Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love. (from 2010)

I don't think it's an easy balance to strike making money from reputable ads and having content provided by others which makes your 'site' (I'm going to use party instead of site from here on in) attractive and popular.

If you over advertise your party then people will go elsewhere as it's no longer cool or worthwhile. If you under advertise your party then you can't afford things to make it cool (Like buying a certain wreath that will find it's way to a member who has passed's funeral).

What we could talk about is what type of adverts the party shows. Google ads are nice and discreet - but don't bring in as much money as the picture ads. Picture ads often use Flash which is a backdoor onto a Windows system (pah-lease IT guru wannabes - just read the constant white papers on it).

I personally think that, certainly within the past 3 years, the quality of ads here has improved to the point were I don't even consider blocking them.

If a talking smiley or mosquito shows up again though you can bet your bottom dollar I'll block it and then report it. Same goes for ads which get in the way of content (Yahoo! anyone?). I don't think ATS plays the vulgar ads cards to reap the most money - and judging from both SO and Springers detailed posts here it looks like it is a considered topic of interest to the owners here.

I still think banning 2 folks for their claims of using adblocker is well off though - education is the key here, not alienating contributing members.

-m0r

reply to post by MR BOB


And how more arrogant is it than basically flipping the bird to those who operate that house? Those who clean it? Those who pay for its mortgage?

What I find quite arrogant is people who wish to come lax around on the couch, eat the chips, watch the TV and then complain whenever any *rule* is instilled that may pay for that couch they sit their butts on, pay for those chips they toss down their throat, pay for that cable-connection for the TV.


You consider it arrogant to respond that the rule here is A,B,C...I consider it RUDE to debate the point with what are essentially the *hosts* of the house.

There have been houses I've been into where I haven't agreed with what was happening within them, or the manner is which they have been kept, or the *rules* applicable within them.

Some houses I still visit - and I acknowledge that house-owner calls the shots...other houses I don't visit any more.

Most certainly you are a free human being - but this ain't a free site.

You consider it a 'telling off'? Nope...the telling off component comes after the request, the advisement, the sign on the door to 'remove your shoes'...if you choose to then ignore that for whatever reason and walk around inside with your shoes on...then the telling off comes...


Seriously. Try it in real life.

Go walk into someones house and do whatever you want. Tell them WTF whenever they inform you of the rules of the house. Tell them how arrogant they are to dare impose a rule upon a free human being...

...then tell us how that worked out for ya...

Originally posted by brill

"The readers are not the customer. The customer is the advertiser, and the readers are the product which that website promises to deliver. But the readers, being the product and not the customer, have no obligation to the site or its bottom line."

It's an interesting observation to some degree and it gave me pause to think through the reasoning behind it. For at first glance it seems correct ... indeed it is the advertisers who sign the checks which fund the business. However there is something inherently flawed in said reasoning, namely that the exclusive overt act of the financial transaction is what defines the 'customer' ... at least in the conventional sense.

Truth is that the advertising business is defined in this manner across the board, be it radio, television, etc, and in this context the internet business model is no different than any other in the media/advertiser/audience relationship.

And I think ultimately that's what we're talking about here ... the internet in the form it began, has created an entire generation of what one might call an "entitled" audience which perceives it their right not only to benefit from free music, video, free content across the board, but when the business model accommodates this entitlement to a great degree through advertising, they also want to be free of that encumbrance.

In the end imho it matters not to precisely define who the customer is from a semantic view. Everything has a cost that needs to be paid. It can be paid through someone's benevolence or it can be funded via a sound business model. The former is rare and the latter can and should not be resented.

[edit on 8 Mar 2010 by schrodingers dog]

i see a couple of banns on this thread.

why do people insist on fist fighting with the owners? it costs money to run shyt, and its not like the ads are intrusive enough to install an ad blocker.

makes no sense!

Wow, a website saying don't block ads.


ats has to make money somehow, right?

I will continue to be a member here but I won't abuse my eyes for it. I allowed ads through for this site and other sites but I had too many flashing ads and talking ads, to the point I really felt I didn't have a choice. Have calm, ads and I might reconsider. I'm not going to bleed my eyes, the ball is your court.

