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

[Ken Sapp]

snip

While I appreciate and agree with your points I am obliged to point out the downside. I work in IT and perform home PC repair services on the side. In my side work I spend alot of time cleaning up virus and other malware infections and for the last several years one of the leading vectors of infection has been through ads on web pages. Oftentimes these are not ads specifically placed by the page owner but rather ads delivered through services which don't sufficiently vet their advertisers. Based on that I can't in good conscience recommend that anyone use the web without a decent ad-blocking extension or plugin.

I love the work done by groups like LRR and sites like the Escapist and contribute when I can but considering that even if I notice an ad I don't click it but will rather go to the website on my own at some other time if it interests me...

 

[LordWalter]

snip

/skepticism. I see your point, but it's not that clear-cut: XKCD doesn't run ads. Many excellent-quality sites do not. They don't have to. I don't want the commercialization of the internet. It's one of the central reasons why I cannot stand television: how the hell am I supposed to watch anything of actual interest if every five seconds I'm having corn flakes marketed to me? Answer: I can't.

The internet is the best source of free entertainment, and it should remain that way. Compensation for creative works is all well and good, but if the only reason you're an artist is for profit, you're doing it wrong.

For the record, this isn't at you, Kathleen, and I whitelist The Escapist on AdBlocker because I want to support it, but I still think this rampant commercialization (of something that worked incredibly well already when it was profit-free) should be fought.

 

[MasterSplinter]

But... my question is:
Does the site knows that I have blocked the add?

I don't know how the site works or how the add blocker works, plus different sites and different add blockers may work in different ways. Maybe the site thinks I've watched the advertising.

If the site doesn't know then where's the harm in using it?
I don't have money to spend by impulse on anything anyone wants to sell me. The only things I've bought though the internet where by a desire born outside of my web browsing activities. And i can count them with the fingers of my hand.

I used to use a add blocker as a firefox addon but I had to reinstall firefox a few years back and forgot to reinstall that function ever since, altough firefox has a built in pop-up blocker.

 

[CharadeUR]

Not gonna read through these six of so pages of (loooonnnnggggg) posts, so I'm probably gonna restate some things that has already been said, and probably in a lesser fashion too.

First off, internet ads are essentially the same as TV, Radio, and public transport ads in that they have one common goal: To get you to buy their stuff, and to a lesser extent, make said item more affordable, if not free.

However, the latter three are different in that they are not continuously FREAKING (not sure what the profanity rules are here) ANNOYING. Honestly, every time I see an ad with enough flashing lights to give even the least epileptic prone human a freaking seizure and a promise to give me a new car and hookers for life, all because I was visitor #567,234, that ad is getting blocked, no questions asked. For one, that site is most likely not safe. Two, the promise of hookers and a car is pretty much false advertising. Back in my younger, stupider days, I clicked on a few to see if anything happened. Usually I had to fill out a survey that required my credit card for god knows what reason; what TV ad actually tries to flat-out scam you? That's not even including the viruses you can get from many of them.

Furthermore, you don't have to be the most obnoxious looking ad ever to be annoying. More and more often I see videos that won't start unless you view one of their ads. Really? I'm just trying to listen to some music, isn't it enough you charge me a dollar to listen to some soundwaves. I refuse to watch any Vevo videos anymore; instead opting to view random14243's channel because at least he doesn't have any goddamn ads.

All these ads are similar in another regard: They are there for a rate. Does NBC get paid each time someone purchases a Vanilla Coke because they saw an ad for it on Sunday Night Football? No. That would be absolutely retarded, and thus is why it doesn't happen on the internet (though, strangely, some will say otherwise). Just like a more popular TV program (The Super Bowl is a great example) will cost you more to advertise on it, a more popular webpage will get more income from ads. Does clicking on a link generate additional profit? Well, yeah. It is a lot easier to see if someone is purchasing from an ad on the internet. It is however, not their main source of income. Go out on your street and ask 100 people who aren't functionally retarded around computers (so basically 100 people between the ages of 10 and 35) and ask them if they have ever bought something from an ad on the internet. I am willing to bet not a single one says yes.

