Contributor by Google

The plot thickens

[Edge]

New email from Google today.. Google Contributor - where visitors can make a small contribution (Monthly) and see fewer ads (AdSense).

[netmeg]

Why on earth would you need google for this?

Pretty much what I asked them. No answer.

[Leosghost]

I suspect that you may not get a reply, it has appeared for a long time now that webmasters ( and non premium publishers within that group ) have been relegated to "inconsequential" status by those running Google..it may well not be the opinion or the sentiment of all who work there, but if that is the case, I cannot see them raising their voices in any "But look at what the companies decisions are doing to ordinary webmasters" type protests..

That would be a sure way to get put into the "in case of downsizing, look here for "layoffs" group..it is the corporate way..

The only thing that would worry them would be if ISPs and carriers took part in the "blocking" and blocked ( or allowed the option to their customers to block at ISP / carrier level ) the ads that come directly from Google such as those on SERPs..

That isn't going to happen in the U.S.A..ever..they are too intertwined ..

It is an option In Europe, my ISP threatened last year to automatically block all Google ads , including SERP adwords at the router, eventually they did not, but the option is there on my router if I log into it..They have around 35% of the French ISP market..and they are talking about expanding into the U.S.A..as a cell carrier and an I.S.P ..

As a consumer you'd love their internet deals and bundles, and especially their mobile / cellphone deals..deals, but if they offered routers and cellphone deals where the Google ( and other ads) adwords , not just adsense could be blocked by the customer through a simple "on / off" switch on the router..that would be a real game changer..

[trebuchet]

You dream big Leosghost but you also dream unrealistic.

Free removed its ISP-level adblocking because it was told to do so by the French government. It was widely reported at the time. The cover story given for this was that adblocking equates to internet censorship (which in some respects is true). I suspect the real story, however, was that big business leant on the French government.

Google, major corporations, ad agencies, ad networks, ISPs, mobile providers, etc. all drink from the same trough. As you correctly say, they're all intertwined. They rarely break from the herd unless there's money to be made. Do you really think ISPs or telcos are going to start hardwiring in adblocking just to reduce consumer bandwidth, annoyance or privacy concerns? Do you really think you'll be able to flip a switch and turn off all advertising? If you do you're living in la-la land. For a start it would mean a virtual war with Google, Bing, Yahoo, Amazon and others.

We haven't yet seen how the corporate sector is likely to respond to adblocking. I'm sure they're scrambling around for a new way to get their products in our faces, as we speak. But I'm also sure they want to prolong the current model for as long as they can.

[Leosghost]

Free did not remove it..they merely made it optional*..it is still available to me ( if I wanted ..I have tested ) in my Freebox revolution V6 which was delivered 5 days ago after the previous one "fried"in the thunderstorms here in Brittany..

*This may well have been due to "pressure"..I was not in favour of it being "default blocking on" and said so here at the time, and also contacted Free to tell them that if it was default blocking on that they would lose me as a client and I would consecrate the front pages of some high traffic sites to protesting against it..

I'm for consumer choice..

I suspect that G let some of those in the French government and their friends know just how much G knows about anyone's search history , should they wish to look into their accumulated data..and that caused some people to lean hard on Free..

I live in France..not lalaland..and the "switch" is indeed still there..I can "switch off all advertising" including Google from my Freebox interface..only that which is served directly from domains ( not including Google's adwords and similar types of search engine advertising, or any 3rd party advertising such as adsense etc ) gets through when the switch is flipped..

I choose not to..as long as it does not drag my speeds right down..with free's rollout of 1 gig fibre that is unlikely to happen..but the option is indeed there..

Thats is the reality..if you were in France and had access to a Freebox Revolution V6 you would know this..

[trebuchet]

Fair enough. My point still stands however, i.e. we're not going to see this level of adblocking become mainstream any time soon. There's too much still at stake for too many big players.

[breeks]

If you run Google certified ad networks Contributor is there and checked OK to run.

[netmeg]

(I have a script that blocks ads on dd-wrt routers. Won't be long before it's even easier than that, I'm pretty sure)

No, I probably won't get a reply, but the interesting thing is that the Google people I submitted the questions to were ones who specifically asked me for my opinion - I didn't go to them, they came to me. And then... crickets.

[edited by: netmeg at 8:18 pm (utc) on Sep 12, 2015]

[tangor]

I'm just waiting for Vampire.network to default opt in EVERYONE for one pint of blood every month.

The intensification of general interest in all aspects of internet advertising is headed to the same direction that radio ads (back in the early 1930s) and tv ads (late 1950s, early 1960s) resulted in government intervention.

While all the players are high level and intertwined, there is that other "player"---the PUBLIC---which has an equally loud voice. When THAT squeaky wheel needs some grease corporations and governments do heed the squeal, and after meddling and writing regulations, there's often great unhappiness for all concerned.

We aren't there yet, but the time is not far away.

[incrediBILL]

Not sure why you would pay when ad blockers do the same thing for free.