Now, I'm not a web developer, but there seems to be a very simple solution to this Ad-Block issue.

Instead of banning users outright (and lose potential clients), why not just create some crafty script that CONFIRMS all intended ads have been displayed in the users browser, and if not, then instead of displaying the normal website, they are politely informed how to conform with T&C before they can view ATS.

ATS ads blocked --> ATS blocks back --> Informs user how to conform --> User conforms --> ATS profit! :-)

Vs.

ATS ads blocked --> ATS bans user --> ATS loses potential client :-(

Like I said, is that even possible to do, auto redirect users if their browser blocks ads? Patent that technology and make even more money!

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Actually SD, I think they made a very good point.

Of course like I said earlier in the thread, ATS does not have the outlandish ads that other sites do. So I only block really annoying Avatars or things like the warning message on the bottom of 9/11 threads.

Does doing that cause extra workload for the servers?

I do not know how these adblockers work, I just use them.



[edit on 3/8/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by Springer


I've got to say, I have lost quite a bit of respect for the management here with this heavy handed unnecessary banning of users over raising objections about Javascript and Flash attack pathways brought about by ads. HTML and CSS are secure, Javascript and Flash have been shown repeatedly to not be secure.

You could have just asked them to buy a t-shirt or baseball cap or something to help support the site instead.

I know, there is no 1st Amendment rights on this site it is a private site... blah blah blah.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Bobbox1980]

I don't care. I'd gladly pay for a subscription to ATS, as I've said in the past. Ads are disruptive, annoying, invasive, sometimes crude, vulgar, loud, insulting, typically for nonessential BS sites promising you millions of dollars for $39 + shipping and handling. If the sites around the net would do more to ensure only true ads made it to their sites, it'd be one thing. As it is, the ads are garbage, offer nothing useful, often attack or hijack your computer, download viruses, or are outright pornographic.

No thanks ATS. I'll continue using Firefox's adblocker, I will never click on an add, and I will continue using my popup blocker. Quite simply, I don't want to see their garbage.

PS - I am very glad with ATS ads though (my post is referring to websites in general) .. for the most part ATS had little to no ads that I encounter.. and the only one I have ever had a problem with was one that used to scream "Hello!" for smiley faces or something.

But I'd still pay a subscription to ATS .. for premium membership or what have you.

[edit on 3/8/2010 by Rockpuck]

This thread makes me curious to know if ATS generates sufficient ad revenue to compensate the costs of running this site. Does the majority of members run Ad Blocking software?

This site generates so much traffic that it would highly surprise me if ad revenue was insufficient to reach equilibrium, even with a large share of people using Ad blocking software.

Having been members for several years now, there was a point were spam pop-ups and malware attacks on ATS really started to bother me, making it far from incomprehensible that many people started using Ad Blocking software. Alike Rock, a subscription to help funding operations would be more appreciated than these annoying ads.

Do these stats contain any truth?





source
source





[edit on 8-3-2010 by Mdv2]

The ads here have never been an issue for me. I don't mind them at all. I actually prefer some sort of optional membership fee or donation though since I do like to support the sites that I enjoy. I just don't buy things from ads because I basically never see an ad for something that I would like to purchase; I could probably count the number of items I've bought from website ads on one hand.

That's just my personal preference though. The ads don't bother me and I'm not concerned with browsing safety (on this site at least).

SKeptic OVerlord,

A while ago about a year I think, you rolled out a "Thank You" to members and therefore when we are Logged in the ADS we used to get are disabled.

So when we log in I thought ATS itself blocked the ads to members.

I appreciate how difficult it must be for ATS. Naturally given the topics here a large part of the membership is anti ADS Tracking Cookies etc, slightly paranoid as well lol, so it is probably one of the most difficult types of sites to make a working business. Naturally many off the members have high settings and wide ranging Firewalls, Anti Virus and Malware etc on their PC's

As A member I never mind the Banner Ads or rollovers, but it is the seperate windows that Pop up, when your browser loads a new page. When I have had limited Firewall, Peer Blocking or such like, and have in the past loaded ATS a few times I have had an issue as its has crashed (admittedly a old and not very capable PC) applications of my connections.