For a real life ad comparison, do you actually sit through the commercials on TV? Do you sit through ALL of them? Doubtful. People take that time to do small, menial tasks. The internet isn't like that cause it's instant, it's personal. You're doing what you want as opposed to simply watching what you want.

Long story, short. I'm not going to block ads if they aren't ridiculously annoying. If you have an annoying ad, that fucker is getting blocked. Escapist does it nicely (on this page, anyway); a background image and a few random ads place unobtrusively. I haven't noticed any significant lag, either; a huge factor in whether you get blocked or not.

 

[LordWalter]

I don't get adds....maybe it's becuase I'm in Australia. And what are Slim Jims?

Heart Disease.

OT: I mean, I'm all for advertising, but people need to make better ads. I'm sorry, but most ads are really dumb. For Real. On the other hand, there are some good ones, like a couple of the ones I've seen on Hulu. Also, ads get repetitive very quickly. Perhaps the agencies should make more ads? Also, the algorithm that determines which ad is played isn't very good either. Despite the fact that there are at least four Slim Jims ads on this site it only plays like one, at least for me. Not to mention Slim Jims are a horrible product but I wont say that otherwise I'll get banned.

But the point is, I would get less annoyed by ads if they were marketing better things, and if the advertisements were more interesting as pieces of film. I mean, is so hard to ask that the ads be good?

EDIT: I feel like ranting on about this topic more because I am bored. And thus, I do.

I believe in something called the Donate Button. I believe that people who really like something should have the kindness to just flat out hand over money to someone they support. I believe that in a perfect world this is the way art would work.

That said, I am a lazy 16 year old who is very dependent on his parents in terms of having enough food to eat and education. Because of my education, I know that this is impractical.

But on the one hand I feel that if artists really liked making art (and before you start on about anything EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING THAT IS CREATED IS ART INCLUDING EVERYTHING ON THE ESCAPIST SO SHUT YOUR FACE) then they would do it regardless of how much they were paid for it and even if no one liked it. And I know that is a false statement, but as an artist who makes no money on a regular basis, I still feel compelled to make the things I make. That said, I pay for nothing of my own and if I did there is no doubt that my ability to make art for free would change. But I think at the bottom of my heart I would still do it, even if I couldn't show it off.

I guess my point is this: If an artist really likes making art, then they will make art regardless of whether or not anyone will see it. Even if LRR stops getting paid by the Escapist and just loses all of their popularity overnight for some reason, I doubt them all will stop making videos. People who like making art make of it as much as they can regardless of what they get in return. And if they really receive joy from making art, then they will always be happy, because they will always make art.

I don't know how much that has to do with the original topic, but I thought it was inspiring enough to post.

^ This guy, right here. A 16 year old who is more eloquent and insightful than 98% of the adults I've ever met. bahaha, death to ageism. This is spot-on. Massive kudos for the post.

 

[imagremlin]

I was OK with the ads until they started desperately trying to jump into my face. Blinking and moving frenetically.

And then came the beyond obnoxious practice of using flash to pop the frenetically animated ad on top of what you want to read. That was it, from then on I blocked ads and flash.

I know that this blanket move punish more people that it should, but don't blame me, blame the few true jerk advertisers out there.

 

[thublihnk]

Simple: I disable my adblocker on sites I care about, and leave it up and running when I'm just scrolling through the various cesspoolery of the internet. My adblock hasn't touched the Escapist (don'tcho guilt trip me).

 

[Skorpyo]

I understand the need for advertising, but as long as animated adverts keep sucking my computer to the floor and make my videos skip around like an over-amped rabbit, I'll keep blocking them.

Honestly, the Vindictus ads around here as of late made my computer B.S.O.D.

I don't mind the ads, either. I wouldn't have known about SC2 so early otherwise.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I don't use any ad blocker myself, but then I don't frequent the sites that would annoy me to hell, and just as has been said, I feel there's an implied contract between me and the site, they give me content I'm interested in, and I see a few ads.

