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

reply to post by ziggystar60
Cheers Ziggy, I've disabled my ad-block on ATS and wondered why it's just the same as before? I was expecting a return to the speakers on mute to avoid all those bleeps, clicks and ad-jingles.

I must be in the 250 Club

Does it help if I just click over to the advertisement real quick? Does it benefit the site more if I view the link?

reply to post by Echo007


We never said we weren't covering costs. We simply stated the obvious via an article that illustrates how big an issue it is for thousands of sites that seek to provide FREE Content supported by ads.

It's not hard to figure out that we aren't here to cover costs and stay stagnant. We are working our hearts out to build the first (that I know of) genuinely HONEST and ETHICAL media company of the people, by the people, for the people.

There's only one way that's going to happen, revenue.

It costs money to go interview the "real" news makers who the MSM don't want to present, spend the time researching the truth behind a story or a situation and then present it in a way that serves our fellow man.

For people to come here, consume and not abide the one simple facet they agreed to when they joined is just plain wrong.

Imagine your boss telling you that he was installing "Paycheck Blocker" in the payroll department. Would you continue to work for him?

Springer...

Bottom line is that current internet advertising is annoying and irrelevent to most users. It is a broken model which will implode on itself as advertisers don't realize the returns they expected. The websites that remain after the model collapses will be the ones that take proactive steps in the present. Chiding people to turn off their ad blocker will not work. Designing an alternative, i.e. a subscription with no ads, is the only thing that will work over the long term. It's coming and those who develop it and bring it to market first will reap huge rewards.

since you already have the ability to run ad-free for "silver" members, it shouldn't be such an endeavor to work out the same thing for those paying a subscription.

reply to post by Copernicus

I completely agree with Springer. It is a violation of terms and conditions. As a site owner who posts free useful information, I depend completely for ad revenue to even keep the site up. Ad blocking has cut into my revenue and reduced my ability to post more information. It has also forced me to consider selling the information rather than giving it away which I will probably do. However, I believe that reduces the quality of the internet and cheats those who have less ability to pay. Again the little guy gets screwed while the companies making ad blocking software make a profit.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


Reality refutes everything you wrote here with the exception of irrelevant and annoying ads. They are surely in abundance but that is changing too.

The facts are that online ad spends are the fastest growing segment of the market. The money is pouring into online because it's measurable and the ROIs are MUCH BETTER than traditional media, IF, you have good, relevant creatives.

Like anything else, it takes humans time to learn their lessons, the advertisers are learning what works and what doesn't. Those who pay attention will win and those who don't won't.

Springer...

This still doesn't address the issue of what we would have to endure if we disabled ad blocking today. We still will receive annoying ads and still a risk to computer safety.

It is my right as well as everyone else to protect their computer from attacks and their eyes from annoying ads. I've yet to see any commitment to address the issues at hand. People just don't use ad blocking software because they do not want to see any advertising. Most use it because of the excessive amount of advertising with bad taste, and the many pop ups, which waste time, and annoy the user.

I'd personally rather pay out of pocket than forced fed ads.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by oconnection]

reply to post by oconnection


Your sense of entitlement is astounding.

Springer...

In the long run I don't think ads will stay. A system like flattr might take over the ad based revenues. Even better it can be a shared revenue between the content provider and ATS. The more stars the more flattr points and both the content creator and ATS get something back.

flattr.com...

[edit on 8-3-2010 by broli]

As an update, especially for our members who were caught in the brief code-warp as our servers were being updated with the new code and functions.

We're now detecting the presence of ad-blocking plug-ins and techniques for all visitors to the board section of the site... everything under abovetopsecret.com/forum/... If we encounter a visitor using ad-blocking, they receive this message above a grayed-out ATS:

It looks like you're using some kind of software designed to block advertising while surfing our site.

We work very hard to provide an efficient Internet presence that services over 200,000 daily visits from people and automated web spiders. A large web site like this, that can handle that amount of traffic, is increasingly expensive to operate. Our only source of revenue (for now) are the ads displayed on each page, which typically represent less than three percent of the "square footage" of our content pages.

If you enjoy our content, please enable our domain in your ad-blocking package.

Along with the message is an option to remove it by clicking a clearly-labeled "[remove this message]" link, and they can use the page as normal.

Many web sites have been experimenting with proactively denying content, or hobbling site features for users with ad-blockers. We're not going there. All content is still available, after the removal of our short message.

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by oconnection

 

Your sense of entitlement is astounding.

Springer...

How is it a sense of entitlement when I said I'd be willing to pay out of pocket for access to this site?

Perhaps you can re-read my statement?

[edit on 8-3-2010 by oconnection]

Originally posted by oconnection
I've yet to see any commitment to address the issues at hand.

Then you haven't seen this: We take malware and virus complaints seriously.

The leading online advertising accountability firm, The Media Trust, is scanning our ads for problems dozens of times every fifteen minutes.

It ain't cheap, and it IS a serious commitment no site our size is doing.

Why not just add the option for users to donate money when they can? That would seem to solve this whole thing.

MalwareBytes real-time protection blocks "malicious IP's" from ads on this site maybe once a week. I have been dabbling with computers since I was 13 years old and very rarely have issues with viruses or trojans and when I do, I can usually get rid of them without further problem. About a year ago, my MalwareBytes went crazy blocking IP's after loading a page on this site. I reloaded just to make sure it was from here and the same thing happened. Shortly after this incident, my computer started reporting trojans and virus problems along with my first experience with a rootkit which caught me off guard and caused me to have to wipe my HD and lose gigabytes of data that took months to replace. My virus scanners wouldn't run or update nor would any of my malware/adware programs. My browsers wouldn't open either. Javascript and Flash most definitely pose a security risk and I don't see how you can blame people for taking steps to avoid things like this.