Because one helps pay the content you crave, the other is being a freeloading leech. It's the difference of being a PBS supporter or someone that watches every episode of Nova for free. You know who you are ;)

I've watched wackos cut ads out of newspapers and magazines and discard them just so they didn't have to see them again. Didn't matter if they wrecked the other side or whether anyone else wanted to read it.

When it comes to ads, some people are just psycho.

[breeks]

Because one helps pay the content you crave, the other is being a freeloading leech

99.9% of people don't give a crap about helping to pay for content.

That's just the way it is.

If they don't want to pay to see content, they certainly don't want to pay not see ads when they can do this for free.

[incrediBILL]

99.9% of people don't give a crap about helping to pay for content.

That's just the way it is.

Well they'll all be content free if ad blocking kills the revenue stream.

When they wake up one day and the web is behind a paywall it will all be moot.

Think of how cable TV works. We used to have ALL FREE TV and the next thing you know we pay for it all. That type of model could very well hit the web where your monthly access fee includes a contributor payment plan starting at $10/mo.

[trebuchet]

When it comes to ads, some people are just psycho.

Correct. One or two of them seem to post here. <g>

99.9% of people don't give a crap about helping to pay for content. That's just the way it is.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I know plenty of people who refuse to torrent films, music or books not because they fear the law, simply because they believe you should pay for such things. Some people do have a conscience. Some people do understand that if content creators don't get paid, content creation will wither and die.

Well they'll all be content free if ad blocking kills the revenue stream.

Yep. I know the gallery here keeps screaming "find another revenue stream" but for a lot of publishers, particularly the ones who don't sell crap, that won't be easy. It'll boil down to ads or paywalls. As I've said many times now, make adblockers mainstream if you wish but the law of unintended consequences will end up biting you in the end.

[henry0]

I do not publish, I do not advertise.
since yesterday because of this thread I enrolled in G program for $5/monthly
and know what: I see a big difference in my browsing, really less bugged by ads.

[Edge]

Here’s my thoughts on Contributor. Please note that I am a website/business operator with at least 35,000 hours and fifteen + years of hard work creating a useful internet resource.

Contributor is Google’s business plan (money grap if you prefer) to address the ongoing and potential changing of internet landscape. If and as Ad blocking ramps up website operators will be forced to start looking for alternative revenue streams and pay walls as well as ad blockers leave Google out of the revenue stream - and they know it.

I don’t think there is any villain associated with Google Contributor however any serious and knowledgeable business operator knows the more folks between you and your revenue streams means the less you earn for your hard work.

I appreciate AdSense and all that the program has done for me but Google has demonstrated that they do not have my back or yours.

Anybody with a quality website/business should seek revenue streams void of Google.

[Edge]

henry0

I do not publish, I do not advertise.
since yesterday because of this thread I enrolled in G program for $5/monthly
and know what: I see a big difference in my browsing, really less bugged by ads.

4387 posts... Why are you on a webmaster website posting if your not a webmaster? Are you a Google employee?

[edited by: Edge at 2:28 pm (utc) on Sep 14, 2015]

[Leosghost]

Webmasters are not only those who are publishers running adsense or ads..

There are other varieties of sites ..like ecom etc ..henry0 ( Salut H ;) has even modded here..and is valued highly..

No..he is not a Google employee..

[Edge]

Webmasters are not only those who are publishers running adsense or ads..

There are other varieties of sites ..like ecom etc ..henry0 ( Salut H ;) has even modded here..and is valued highly..

So, you are suggesting henry0 did not use the correct wording? "Publish" should have been "advertise".

Definition
Publish: To issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.)

Clarity - I publish an ecommerce, art supply, academic website ...etc..

[Leosghost]

So, you are suggesting henry0 did not use the correct wording?

No..I'm not..
Bear in mind ..Not everyone here has English as their first language..

Because most people on WebmasterWorld use the word "publish" ( and would on WebmasterWorld use "publishers" ) to mean "run adsense", he was using it in the WebmasterWorld "sense"..many here , even those for whom English is their first language would do so..

Henry0's first language is my second..French..and the French word for "publish" in English is "edit" a publisher to you is an "editeur" to he and I* ( and some others here ), kind of thing can lead to confusion, so some of us ( myself included ) tend to use what has become WebmasterWorld "jargon"..

*Here is about the only place that I use English either written or spoken on any regular basis..( it shows in my posts too sometimes ), my spell checker(s) don't know whether they are coming or going and frequently underline(s) everything..

My comment above was just to clarify for you and any readers that Henry0 ( who has not posted in a long time ) was not a Google employee..and was a webmaster..many reading here, over the years, would think that "publisher" meant only those who use adsense..especially if English was not their first language..I was not looking for an argument :)

A "publishing house" is called a "maison d'édition" ( I can't remember if the "accents" work on WebmasterWorld so I usually don't use them ) ..and yet one also hears in France that one has "publier un livre" ( published a book )or "publier un site web" ( published a website / put a web site on line )..and then there is "franglais" ..

[RedBar]

We used to have ALL FREE TV and the next thing you know we pay for it all.

Not here in the UK, and I assume similar for much of Europe, whilst I grant that Sky does well I know a helluva lot of people who only use FTA main channels, Freeview and FreeSat plus a myriad of other satellite channels, the only fee I pay is the annual one that's been there for years and is compulsory even for watching on a PC etc these days.