Come on people, sure the escapist have ads, but they're not the worst ads the net can offer, no streams of pop ups, not unclosable boxes, sure we'd all like variety however, perhaps that's something they can work on as it would be better for both the escapist and their advertisers.

I think it's a pretty good sign of the community here tho, having read most of the comments, even the negative ones are fairly calm about it, and most at least understand you need to make money, and don't begrudge you the few bucks you claw back by covering the site in Fable 3 stuff for a couple of weeks.

There's always the membership....$2 a month means no ads, and it's still entirely optional.

 

[archvile93]

Iwouldn't mind the ads if they weren't so fucking intrusive.

 

[deathandtaxes]

I posted this in the latest ENN discussion thread, and then realized I feel strongly about this, and I want lots of people to see it.

Rant follows:

Back in the days of TV, we expected to get quality programming for free, but we understood that we got it in exchange for watching advertising. The ads supported the shows, and the people who worked the shows on them got paid decent salaries.

Nowadays, the internet is still trying to figure out how to make money for itself. The content is still free, but there is no implicit contract between the viewers and the advertisers.

So, while the system works itself out, advertisers are trying to put TV style ads with internet content (which is on the whole much shorter because no content creators can afford to produce TV length content as the monetization system just isn't in place yet) and we get complaints that the ads are almost as long as the video you want to watch. Things will sort themselves out in time. The internet needs to find the most efficient way to make money. But, please keep watching the ads.

Here's why:

When you use an adblocker - who are you hurting with this seemingly innocent act?

Advertisers? Yes, a little bit, they lose some eyes on their message.

Websites? Yes, a little bit, as they lose a fraction of a cent for each ad you don't see.

Content Creators and regular people? Yes! Why? Crap flows downhill my friend.

You? The most - read on.

The internet needs content - videos, columns, comics, porn, whatever. Without content, there would be no internet. I think everyone can agree people who create quality content should be paid a fair market rate for their time, but the money to pay for the content that drives the eyeballs to the site doesn't come from thin air. It comes in exchange for people seeing advertisements. (Or an equivalent - pub club members don't see ads because they've already paid for the content.)

If people don't see advertisements, the ads don't get clicks and don't get their message across. This means advertisers pay the websites less and less, and lose confidence in the internet as a marketing system because it doesn't really seem to work.

When websites don't make money, they close down shop (after all, a business isn't in the business of providing you free entertainment), lay off employees, and certainly can't afford to pay content creators fair value (or any value) for their work. Sure, content creators can work for free to do something they love (something I personally did for 7 years before LRR started working with the Escapist), but at some point, you have to give up a hobby that costs you money and time and find a real job.

Before you say I'm whining, keep in mind I do have a real job. I sit at a desk 4 days a week (my company is actually wonderful and supportive of my other job - LRR) so I can work Fridays, Saturdays, evenings (and sometimes Sundays) to provide you with free content.

So, when you block ads, you take away the money that compensates me for this work. You reduce the profitability of sites like The Escapist that are willing to pay me, (instead of expecting it for free as many sites do, as there's lots of content out there, and a website has to pay its bills and keep roofs over its employee's heads before it considers paying contractors like me) and you reduce my ability to make content until I get to the point where I say, "you know what, screw it, and go back to working 5 days a week because I can't AFFORD to do what I love" and I stop making internet funny times.

By refusing to pay for content or watch ads, you slowly strangle the creative people who make it for you. And you don't strangle the 14 year old kid who puts up stuff on his deviant art profile, you strangle the incredibly talented web-cartoonist who stops working on comics to do more professional illustration work. You strangle the really talented writers who go back to day jobs in marketing. You kill the best content by keeping its creators from getting fair compensation.

Sure, there's new content always being created, but the creators won't keep making it for you for free forever. Eventually, they'll have to grow up and move on with their lives. And who will be worse off?

YOU.

So holy shit, if you like an artist, buy a print. If you like ENN, watch an ad. If you like a writer, buy their book. If you refuse to pay for content, eventually there won't be an quality content for you to refuse to pay for.

