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

[Wolfenbarg]

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 justified 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.

One the first count: Yes, it would be nice to see more than one ad between viewings. I don't know if The Escapist is quite to the point of pulling that off though. Blip.tv and Hulu seem to have enough of an overall viewing base to have a number of advertisers ready to shell out their product. If that isn't that case, then I'd be all for that. If they aren't... well then I hope they will be soon enough.

Second count: The question is, do we hold those all equal to internet advertising? I think the pre-advert adverts before movies as well as pre-DVD ads to be a scourge to the Earth. You've shelled out good money for both of those, and there's no reason that you should have to put up with more than pre-movie trailers in my opinion. Now, while they are bad, I don't really think they are quite on par with internet advertising. The internet is a free to use system similar to how radio and television are. If you have access, you can view to your heart's desire. Much like radio and television, the only way they can make money out of you is via subscription or through ads. Most people won't shell out for a subscription, so ads are the way to go.

 

[Wintermoot]

I still use a adblocker why? BECAUSE I GET CLUNNED TO DEATH WITH COMMERCIALS FOR STUFF THEY DONT HAVE HERE!!
we dont have AT&T here
we only have TWO starbucks in the ENTIRE COUNTRY
same with 7/11
also we dont have Glee here!
they dont regionalize the commercials imagine you keep getting commercial for milner cheese!
PS unlike the commercials on the TV you cant use the internet commercials as pee break because they are too short!

 

[justnotcricket]

Like the Escapist earlier in the thread, perhaps it's because I live in Australasia (New Zealand, to be precise), but I don't see any of these ads. the only 'ads' I see are the little ones that come on at the beginning of videos advertising the Pub Club or, say, the next season of Doraleous. I guess we're lucky?

Having said that, we don't have the rights to enter most of the competitions that run on the site, or join the guild that's opened recently for the Vindictus event. So I guess we lose out in other areas.

As for the issue of ad blockers, I'd never actually heard of them until now...but I don't really feel the need for one. Ads, in my opinion, are there to be ignored unless someone has made a particularly cute or witty one. I don't need to block them, I can just ignore them - although my browser does have a built in popup blocker, which is nice...when it isn't blocking email attachments etc =P

 

[-Samurai-]

I don't now and have never run an ad blocker. But is isn't because I'm morally against it.

If I see an ad on a website(such as this one) and I don't click on the ad, the company gets nothing. So, how would outright blocking them be any different?

If they're paid by he click, blocking them is the same as not clicking on them.

As for TV; There are so many commercials between shows that I forget what I was watching. When a show with a 1 hour time slot only gets 35 minutes of air time, we've got a problem. I don't watch TV for the ads, I watch it for the shows.

If I want a product, I'll go get it. I don't need it obstructing the view of the things I actually want.

 

[iblis666]

for sites i trust i disable add blocker but you would have to pry script blocker from my cold dead hands since ive been infected with way too many viruses

 

[Citrus]

I'd really like to know how Suicidal Hobo's comment on the first page got him suspended. I know Escapist mods tend to be overzealous when dishing out punishment, but suspending someone for having an opposing opinion, however bluntly stated, is pretty low.

And for the record, I don't use an ad-blocker. I know it's the only way to support the people who make free content, and to be honest, I think a few ads are a small price to pay for not having to buy anything. But that said, I've never actually clicked on an ad on this site, so I'm probably being less helpful than I think.

Actually, come to think of it, I don't know much about how web ads work. Does it depend on how many people click on the ads, or on the ads' placement with regard to page views/site traffic? I'd assume both.

 

[Taawus]

Soon as they optimize their ads, I'm not going to endure the lagfest that is.

 

[brunothepig]

I don't see the ads, so I get the feeling firefox is auto blocking them. I saw them for a while. Now I never do...

 

[microhive]

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.

Incorrect now, but I can say no more here.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/20/chrome_does_resource_blocking/

So, the feature to block the ad was actually a hidden feature of Webkit. I can easily understand why no one actually used it for a while.

