Spent a moment reading this NYTimes article, Whiting Out the Ads, But at what cost?
Within the article is the revelation that some website owners actually seem to take it personally that their readers may not want to be assaulted with advertisements. There are even some, apparently, who will reroute requests from the Firefox browser to whyfirefoxisblocked.com.
The aforementioned site is what prompted me to actually start writing. My first thought is, You have got to be kidding me.
Your readers are not obligated to view your advertisements. Readers who block advertisements are not stealing, being dishonest, underhanded, sneaky, malicious, or any other such thing.
It’s not for no reason that the various sorts of web publishing are being referred to as “New Media.” They are new, and even if they are most often (right now) being used in ways that mirror old media (text, audio, video), the method of distribution makes it new.
Distribution on the web is nothing like old media. There is absolutely no guarantee that your user will see what you meticulously designed in Dreamweaver; they may have larger fonts, they may have JavaScript turned off*, they could be using their own stylesheets, they could be using Greasemonkey to alter the way a variety of sites are displayed, they could be using hoodwink.d to comment on your site behind your back. They could be using Adblock to subvert your plans of World Domination Through Superior Content Supported By Advertising.
* This is always brought up whenever a discussion of the merits or demerits of Javascript takes place. In this day of Ajax applications… does anyone, anywhere, actually turn Javascript off? I submit that anyone who does is also capable of turning it back on in a flash if they want it.
The trouble with an ad-based business model is, the visitor is under no contract to view, read, or click on your ads. Yes, you can pull out a lot of statistics that say at least a certain number of visitors will click on the ads, and at the moment I’d say that it’s still a very valid business model if you have sufficient traffic. However, it may not be a valid business model 3 years down the road.
In fact, there’s no real reason that someone couldn’t make a fork of Firefox that includes Adblock, or something like it, turned on by default. (I only say “fork” because Mozilla’s relationship with Google is such that it is very unlikely they’d do this themselves.)
To go a step further — there’s no reason (other than the inherent absurdity of the suggestion) why Microsoft or Opera couldn’t start blocking advertisements by default in their browsers. It sounds ridiculous, but take a look at Tivo. Yes, the real power feature of Tivo and any DVR is being able to watch your chosen shows whenever you want. However, in any given conversation about Tivo’s features, I guarantee you that “You can skip ads!” is mentioned as a feature. Who’s to say that it won’t be considered a major browser feature only a few short years from now?
I have a few Google ads on my site; they don’t bring in much of anything. In two years of running ads I’ve brought in one check of just over $100, one time. So — yeah. Not quitting my day job to start blogging full time any time soon. Ad income pretty much has reimbursed what I’ve paid for various domains and hosting; I’m probably breaking even (if you don’t count that I’m not paid for the time I spend designing, redesigning, maintaining, and writing).
But I don’t expect visitors to click those ads. I don’t get bent out of shape at the idea that a good portion of my visitors probably have Adblock installed, as I do on some of my machines. That’s fine.
If you really think your content is that good, then charge for it. It’s been done, it’s being done, and it will probably be done more and more in the future. But don’t get all worked up because some one (a remarkably small percentage of the online population, I believe) is choosing not to view your ads. Blocking Firefox for that reason is tantamount to networks attempting to arrange it so their shows are not watchable on Tivo.
Yeah. Good luck with that.
I enjoyed your editorial. You make some nice points. I guess as a reader I feel I have the write to do whatever I want with my web browser. But, being a content publisher as well makes me see the necessity of ads. Yeah, they are annoying, yeah, some people go way over board and load the entire screen with ads. The way I deal with that is I just don’t read those websites.
Having a website makes me understand and appreciate advertising more. Every once in a while, if I read a good post I’ll even click on an ad or two as an anonymous “thanks”. :) I guess it comes down to everyone’s going to do what they want, but if the internet is going to maintain its position of commercial dominance, the ads better stay on.
and in the above post, by “write” I of course meant “right”. Wow, that’s how cool I am…
Of course, I know what you’re saying; I do the same thing, I have ads on this site. And personally, I don’t enable Adblock on most computers I use.
This post was mostly inspired by what I saw as the ridiculous “whyfirefoxisblocked” site.
People have suggested (reasonably enough) that there is an unspoken contract that your visitors view the ads in return for the content you provide. I believe that’s incorrect; just because I decide to show ads doesn’t bind my visitors to an understanding that they need to view them, let alone click on them.
I think the answer is a move toward more tasteful, minimal ads; the sort of ads that made Google Adsense popular in the first place. The Deck is another great example, one of the best that I know of.
The only way I can see to keep more and more people from blocking ads is to create ads that people don’t care to block. Otherwise, I think the internet will eventually go the way that Tivo is taking television — people will skip the ads.
(Of course — this could take awhile. Right now, to recall the Tivo example, relatively few viewers are using this, and the vast majority of TV watchers have to ignore ads while they broadcast. ;-) )
Re: turning off JS: I use Scriptaculous, a firefox extension that disabled it by default, but allows you to whitelist sites that you trust to run JS. IT’s easy to add a site - just click the icon in the statusbar and “Allow blah.com” or “temporarily allow blah.com”.
I’ve come across a couple of sites that block firefox. If any of them had worthwhile content, I’d just use one of the plugins that changes Firefox’s User-Agent string so that it appears to be IE…
But yes. Agreed. Advertising models that rely on exposing ads to millions of eyeballs in the hope that one or two might click are doomed. Advertising models based on permission and trust are the way to go - I’m far more likely to look at something because you mentioned it directly on your blog than I am to click on any of the ads around your blog, even if the only mention you make is that “Company X said they’d pay me lots of money if I mention them”.
My colleague reading over my shoulder disagrees with me - he thinks we’re both overestimating the intelligence of 95% of the population.
sorry, 99%. He was about to hit me unless I corrected myself.
@Phill I agree. There is no “contract” that the readers must view your ads. Also, minimalist is the way to go for astetics, for sure. But Google states over and over (monthly, in my reports!) how if I include more ads in my page my click rate will increase. There is some truth to that, thus the large banner at the top of my site. But the line has to be drawn.
This is an interesting discussion that could go on many different tangents!
Couple of points here:
1. The reason people use ad blockers is not because they don’t want to see adverts (keep reading…) but because the style and quality of 90% of adverts on the web is so horrible. Google ads change this by making unobtrusive ads, and this is the way forward. (Pop up ads are, of course, the biggest evil in the world today)
2. Blocking firefox is stupid - it takes 2 minutes to install a plugin to spoof which browser you’re using.
I’m loving this discussion.
@Zhasper… I can see your friend’s point; we may indeed be overestimating the intelligence of the majority. That said… there could come a day when a browser has adblocking (in some form) enabled by default, in which case the only decision a user would need to make would be to use that browser.
To mrBen & all; I’d echo agreement that people block ads b/c they’ve seen too many obnoxious ones (slap the sumo? Shoot the little elf? Please.). Minimalist, tasteful, or even (gasp) entertaining ads (viral videos, for example) are definitely the only way I see advertising on the web thriving in the future.
And I think it will thrive.
@mrBen pop-up ads the “biggest evil in the world today”? Well… I hate them too, but… I think I’ll take that as creative hyperbole. ;-)