I don't ad block I run no script, thus I see no ads I don't have to see in order to say watch content.

I don't feel the need to allow sites to run possibly and probably malicious code on my computer to fill their coffers. In addition I find myself constantly giving less of a shit about content developers including computer games developers as it is blatantly obvious that they themselves hold there often captive audiences in contempt. See the constant use of DMC, the substandard PC game releases, the now substandard and often buggy console releases, etc.

Indeed in the business world morality has very little hold and industrial espionage is commonplace as is patent infringement, one only needs to look at the current law suits filed between Nokia and apple and indeed the MANY lawsuits filed against apple by hundreds of different companies and patent owners.

Piracy in both the software sense and indeed in the 'I'm not watching this advertising' sense could be socially described as apathy toward content developers who believe I should pay for crap which is often in part or whole stolen. You can bang on about how morally corrupt this is but honestly I'm at the point where I don't give a flying duck when morals become part of capitalism and companies begin acting in the interests of the common good I will begin to care about their welfare until then by all means bang on about how we should support the content developers but don't expect anyone with any perspective to pay attention.

In the end two wrongs don't make piracy or add spiking good or right but there is a certain sense of poetic justice to it.

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

I don't get adds....maybe it's becuase I'm in Australia. And what are Slim Jims?

Heart Disease.

OT: I mean, I'm all for advertising, but people need to make better ads. I'm sorry, but most ads are really dumb. For Real. On the other hand, there are some good ones, like a couple of the ones I've seen on Hulu. Also, ads get repetitive very quickly. Perhaps the agencies should make more ads? Also, the algorithm that determines which ad is played isn't very good either. Despite the fact that there are at least four Slim Jims ads on this site it only plays like one, at least for me. Not to mention Slim Jims are a horrible product but I wont say that otherwise I'll get banned.

But the point is, I would get less annoyed by ads if they were marketing better things, and if the advertisements were more interesting as pieces of film. I mean, is so hard to ask that the ads be good?

EDIT: I feel like ranting on about this topic more because I am bored. And thus, I do.

I believe in something called the Donate Button. I believe that people who really like something should have the kindness to just flat out hand over money to someone they support. I believe that in a perfect world this is the way art would work.

That said, I am a lazy 16 year old who is very dependent on his parents in terms of having enough food to eat and education. Because of my education, I know that this is impractical.

But on the one hand I feel that if artists really liked making art (and before you start on about anything EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING THAT IS CREATED IS ART INCLUDING EVERYTHING ON THE ESCAPIST SO SHUT YOUR FACE) then they would do it regardless of how much they were paid for it and even if no one liked it. And I know that is a false statement, but as an artist who makes no money on a regular basis, I still feel compelled to make the things I make. That said, I pay for nothing of my own and if I did there is no doubt that my ability to make art for free would change. But I think at the bottom of my heart I would still do it, even if I couldn't show it off.

I guess my point is this: If an artist really likes making art, then they will make art regardless of whether or not anyone will see it. Even if LRR stops getting paid by the Escapist and just loses all of their popularity overnight for some reason, I doubt them all will stop making videos. People who like making art make of it as much as they can regardless of what they get in return. And if they really receive joy from making art, then they will always be happy, because they will always make art.

I don't know how much that has to do with the original topic, but I thought it was inspiring enough to post.

^ This guy, right here. A 16 year old who is more eloquent and insightful than 98% of the adults I've ever met. bahaha, death to ageism. This is spot-on. Massive kudos for the post.

You sir, have made my day more brighter. Thank you for that compliment. You have no idea what that means to me.

 

[CyberSkull]

I don't block advertisements. I block Flash. Now this has the side effect of blocking some ads, but you don't need flash to advertise. All Flash ads do is slow down my browser and annoy me with their autoplaying audio and video. So if you want me to see your ads, use JPEG, PNG, GIF, SVG, text or even JavaScript. As long as it doesn't slow or crash my browser, I won't block it.

