Comments on: AdBlock: Why An Advertising Based Business Model May Not Scale Toward the Future

By: Phil Crissman

Phil Crissman — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:38:06 +0000

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. ;-)

By: mrben

mrben — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:34:05 +0000

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.

By: John Kolbert

John Kolbert — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:48:09 +0000

@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!

By: Zhasper

Zhasper — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:08:04 +0000

sorry, 99%. He was about to hit me unless I corrected myself.

By: Zhasper

Zhasper — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:07:41 +0000

My colleague reading over my shoulder disagrees with me - he thinks we’re both overestimating the intelligence of 95% of the population.

By: Zhasper

Zhasper — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:05:50 +0000

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”.

By: Zhasper

Zhasper — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:39:21 +0000

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…

By: Phil Crissman

Phil Crissman — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:11:03 +0000

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. ;-) )

By: John Kolbert

John Kolbert — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:56:00 +0000

and in the above post, by “write” I of course meant “right”. Wow, that’s how cool I am…

By: John Kolbert

John Kolbert — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:55:09 +0000

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.