Forum Moderators: martinibuster
those of us who rely on advertising as a profit model are all in trouble.
For a simple analogy, try a gas station/convenience store.
Good analogy - the local Shell stations here all installed new pumps a couple of years back that had VIDEO on the pump with LOUD COMMERCIALS blasting while I pumped gas so I pushed every button to try to quiet it and discovered pushing the "HELP" or "ATTENDANT" button temporarily squelched the loud noise assaulting me. When the attendant buzzed to see what was wrong I always said the same thing "THIS LOUD NOISE IS HURTING MY EARS AND I'LL KEEP BUZZING UNTIL IT STOPS" - Of course there was "NOTHING THEY COULD DO" so I just quit going to Shell stations.
That's why I don't allow any annoying blinking or flashing ads on my site. Mild animations are OK but jittering, jumping, attention grabbing ads are forbidden and everything has to be on topic.
I think that Norton's approach is heavy-handed, especially when it modifies and breaks scripts and pages
Not only that, Norton's software violates the terms of use of my web site which is to 'not copy, modify or alter the content in any form' so theoretically every time Norton filters my web page they're reverse engineering my software and potentially liable for civil damages but I don't have the inclination or war chest needed to make a point in court.
We need to get realistic and graps the fact that some users will block ads no matter what we do.
Mack.
Perhaps you ought to find a new industry. Or do you have some right to make money out of this model?
So you are suggesting that all of us who rely on advertising should maybe find a new industry because we don't like people freeloading from us? I am not suggesting that I have the right to anyone's money -- of course not, but I do deserve fair access to my consumer market without people interfering with my having a fair chance to do so.
Or do you have some right to make money out of this model?
We need to get realistic and grasp the fact that some users will block ads no matter what we do.
It is the same mentality of those folks who assert that they have a right to "share" or otherwise disseminate copyrighted media, and then cry blue-bloody murder about the RIAA. They are all freeloaders IMO with the same "entitlement mentality".
The whole idea of building a site for a user is mitigated, IMO, by the reality that our sites are also built for the owner as well. This is exactly what I mean by a "two-way street".
Not only that, Norton's software violates the terms of use of my web site which is to 'not copy, modify or alter the content in any form' so theoretically every time Norton filters my web page they're reverse engineering my software and potentially liable for civil damages but I don't have the inclination or war chest needed to make a point in court.
Exactly.
A while ago, on another forum, I advocated almost the similar copyright argument.
The bottom line was/is: If you don't like it, well, don't go to the Shell station anymore.
For example this might show up in your browser:
"Norton Firewall has detected the following in this web page:
- Javascript
- Advertisement Banners
- Cookies
- No viruses or anything malicious detected
Content Warning Level: LOW
Click here to view the web page."
Other options could pop up "Warn on all pages of this site, YES or NO"
At least that would give the end user the option of knowing what's on the page in advance, not modify the web pages, and let the user decide to visit or skip it "AS-IS".
I'm starting to feel a rant coming on...
Quick! to the Bat Blog!
Wait, that analogy doesn't work. How about this one.
Let's say I hire a service that takes my magazines out of my mailbox and covers over every single ad and then sticks the magazines back into the mailbox. Especially the annoying ads that would tend to draw my attention before they annoyed me.
I think I like that.... anyone wanna do it for me? I'll pay $29.95 a year for the service.
it doesn't matter if they're flashing, jumping or otherwise.
i provide a completely FREE site for all, there are plenty of site that charge for the things i provide for free, the least i expect is not to disable the ads because if everyone disabled the ads i would have to charge the visitor..
like some already mentioned, some people believe it's ok to take at will, but not give anything in return.. i rather not be associated with those type of people.
since it's ok to block ads, is it ok for me to forward the user to a page full of animated graphics so their browser consumes 100% CPU and crash/freeze their browser and or computer? food for thought..
Let's say I hire a service that takes my magazines out of my mailbox and covers over every single ad and then sticks the magazines back into the mailbox...