Anyways, why not just add a donations button? If only 1,000 users donated $1, that's an extra thousand bucks right there and I think you'd get more than that every month. Why do ads have to be the only source of income when you have plenty of people, myself included, that would be willing to donate to this site when they had some extra money? Just let people donate! I don't think subscriptions are the answer and I think you'd be pleased with the results from a donation option. There are a lot of people in this world hurting financially right now and I think you'd lose a lot of members by making people subscribe. Let people do this when they can and at least see how it goes. It sure beats using a heavy hand and outright banning people during a discussion about the topic. I was very surprised to see that here. I've known several sites that were kept up and running on donations alone.

The only reason people use script blockers and ad blockers is because people have figured out that they can cause serious problems and cost money to get things fixed for those who can't do it themselves and risk data loss.

Originally posted by oconnection
I said I'd be willing to pay out of pocket for access to this site?

It's not a viable option.

Subscription models have never worked, and have never provided enough revenue, for online-only publishers.

Also, within user-generated communities such as ATS, paid subscriptions result in more problems than solutions. Paid members inevitably "feel" superior to those not paying, not an environment we wish to enable. (not saying you would, but it's the nature of how things are)

Originally posted by Kratos1220
MalwareBytes real-time protection blocks "malicious IP's" from ads on this site maybe once a week.

I run that on my PC and don't see anywhere near that frequency.

And in any event, why aren't you informing us about these?

Some people are way too powerful when it comes to technology. Those pop up ads with sound, or the ones which JAM your progress while they either scan your system or try to deliver a malicious program are part of the problem.

I have been targeted twice by malicious viruses, and at least once picked the virus up during a visit to ATS. The last was so malicious, I had to pay for removal and reload of my operating system.

I can't say for sure it was a third party that delivered the virus either.

Sad when those with the power abuse it in this manner.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Shrug...I guess for me, it took too many times cleaning off ad ware from my computer from your sites to switch to ad blocking. I never said a peep about it, just figured it was part of using the internet and found a way to prevent it.

Things may have changed during the time I've used ad blocking software, but lets just say my previous experiences soured my view.

I really do not wish to get into an argument with the site owners over this issue.

The truth of the matter is more and more users of the internet are implementing protection against ads because of the excessive use of pop ups, annoying flashing ads, ads that talk to you, and the ad ware ads can bring to the user.

On the other side of the coin, I understand ATS needs revenue to run the site and yet, make a profit for it's owners and employees. It's a business, I understand this.

So where is the middle ground? You could charge or ask for donations. You could deny access to users with ad blocking but risk isolating many many users of the the site. So I believe a donation system or subscription without ads would be the best model.

I know of many many smaller sites that are able to maintain and take in a profit from donations alone. Just throwing out ideas.

It's also insulting to tell me that I'm "entitled" when I just want to protect my computer and viewing experience. I will regurgitate what I said before so some people don't get the wrong message. I do not feel entitled, rather I want to help ATS, in fact, set up a subscription or ask for donations, and I'd be one of the first to contribute.

So where is the middle ground? Users will most likely still use ad blocking software despite being asked not to.

If you want revenue without alienating you users, ask for donations. That's what I'd do personally.


[edit on 8-3-2010 by oconnection]

Maybe if you could implement a system where the users choose what sort of ads they're interested in are shown, rather than a bunch of flashing crap that hurt your eyes and make you feel like you're going to have a seizure, people wouldn't block the ads?

I don't worry about ads anymore since my contribution level has surpassed the level of having to see them, but I will admit that when I had to look at them it was annoying when there was stuff flashing different colors and keeping my eyes off what I was trying to read. I understand ads need to attract people, but annoying them is just going to want them to block it, so maybe a different choice of ads or asking the ad company to change the appearance specifically for those who can't stand the flashing stuff, or anything with sound, would be a good idea. I know that may not be possible though, but I'm just going to throw that suggestion out there.

I do believe that ATS has the right to display advertising because we are provided with free content.

I also believe that some users do not have the technical knowledge to properly protect their systems.

This leaves us with a real problem, and as someone stated above, how do we find the middle ground ?

I personally keep my laptop muted most of the time,so i hear nothing (if the adds have sound). I also use rather simple protection measures on this particular laptop, something that anyone should be able to use/implement whitout any headache. No add blocking program of any sort,just sensible anti-virus and anti malware solutions. Never had a problem with ATS's site ( in about 3-4 years or membership).

In my opinion it boils down to this : We are provided with free quality content. It takes money to keep up a site of this size.
Unless some kind of agreement can be reached for a paid subscription, everyone should be responsible enough to make sure their systems are protected. I don't want to advertise here products or companies, but it is also fairly cheap to get yourself a piece of software to restore your system in case that a problem arises.

I don't want to sound like I side with the "management" here, but I believe they have a valid point.

And as timewalker mentioned,it might be good to send a mass U2U.Some members might not now that they are in violation of the rules by using add blockers ( i did not know...i guess i didn't read the rules in a while)

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Echo007

 

Imagine your boss telling you that he was installing "Paycheck Blocker" in the payroll department. Would you continue to work for him?

Only problem is that none of us work for you. Your sense of entitlement seems to be the one in need of a reality check (see next quote).

Your sense of entitlement is astounding.

Everytime one of these threads comes up, you and the Overlord start spewing statements like this.

Neither of you have any respect for members that disagree with you. How 'bout a little courtesy. That poster simply said they would be willing to pay a subscription and received that in response.

Somebody else brought up the fact that you only banned certain members for admitting they had an AD Blocker. What about the others?