I block the same ads online that I block in magazines. If I can tear it out of a magazine, it is gone. I do not look at it, I do not read it, other than instant image recognition, I remove it. Once in a while, I accidentally remove a part of an article I wanted to read (oops).
These ads tend to be full page and the back of the page is also an ad. These are useless to me and immediately recycled. I only wish they were made with paper and ink that was easier to recycle.
I also remove ads that fall out, are glued in, or are perforated. To me, they are the popup ads of magazines.
For websites, I remove equivalent ads. If it takes up a third of my page, it is gone - I block the area it is in. If it takes up a whole page, it is permanently blocked (and I try to avoid that site). If it overlays what I am reading, it is blocked. If it is a popup, I block it.
However, in both media, if the ad is small, discreet, and does not steal from the article or pretend to not be an ad, I leave it in. I even take the time to read those ads, because sometimes they are informative.
On the other hand, if they are trying to sell me something by selling me skin, alcohol, or smokables - the ad is gone. If it is trying to sell me services I should already be getting for what I am paying, not only is the ad gone - I am seriously reconsidering using that service (magazine or website).
I will gladly pay to remove ads from a site as long as that payment is proportional to the value put into the site, how I value the site, and how much I use the site. If a site is valuable enough to me, I will leave its ads on. However, if that ad flashes at me, moves, or so much as winks at me - it is gone. The ad should not be trying to distract me from the body of the site. I choose to go to the ad, not "ooh shiny look at that!"
----
What I would love to see is an ad agency that gives consumers a choice. Essentially the policy would be as follows: * We will post ads on websites, here are the top websites we are on, and you will see those ads. * If you do not want to see those ads, you can pay us _FLAT FEE_ per month/week/day or _BY USE FEE_ per month/week/day to avoid ads. * We will pay the website owners as if you had viewed the ads on them that you are paying us not to see. - My preference: They would pay website owners MORE than they would have, if you had viewed the ads instead. Maybe have this for Platinum members who want to support various services.
----
What does this all have to do with branding? I'm not really sure, but it seems to go with Alec and Joe's conversation below. Perhaps where it belongs is that I find it irritating when someone calls themselves a brand and uses that as an excuse for blasting people with third party advertisements.
[/rant]
- Jay
On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:40 PM, Joe Andrieu wrote:
On 6/23/2010 2:14 PM, Alec Muffett wrote:
" type="cite">
On 23 Jun 2010, at 21:20, Joe Andrieu wrote:
Your persistence is admirable. In some disturbing way, it's an honor that you still find my post so troll worthy.
Oh, Joe, that's because I believe you to be wrong.
Not that I'm saying that I'm necessarily "right" - but I _am_ pretty sure that you're largely wrong, regarding this.
If you don't like what's on a web page, don't visit the website. You're not being forced to download it.
Yes, exactly, I'm not being forced to download it.
I merely extend that to "not being forced to download portions of it" - including, for instance, adverts.
However, if you still like to block ads on sites you visit, I stand by my original position: what you are doing is not good for the net. No matter your political disposition, your position doesn't scale. It is simply a selfish refusal to acknowledge the reasonable expectations of the web page author or site owner.
And I respect that you have that opinion.
Actually, I don't think you do respect that I have that opinion.
" type="cite">
My opinion is different. My opinion is that if you have put something up on a public website then I am free to download it in whole or in part - modulo restrictions you may have placed on it by means of authentication mechanisms and so forth, and perhaps local jurisdictional constraints.
If you don't like my partially downloading it (ie: my ignoring the adverts) - then you're free to invent a mechanism to prevent my looking at it _without_ adverts; and then I and many other people will then ignore your website and go somewhere more amenable.
That is precisely why no major browser will ever support it. If your
adblocker told the website you were blocking the ads, I think you'd
find most of the commercial ventures would deny you the content. And,
frankly, the ability to detect that blocking would be a reasonably
likely future if adblocking were to become more prevalent than the 1.4%
you cite.
" type="cite">
Doubtless there will be people who don't care about the adverts, and they can remain as your catchment.
