type of advertising we have now? Is this better because it's 'less intrusive', or is it worse, because it muzzles creative freedoms?