Research studies have shown that many people like the advertising in special-interest magazines, and that ads are one reason why they read the magazines. (That shouldn't be surprising to anyone who's ever been a regular reader of magazines about audio, computers, amateur radio, cars, photography, etc.) So I don't think we need to worry that Norton or any other ad-blocker is a threat to our revenues unless we're in the business of serving popups and popunders. Most people don't mind ads per se; they just don't like ads that inconvenience them. And the few people who turn off ads altogether aren't worth worrying about: They aren't prospects anyway.
a visitor has a right to disable ads
No, not on my site they don't - the terms of usage forbid it.
They have the right to stay away, or use as-is, nothing else.
No, not on my site they don't - the terms of usage forbid it.
Similarly, the terms of usage on my PC (enforced by browser settings) forbid you from running any software on it. Attempts to supply javascript or other scripting code is strictly forbidden.
I do not allow freeloaders to take advantage of my CPU cycles. If someone wants to use up processor cycles, they can do it on their own machine. So do it on the server, or not at all.
This has the effect of reducing ads seen to a bare minimum while not exposing my PC to many publicised risks.
If that upsets some peoples' marketing expectations, then those expectations may need to change.
Make a case for my donating processor cycles to your business (or pay me a reasonable rate for them), and indemnify me for any loss or damage as a result of running your code on my machine, and we may be able to negotiate access for you.
The management reserves the right to ... etc. etc.
Maybe they could: if they asked nicely, and were properly insured, and it was an emergency.
But to build their business model on the assumption that they can drive my car: well, that's never going to fly.
Plus it is one thing to have software that can block ads, its another thing to see if and how it is used by your visitors.
Most times the number of ads blocked is somewhere between bugger-all and who gives a crap.
BTW, since drawing attention to ads is against Adsense policies, forcing Norton users to display ads may in fact breach these policies.
You could also put special offers or tips in JavaScript;
content that's no use for SEO, but that a potential customer would find attractive. I wonder what demographic people who _don't_ have Adsense blocking installed might belong to?
"This site does not welcome users who block adverts. However (url) is a site that welcomes everybody."
I can sticky you my url
Perhaps, in certain cases, a website might be required to offer an alternative to obligatory ad viewing, such as paying an access fee.
[edited by: Webwork at 4:58 pm (utc) on Dec. 5, 2005]
Well, speaking in consumer mode I am extremely glad for the new Firefox 1.5.
With Firefox 1.5 it is possible, with very few and simple steps, to make JavaScript work only on your favorite websites and to prompt for acceptance of cookies on any website. Third party cookies can be ignored all together and life is great.
Websites not bouncing me gets the opportunity of landing a deal.
I guess there are drawbacks, such as some malicious minded people out there, but in the end why should we care about those who don't care to meet us halfway?
"Malicious minded"? Come on now...
So, you perhaps also think I am "malicious minded" when takeing a wee during the TV commercials? If I had to sit tight, I would probably switch channel first.
If surfers don't get what they want quickly, they hop to another site in five seconds; no redirect URL needed!
[edited by: tigertom at 5:02 pm (utc) on Dec. 5, 2005]
Great idea!
Then perhaps your customers could proxysurf your website using Google (i.e. finding the exact page they are looking for).
If it's not illegal, you can put what you like on your site. That's the beauty of the web.
So, how did they find you in the first place?
If surfers don't get what they want quickly, they hop to another site in five seconds; no redirect URL needed!
You are absolutely right. They might even jump back to Google - perhaps the only "legitimate" use of the back button.
I'm no law expert either, but I think that you would be on shaky ground to ban users that don't have Javascript enabled or not showing ads - you are almost certainly banning screen readers and certain browsers used by people with sight difficulties.
Law doesn't work by analogy I know, but it is like saying 'no dogs'. In Ireland, a blind nun recently won a case under their legislation against a pub that enforced that notice and threw her out when she entered with her helping dog.
