joined:Dec 15, 2003
The point that seems to resonate with me is that if someone has blocked ads it is most likely they are the type of person who has no interest in the ads, will never click an ad, and can visually ignore them anyway.
If Adblockers are stopping ads from being delivered to people with no interest in seeing them, then this in turn means that the people that are viewing them are more receptive, and so while you get less views the views you do get are more densely populated with people who are receptive to the ads. Which is the whole point, deliver ads to people who will receive them well.
When I was a kid my dad "flanged" up our TV with a wire and switch that muted the volume. (this was before remotes)
And so to this day I mute commercials when I watch TV. The only difference is that the station counts me as a viewer and can boast it's numbers to advertisers BUT those numbers aren't the true numbers because people go to the bathrooms, people get snacks, people mute commercials.
Wouldn't it be a more true system if they counted actual eyeballs and ears that got the ad rather than the amount of TVs tuned into a station? That obviously isn't possible with TV, but it is possible online.
To me it makes the ad system better when people who will never be receptive to an ad aren't counted as having viewed the ad.
You had 10,000 impressions but only 80% of them cared.
You had 8000 impressions but 98% of them cared.
Which is better? I know as an advertiser which I would prefer paying per 100o on.
Yes ars is losing "per view" revenue, but is it fair to ask advertisers to pay to show ads to people who have expressed a desire not to see them?
How would you feel knowing you were paying a site to show your ads to people, only to find out some of those people expressed no interest in those ads, and asked the site not to show them the ads, but yet the site insisted on showing them anyway so that you, the advertiser, would have to pay to show ads to people who have flat out said they ignore them completely?
After all if the content is not good enough to be read with an advert then why read it at all.
Well that is cynical, If the ad is going to be completely ignored and in some cases viewed as an annoyance, why have it display?