FattyB - 1:41 pm on Mar 12, 2010 (gmt 0)
Well I was not being cynical when I said that, that is just what real life is about. I have my own bills to pay, staff with kids, medical bills etc. Not a charity.
In terms of advertising being shown to those who do not want to see it. I think the blockers using that excuse are vastly underestimating the power of branding. A site like my main one is mostly brand ads, not looking for clicks. Looking to say highlight a movie being released next weekend or a new car model. They don't need to click but if they see it, no matter what they say, it will be in their mind at some level.
They would say "Oh I'll never use that product again because of that ad." But I bet they might use it in conversation, oh have you seen movie X yet etc and mostly that is all bravado I think. Most of these ads are not about clicking through for a sale.
Rosalind I agree about the numbers on general sites, it must be low.
Less direct advertising is far more insipid, advertorial and behind the scenes sponsorships of video or features is worse - like I read another tech site in response to ars was saying oh we get our video sponsored. As a publisher that sort of thing, which is given as an alternative by some of these adblocker fans, is actually much worse and they are either underestimating the control companies want over such pieces or a little naive. Then you are going to have advertisers censoring the sites content, which they can do jsut now in a small way but this would be much worse.
I prefer visible advertising not some tricky mix of content and adcopy...that is the route to vapidity.