So far, the Disability Rights Commission hasn't prosecuted any websites under the act (they would have been very busy prosecuting sites that require Javascript!). But, I imagine they would be very interested in applying the legislation to a site that essentially banned blind and partially sighted people or even asked them to pay for access.
I'm sure that there are alternatives to banning users - using noscript and banner or text ads served from your own server.
Now it's clearly true that putting in barriers to use and generally treating your visitors as potential thieves will hurt your site in the long run, resulting in less goodwill, less word of mouth, fewer links, and lower search engine placement. But who cares? I don't want to see such sites in the SERPs anyways.
As concerns "access" of the blind to a website, like any other business, I don't believe there is a per se rule of access based upon impairment: "Entry to this business is (members only or upon conditions x,y & z) BUT if you're blind you have an unfettered right to access." Never met such a law.
I completely agree that reasonable accomodations need to be offered to the visually impaired (for obvious reasons to those who have met me :). Probably something such as "IF we detect you are using a screen reader instead of IE/etc then our content will be delivered interspersed with auditory advertisements. If you wish to avoid listening to advertisements then there is an annual fee."
Seems only fair that all, according to their own measure, suffer equally the "advertising burden".
I wonder who has been working on that technology? Where there's a demographic there are advertisers waiting to . . . serve them. :(
We need to get realistic and grasp the fact that some users will block ads no matter what we do.
And just to play a side in the middle... :) I don't block Google ads or other text-based ads, or discrete banner ads that aren't obnoxious.
I *do* block, with a vengence, anything that sends popups and other annoyances in my direction (Especially those flash-based cover-half-the-page ads) as they DO hamper my ability to view the page if I don't.
real numbers showing why this is supposedly such a problem
I don't have a hard percentage on blocked banners at this time but I do know I'm serving up about 10% alternate ads instead of PSAs and 3%-4% NOSCRIPT ads to people with Javascript disabled.
Look in your own daily server logs, there's nothing hard to figure out.
To determine how many blocked ads your site has install a CONTROL AD, typically a single commission junction ad on ALL pages which will most likely be blocked and wait until the end of the day.
To find out how many ads you're losing a day it's simple math:
TOTAL PAGE VIEWS - BOT VIEWS - CONTROL AD VIEWS = BLOCKED BANNER VIEWS
This process can be greatly simplified if you have programming skills as you can implement an embedded local image we'll call CONTROL AD2 and count how many times it's served up in a day. You can't use regular page counters or anything serving images from a /cgi-bin/ page, or image.cgi or anything funky like that as it will most likely be blocked as well. The image has to be well disguised like "mycontrolimage.gif" served up and counted by a server script.
Then you can then simply deduct CONTROL AD2 - CONTROL AD = BLOCKED BANNER VIEWS
Based on the amount of people disabling javascript I'll guess it's around 5% which may not sound like much to you but it's nothing to sneeze at for me!
1,500,000 page views x 5% = 75,000 missing ads x 8% CTR = 6,000 lost clicks x $0.20 EPC = $1,200 lost income.
So rough estimate is Norton is directly impacting my revenue by $1200/month assuming that people would actually click on the ads at the same CTR as the normal population if they saw the ads in the first place.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 6:03 pm (utc) on Dec. 5, 2005]
A better question would be, would blocking the adblockers *help* my business or hurt it?
What do you lose by allowing freeloaders?
1) Bandwidth
2) Ad clicks
What do you lose by *not* allowing freeloaders?
1) Opportunity to make a sale (via embedded affiliate links)
2) Positive word-of-mouth
3) Incoming links from blogs, del.icio.us, etc.
4) Risk for bad word of mouth.
Take a lesson from Extreme Makover Home Edition and Survivor. Just like television, the future of web advertising may very well be in Product Placement / embedded ads. Start incorporating affiliate links into your reviews and you can avoid this problem altogether.