 

[sneakypenguin]

I don't really buy the argument that it hurts me because it might limit content etc etc. I can go to youtube and find any sort of sketch, review, comedy I wan't. If LRR stops creating vids it just leaves a hole for other ppl to create content willing to do it for free. If there was a system wide drop in content(sure lol) then it will increase demand and willingness to "buy" content. It simply seems an economic issue, content is unlimited atm(practically) so my willingness to pay for it is nil.

What you're saying here is that if a content creator can't make money, someone will come up and do it for free, therefore, your willingness to pay for content is nil. This means you don't value content at all. Doesn't Susan Arent (a content creator) deserved to be paid a fair wage for her writing and editing? She can't write the great articles she does if she has to work for free - being good at something is a full time job.

Aside from that, from a pure economics issue, let's go on a thought experiment:

What do you do for a living? Let's say you work at the Acme button company. You make buttons for $10 an hour. Acme buttons isn't doing so well, so they have to let you go, and they replace you with someone who maybe doesn't make buttons nearly as well as you, but will work for $3 an hour. Or they move the Acme button factory to India, where people make really bad buttons for 30 cents an hour.

However, you get a new job!

You now work for Marvel Magazines. You write specialized marketing content for in-flight magazines! Oh boy! They pay you $15 an hour. But Marvel Magazine also isn't doing so well... ad sales are down. They lay you off and replace you with an intern (who's not a very good writer yet) who's willing to write for free. When that intern is done and ready to get a real job, instead of hiring them, Marvel Magazines just replaces them with another intern who will work for free.

Is this wrong? No, this pure supply and demand. There is an excess of people who want to write, make content or stamp out buttons, so what's the problem.

You're basically saying there is no difference between QUALITY of content and QUANTITY of content - the free market decides all. Perhaps I'm a socialist Canadian, but I see a little bit of a problem with not paying people for what their work is worth. It's exploitative.

Not to criticize your work, I really enjoy a lot of the skits, unskippable etc. But I'd argue that quality wise there would be content to replace it.(and if this is the case then your product is worth very little despite whatever arbitrary value you the creator deem it as possessing) And if there isn't material to replace you then demand will increase to where people(i) would pay.

Thats why I like the escapist even though I could go to any dozens of gaming sites they have a entertaining news team and personalities hence why its worth my dollar for pub club. However the marginal utility derived from the escapist is not worth putting up with ads, so if I had to put up with ads or not visit the site I'd just go to one of the dozen other sites to get my gaming news.

MU of escapist=9 Ads=-10 not worth it. MU escapist 9, pub club membership economic loss=-5 so net gain for me. I realize marginal utility derived from things is arbitrary, but to say that someones work is worth X and they need to get paid (via ads) just doesn't work with me when I don't value that work enough to pay for it by diminishing my experience.

^thats prolly clear as mud lol.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

snip

The internet is the best source of free entertainment, and it should remain that way. Compensation for creative works is all well and good, but if the only reason you're an artist is for profit, you're doing it wrong.

Bull. Bull, bull, and more bull. Do you know why art is a constantly evolving medium? Because the people who have exceptional talent get PAID to do what they do. They want to display their art, but if they can't live off of their work, then you'll never see their best pieces while they're busy waiting tables somewhere. I don't know if you've ever ventured to the LRR site, but they did what they did for FREE for a long time. Through the years they tailored their craft to their fans, and now they're here, getting paid for what they do. One of their hard working members comes here to try to defend profitability on the internet, and a bunch of people slam her and tell her that since others can run content without ads, she should work for free too.

If this site took away your ENN, your LRR, your Zero Punctuation, your Doomsday Arcade and your Doraleous then all of you would be complaining more than you are now about ads. This is what PAYS these people to keep entertaining YOU. It's absolutely insulting that you find their trade so meaningless that you suggest they do it for free.

 

[Callate]

Subscribers don't have to watch ads? Damn. I wish I had known that before I decided to watch every one of the Film Festival entries. I'm glad Slim Jim decided to introduce a new ad campaign shortly before- if I had had to watch the "to unleash our spicy side!" ad thirty times in a row, I would have been ready to insert Slim Jims into both eye sockets.