No, I am not into football/soccer and steadfastedly refuse to pay for it.

[loner]

If it improves my bottom line, great. It is then a good thing. If not, it is not. Google makes me weary.

[RedBar]

From 1st October 2015 this option will not be available for any of my sites, Google AdSense will be gone.

[IanKelley]

At first glance this seems like a dumb move for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the spotlight they're shining on adblockers. Pretty much every article and post about the program, predictably, mentions them.

It seems so senseless that I have to wonder if it's just the first phase. Suppose the plan is to make Contributor something similar to Amazon Prime, with ever increasing benefits to members. Maybe it gets you behind participating sites paywalls, deals at participating merchants (through Google shopping no doubt, they might even come up with a way to pull off Prime inspired shipping), perks at various Google services, etc..

Considering the breadth of Google's services the possibilities are endless and like all loyalty programs it would get people using services they might otherwise have ignored. The whole thing makes a little more sense that way.

[tangor]

Underneath it looks like building up "cable style" bundling where a new "google brand" of participating websites and participating google users find their new "channels of information, commerce, and entertainment" for a few bucks a month. Won't be long before many webmasters are working for "the company" and all sites, those lucky few that the users crowd please to the top will be in business, while everyone keeps paying a few bucks. :)

No conspiracy theory, kiddies, just extrapolating out all the words in the google "rulz" (sic) and "how it works" as dimly explained.

This is how cable tv got started: "no ads"

Look at cable tv NOW and it is "ads, ads, ads" and escalating costs to get just a few shows you really want while paying for a boatload of others you not only do not care about, but often despise.

Coming soon to a world wide web near you. (sigh)

Think I'm kidding? Let's talk again in 10 years (if that long).

[henry0]

@Edge, I am glad to see that WebmasterWorld is still appealing to posters with such a sizzling spirit that consider the web as only through publishing and advertising, you forget , but who am I to expect ... programming, social networks, and managing web as an online content that is visited for a fee and much more....
do I need to advertise or publish, NO done with it and Happy.

[Broadway]

>>and know what: I see a big difference in my browsing, really less bugged by ads.<<

I would have been of the opinion that most people don't even notice the run-of-the-mill advertising on a web page (text, static image). (Does anyone even notice the PubCon ad at the top of this page?)

Google/Adsense ushered in the downward slide of the internet (MFA sites). It was always unconscionable that once accepted you could place ads on any site (without a check by Adsense. Heavens, even Media.net insists on that.)

Would there even be a need for adblockers if there weren't things like interstitials, glitchy memory hoging video ads and websites with nothing but ads above the fold.

Google could curb these issues (Google, not Adsense), if they would do more than just give lip service about wanting to improve the quality of the web. If so, people would tolerate (and possibly benefit from) ads.

[tangor]

(Does anyone even notice the PubCon ad at the top of this page?)

Yes. It is right in the middle of my nav right buttons and gets in the way from time to time, though I have allowed it via my adblocker and noscript.

Google could curb these issues (Google, not Adsense)

Why? It's all money in the coffers to them, doing nothing.

But I thought this thread was about crowd sourcing funding for the web, not ads, as these are two different things. And that crowd sourcing will pay for those who pay to play in G's sandbox. Pretty narrow membership, don't you think?

[EditorialGuy]

Would there even be a need for adblockers if there weren't things like interstitials, glitchy memory hoging video ads and websites with nothing but ads above the fold.

Google could curb these issues (Google, not Adsense), if they would do more than just give lip service about wanting to improve the quality of the web.

It isn't quite that simple. You'd go deaf from hearing the screams of "Google is an evil monopoly that's trying to control the Web" if Google Search became too aggressive in dinging sites (such as my local metropolitan newspaper's) that plaster their pages with ad after ad after ad.

But here's an idea: What if Google Search had a personalization setting that let users specify things like "Show me fewer pages with [ ] Interstitial ads [ ] Pop-up windows [ ] More than two ads"? Most searchers wouldn't bother to use the setting (or wouldn't know about it), but the mere existence of such an option might give pause to publishers who let greed get in the way of the user experience. And because any lowering of rankings would be personalized and based on the user's stated preferences, the "Google is being monopolistic and mean" argument wouldn't be relevant.

[netmeg]

No it would still be spun as some kind of censorship thing. Most of the most egregious ads I see aren't even AdWords; they're other networks. If Google put together such a setting, they'd be bitching loud and long about anti competitive.

[Broadway]

I like EditoriaGuys idea.

First off, how is it any different than what Panda already does, makes a decision for me about what is a "quality" site.

That comment also fits in with what I think Gary Illyes stated ( something about how he wished having interstitials was a negative ranking factor).

[ember]

We used to have ALL FREE TV and the next thing you know we pay for it all.

I know! That really irks me. I grew up with free TV - anyone over age 40 in the U.S. did. Now everyone pays for what we used to get for free (the same can be said for water). And everyone just accepts it like sheep.

So maybe that is a good sign for Contributor.