" type="cite">
The ethics are simple. Does the activity work at Internet scale? If everyone used ad blockers, the bulk of the content you obviously want to consume would no longer be produced and displayed for free. That's why blockers will never be built in to any major browser.
Google Chrome - popups automatically blocked by default; that's a good start.
Sure. Pop-ups are evil. I got no problem with that. But the ad-blocking
we're talking about here is removing/replacing display ads in a web
page. The day Chrome, IE, Firefox, or Safari support that out of the
box, I'll buy you a beer and say I was wrong.
" type="cite">
And the Chrome version of AdBlock is the #1 extension - it claims 1,037,324 users, with 122,700 installs this week.
People who draw Darwinian analogies would do well to look towards the trends affecting their ecological niches; if the water is rising then perhaps it would be wise to try swimming? Put differently...
I think you have no idea what my ecological niche is.
" type="cite">
It breaks down at scale for a vast number of people and organizations who help make the Internet and the web an interesting and useful part of our lives.
...put differently: if you are interesting enough for me to come to your site, then money will likely come to you.
Go look at Bruce Schneier's website. See the mostly-lack of adverts. He does OK.
Irrelevant. Lots of sites succeed on different models, often because
they have different goals.
" type="cite">
You, are, of course, free to violate whatever social contracts you want.
Sounds like something James Dean would do...
As you say, you never "signed" it. And it'll remain rude, selfish, and ineffective.Don't you mean "British"? And I can't see how AdBlock can be "ineffective" and yet you're dead set against it.
No. The British have their own social rules. Many of which I find quite
quaint and for the record, most of the Brits I know don't seem
particular rude or selfish. I mean that individually violating a social
contract in the privacy of your own computer is ineffective at changing
the system.
" type="cite">
That's why its a social contract... the consequences aren't civil or criminal, just social. You aren't forced to do anything. You can always go elsewhere to get your content. Or continue to be an ungrateful consumer.
"Ingrate" - marvellous word, thank you. I am always happy to be ungrateful for stuff I don't want, need, and which wastes my time and money.
Yes, but since you don't let yourself see the ads, you don't know if
they fall into that category, do you? Don't imagine yourself a digital
Rosa Parks or James Dean just because you think you're a rebel.
" type="cite">
If you don't like display ads, find a more constructive means to get rid of them or to transform them into something valuable rather than offensive.
----> YES! TOTALLY! <----
I watch superbowl ads if they're funny!
I read the blogs of people who write well, and I buy their books and their code!
I go to the gigs of bands that I've only ever seen on YouTube!
You see? It does work!
None of this has anything to do with the ethics of ad blocking. In the
first case, you are not blocking; in the other cases, you're just
talking about other monetization mechanisms. It says nothing about the
websites whose business model you are undermining while still consuming
their content.
" type="cite">
Running ad blockers isn't really changing anything except your own isolated experience. Find an alternative that makes more people happier, including those who produce and package that content that brought you to the web page in the first place.
So I should get a job consulting to people on how to make adverts that do not suck?
I wouldn't suggest you quit your day job just yet.
" type="cite">
I thought that was supposed to be about?
This list is about exploring how to build tools that help individuals
get more out of their relationships with vendors. Ad blockers don't do
that. They don't do anything to enhance your relationship with anybody.
They are, in fact a big F*#@ you! to the websites that are trying to
survive off a business model you dislike. You're free to do that, and
I'm just as free to tell you that you are being rude and selfish.
" type="cite">
- a
ps: BTW: this and my previous postings were not "trolls", they were - at best, "flames", or "put downs". Check your dictionary.
Reintroducing old flames into a mailing list I frequent and clearly
implying that I'm evil is trolling. We've already hashed this out and
neither of us is going to change the other's mind. If you have
something new and insightful to say on a thread, great, but please,
let's not drag this list into a repeat of a clearly unresolvable
disagreement.
If you like, you may have the last word. I'll make any future comments
off the list to you directly.
" type="cite">
--
">
http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/
Joe Andrieu
">
+1 (805) 705-8651
http://www.switchbook.com
|