The Internet has been going through a "everything on the 'Net is supposed to be free" phase for a while now. It's had such delightful side effects as draconian DRM, slowly strangling the newspaper business, and inducing hissy fits in aging novelty rock musicians. Like so many things having to do with human nature, one wonders how bad things have to get before people recognize that yes, they do in fact personally have to make a change in the way they do things.

That said, I have to make a couple of observations.

One, the advertisers are trying to duplicate the advertising methods of earlier media, and thus they're going about it all wrong. Even if some of Slim Jim's ads occasionally provoked a smile (at least until the fifth viewing), I'm not one who is susceptible to being induced to consume a heavily preserved sausage product that is likely to cause heartburn. However, this isn't to say that ad dollars spent by the Slim Jim company on reaching me need to be in vain. The Internet is an interactive medium, and one where information can and does flow both directions. So while I am, as mentioned, unlikely to be provoked into buying a meat product with a nearly indefinite shelf life on the basis of its advertiser trying to convince me that failing to do so puts my masculinity in doubt, I would be perfectly happy to fill out a short survey to explain why Slim Jim is not hitting my particular portion of the 25-34 year old male demographic, information which might actually be of value to the Slim Jim company.

Answer me this, everyone: wouldn't you be willing to spend sixty seconds filling out a survey if it meant you could spend the next hour of web-surfing without having to see the same three ads over and over?

Second observation: While I support the right of content creators to be fairly compensated for their work (I am a sort of content creator myself, after all) there is a not entirely unwarranted sense that advertisers have been courting pushback for a while now. I used to be able to talk to my friends or read a book while waiting for a movie to start in a theater; now I'm bombarded with loud advertising laughably packaged as something I ought to come to the theater early to "check out"- this, of course, before the ads that play before the movie itself, and before the previews, which are also, in their way, advertisements. When I want to show my daughter some of her favorite DVDs, I have to push the "forward" button seven times because some asshole in marketing decided that there was no way I should be allowed to skip directly to the main menu just because I'd shelled out money to buy their DVD. If you initiate a conversation- which is somewhat what I describe in my "survey" idea- people will often talk to you, because most of us like to be heard. Conversely, if you lock someone in a cage- tell them what they can and cannot do, what they must and must not do, and manifestly refuse to hear them- of course they're going to try to break out. Which in this case, means pressing "forward" on their DVRs, ripping DVDs they own to make copies that eliminate the ads and MPAA propaganda, showing up five minutes late for movies, and installing ad blockers.

Anyway, please go on. I'll be back here, waiting for a cable subscription that allows me to choose my channels a la carte and banish Fox News.

 

[ShinningDesertEagle]

Personally I would rather pay for content then have ads shoved in my face. I hate ads infecting my entertainment. When I block ads, it hurts the advertisers and those who work with them. Thus companies are forced to work around using them.

 

[AceAngel]

I have to agree with Kath here. However, at the same time, I have a few issues:

-My bandwidth is extremely tight, I cannot afford to willy-nilly watch the larger ads at free will.
-I don't block ad services which are targeting specifically me: Games, Movies, etc.
-I don't block ads which are under 10MB.
-I don't block ads which are under 45 seconds.
-I do block the rest.

Thankfully, the Escapist site, targets me correctly most of the time, and almost all of the ads fall around the same size as that of a Yahtzee video. So as long as video is under 10MB, I'm fine (most are 5MB by the way for those shouting foul).

However, Youtube for example as been becoming obnoxious recently, since it likes popping up the occasional 'girl ad' to me, a guy who has no reason to buy leg shaving cream.

Mein point is; yes Kath, I do agree the internet still needs to grow in the Ad field to yield in money to support free shows online, but they could at LEAST try throwing an effort or two in that area.

Which reminds, many of the 'professional' CG sites for Artists actually look after their ads. I can't say how many times I complained about an Ad showing something about Scientology, and they replaced it with an appropriate site-related product.