This has not happened though to me since your did the large big Server Change and Board redesign. I have to say though after being a member for years ive never never gotton a virus or malware whilst on ATS which has always suprised me. However sometimes I have had some strange attempts to hack or peek once or twice after posting one or two things on here. But those have never come from even the USA.

So I can safely say to any new members ATS is totally safe, SO and the team work really hard obviously to ensure that.

However remember that if you post about certain states and subjects you may get a little interest. However that is your own actions Not ATS that has attracted that. If any member posts honestly, remains clear of just a few topics there is imho no problems with your PC and spyware etc etc.

I think there is a bit of an ongoing "Meme" within members on ATS on this issue, so I really wanted to make that point out. As Seagull I have spent large amounts of time on these servers, and ATS directly has never once compromised my privacy or security.

So as members what can we do? if the logging in stops the ads anyhow, surely this issue is only for non logged in or non members, and it is nearly impossible to change their behaviour. I also think with the new Windows systems esp 7 and its built in Malware/Adware etc these sorts of choices on which content to allow are becoming more and more removed from the users choice.

Summers coming so a thought, to fund ATS we have a "Festival" and could make a great sideline in affilaite Tin Foil hats. Like the burning man festival but with some cash involved.

Not "Woodstock" but

TruthRock

Just some thoughts

Elf.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord



So just to be the clear the ads in question generate revenue for the website owner on the basis of per view of the ad and not clicks ?

Cheers xpert11.

Hi, as much as I enjoy ATS, it was actually because of the flashing banner ads on this site that I went in search of Adblock, they were painful to my eyes and very annoying, so I was happy once I could no longer see them.

In saying that I would be happy to unblock them to give something back to the site that I enjoy on a daily basis - can I request where possible that some discretion or possible guidelines be suggested to advertisers that they perhaps enter into the spirit/design of this site (which is pretty cool by the way) and create adverts that compliment the site in some way and not just flash bright green & red boxes with "you are the squillionth vistor message etc" - might even inspire the advertisers to be more creative and generate some traffic to their sites which is surely the purpose of the ads in the first place?

Or perhaps controversially what about asking members to make an annual donation, say $40? With benefits attached, discounts to your advertisers sites etc..

Anyway I have unblocked to show my support and to abide by the T&Cs

Regards

Berth

PS. Have just read back through this thread and I genuinely wasn't aware that it was against the T&Cs to use the likes of Adblocker, I read over the rules ages ago when I first joined but don't recall seeing this - perhaps a U2U in addition to this thread would be useful for those members who are unwittingly breaking the rules..

Long live ATS

[edit on 8-3-2010 by badBERTHA]

reply to post by harrytuttle


harrytuttle, I think this is possible technically.

As to violating the rule 4b, well I beg to agree to disagree here.

Most computer users just install software after software without even reading the EULA's or equivalent license agreements.

The capitalist system with its bureaucratic and legal paperwork overload just make users see this as needless everyday noise to ignore and wade through.

Afterall, most license agreements nowadays uses standard clauses, formatting and layout.

They blindly click agree every single time. Would ATS be any different?

[edit on 8-3-2010 by jjjtir]

Would there be some kind of software that would "tickle" a blocked ad, as if it had been viewed, each time a page with a blocked ad on is viewed? That'd be a nice convinient way of having our cake and eating it. You'd still get the revenue, and we could block to our hearts content!

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I couldn't agree more. To me, blocking ads on sites that individuals or organizations find useful is like stealing copyrighted material. They violate the terms of use of the material. In fact about five years ago, I pointed the problem out to Google asking them if there was a way their ads could be scripted to come from my domains. That way ad blockers would not work unless they block the entire site. They told me that they did not consider this a problem. Well, I guess that is corporate progressive thinking for you.

Often when I'm not logged in on the site, I get the following spam pop-up:



You know how annoying that actually is?