 

[Jodah]

When ads stop taking more bandwidth then most of the videos I am trying to watch Ill turn it off.

 

[somonels]

Television ads I can just walk away from, to make a sammich or squeeze a lemon to make a nice juice. They wouldn't know.
Internet ads I have to download, costing me time and bandwidth. That would be ok, however, sites often don't really concern themselves with the quality of the advertisements that they hold. Flash ADs with blinking screens, sound, often loud, badly optimized. I can't read local newspaper sites on single core computers. They can barely crawl around in there.
On a related subject: I cannot understand why sites, including The Escapist, advertise their own site on the header.
I would be content with reading my news from the todaysnews.txt file.

 

[sosolidshoe]

-snip-

When content creators and websites agree to end the following, I will stop using adblockers.

1. Annoying multicoloured GIFs which cycle rapidly through a series of images.
2. Annoying Flash adverts which install LSO "super-cookies" on my system without consent.
3. Flash ads which play sound without consent.
4. Popups, often containing one of the above.
5. Failing to properly vet ad sources before using them, resulting in my computer being attacked through browser exploits.

I have run across all of these on a regular basis, some even on this site, when using browsers other than Firefox with a full set of flash and ad blocking addons. None of them are acceptable, in my eyes; sites like the Escapist spend tonnes of time and money on web development to have a slick, attractive website, then they coat it in annoying adverts which significantly diminish the user's experience. Some other sites have even caused financial damage to users by installing malware through adverts. It's not on.

 

[Kouen]

Agreed here. then again im a pub club member too

 

[Graham_LRR]

It's absolutely insulting that you find their trade so meaningless that you suggest they do it for free.

Thank you.

 

[blankedboy]

This is a touchy subject, because the Escapist suspends people for having adblockers.

I used to have one, but I couldn't be bothered getting it after my computer got a virus.

I suppose OP has a point, but it's not as dramatic as she makes it sound.

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

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.

UNLEASH YOURSELF WONKA

 

[Wolfenbarg]

It's absolutely insulting that you find their trade so meaningless that you suggest they do it for free.

Thank you.

You are very welcome. You and the LRR crew are my internet heroes.

 

[Mr Montmorency]

If people are making the effort to download AdBlock-- actively looking for one because they're tired of the ads they see, then that's your fault.

This isn't about what the user has done, it's about the ads your serving, if people don't like the ads, they're going to block them. It's The Escapist's fault for having a flawed business model. Some users are going using AdBlock to remove annoying ads and The Escapist's revenue decreases. If AdBlock didn't exist, those users wouldn't have the option to remove annoying ads and so they would just stop visiting the site, and The Escapist's revenue would decrease even more so than it's probably decreasing now while they're on a crusade for everyone to stop using them.

A website's user is not responsible for making sure the ads serve their intended purpose, nor is it their responsibility to watch all the ads on the site. Your advertising made the problem and the only solution is to fix it.

Being guilt tripped into blocking the ads is like guilt tripping us for not watching every series on the site at least once. In the same way those shows won't appeal to the audience, posting annoying ads is going to do the same thing.

There's the explanation. It's up to you to fix it... or you could just ban anyone who disagrees, do matter how relevant their point is. Because I'm telling you now, it'll all come flying back at you if you start treating your customers like shite for not liking how your business works.

If I for one, wasn't badgered to stop using AdBlock on this website constantly, and being told "SUBSCRIBE TO PUBLISHERS CLUB! SUBSCRIBE TO PUBLISHERS CLUB! SUBSCRIBE TO PUBLISHERS CLUB!", I would allow the ads to show freely as an act of respect that I wasn't being patronised and treated like a mindless consumer. I've actively decided to block them because of the way I, and many other users have been treated, for having different browsing preferences. Again-- you want us to unblock your ads? Stop treating us like criminals and fix your ads. Banning your users for stuff like this is only going to spread a bad reputation as well, and you never know who might be watching what you do.