Forum Moderators: phranque
If ads is your only income, then you could block them, if that makes you feel better!
Blocking Users that disable JS [webmasterworld.com]
AdSense Webmasters on Mozilla AdBlocker Extension [webmasterworld.com]
Firefox ad-blocker extension causes angst [webmasterworld.com]
No-one who is blocked will ever revisit from a different computer.
No-one who is blocked will ever talk about your site or share the URL.
No-one who is blocked will ever place a link on their PR=22 website.
Blocking people may make you feel better - but it's what we used to call "cutting off your nose to spite your face" - and it's a poor business model.
There's no doubt that more people are blocking now than a year or two ago ... but it's really not very likely that everyone will do it, even if say, Opera makes it a default browser setting.
BTW, I'm an Adsense and other ad publisher who totally understands WHY people want to block ads. I only block pop-ups. So far.
If you do it, you'd be wise not to place your email address on view :)
All very true and worth paying attention to, and I'll add this:
Someone who is blocked will bad-mouth about you to others.
There are also other dangers in blocking people who block ads. A fellow member here has a story where they implemented ad blocker-blocking, and then sent out a number of link requests to related sites. One of the recipients, who uses an ad blocker, tried visiting his site. Naturally, that recipient was sent to a page that scolded them for blocking ads.
Now obviously there was a chance to gain an IBL, since the recipient actually tried to visit the member's site. But do you think he'll ever get a link from the recipient, considering he scolded them on their first visit?
"Please link to, but don't dare visit, my site," isn't going to win many friends.
> I want to force ads
What you really mean is you want to go out of your way to peeve people off.
<added>
> no conclusion on how to fool ad blockers
Really smart people don't even use ad blockers; they just send requests for ads to 127.0.0.1 with their hosts file.
</added>
..........................
FWIW, I think your 30% figure is way, way too high. That many or more probably block popups, but no way do that many people block AdSense ads. Are you sure these are human beings and not web crawlers?
There's no doubt that more people are blocking now than a year or two ago ... but it's really not very likely that everyone will do it, even if say, Opera makes it a default browser setting.
I don't know a single toolbar that doesn't have a popup blocker as standard. Soon enough these will be ad-blockers not pop-up blockers.
I'm glad I don't do adsense :)
I don't know a single toolbar that doesn't have a popup blocker as standard. Soon enough these will be ad-blockers not pop-up blockers.
...............................
The people that block ads probably wouldn't be ad clickers anyway.
Don't worry about it.
Google & Yahoo have too much invested in the PPC system not to have a back up plan if the problem starts affecting the bottom line.
I don't block anyone explicitly, but anyone using ad blockers is likely to get a slightly poorer experience on visiting my websites, such as not getting to see most graphics.
1. Use the alternate ad option for things like adsense
2. A lot of the blockers look for things like "ads" and "Banner" in the url and file names. If you are using something like a php ad rotator, take the time to change the code. For example, if the rotator uses a folder called 'ads' change the name of the folder and to code to something like 'pages'.
3. The suggestion of selling your own ads previously given is a great one. You can try all sorts of things like setting an ad graphic as a background to a cell etc.
As far as the ethical discussion of blocking those who use blockers... I think the use of and encouragement of, ad blockers will hurt the internet in the long term. The motivation for most people to put time and effort and money into a site is simply that they are looking for a monetary reward. If ad-blocking wins, then those publishers will disappear. If the ad blockers are too successful, we will start to see the larger sites go to a subscription or pay per view system. The idea of micro currency has been around for a while..
cg
As far as the ethical discussion of blocking those who use blockers... I think the use of and encouragement of, ad blockers will hurt the internet in the long term. The motivation for most people to put time and effort and money into a site is simply that they are looking for a monetary reward. If ad-blocking wins, then those publishers will disappear. If the ad blockers are too successful, we will start to see the larger sites go to a subscription or pay per view system. The idea of micro currency has been around for a while..
I completely aggree with you on that point. After all, no one does something for free, when they can make some money on the side with it.
I had one idea. Google hosts adsense... I'm thinking ad blockers just search for commission junction domains, google adsense domains, and common ad image sizes. So the only way to display the ads is by hiding the domain it's from in this case... so how would I do that?
I believe CJ has an anti-blocker strategy in place, relying on using tons of different domains. I don't know how you set it up or if it works well.
P.S. Re online micro payments... Yes, the idea has been around since about 1995, and in fact such services have been launched several times. And in the real world it's STILL about as common as hover bikes. Unless you consider $2.95-$5.95 "micro".
Some of them don't want ads. They'd gone out of their way to get rid of ads. Now you give them ads anyway.
Do you expect them to like your site?
Why are you insisting on having an adversarial relationship with your users?
Some of them don't want ads. They'd gone out of their way to get rid of ads. Now you give them ads anyway.
Do you expect them to like your site?
The issue is that the preponderance of people using ad blocking could eventually reduce webmaster earnings to the point where is is simply not feasible to run a website.
I've taught college for about 20 years and I thing some of the things I've learned there apply to this contraversy.:
1. A certain proportion of students will always be looking for a 'free ride'. Ie passing or getting an "A" for little or no work. As a professor you need to be constantly changing your syllabus and policies to stay ahead of the shirkers. What we have with ad blocking is people looking for a 'free ride'. They want content that cost people time, money and effort but they don't want the ads that support the time, money and effort involved.
2. On a different note, colleges and universities are really starting to 'nickle and dime' adjunct (part time) professors. They start adding requirements like additional office hours, mandatory unpaid training etc. ... with no corresponding increase in pay. At some point you realize that you are being paid less per hour than the guy who cuts your lawn or what you could make as a bellhop or bartender at Hooters. So... you simply stop teaching. What will happen to the web is that a lot of the smaller, useful sites will simply cease to exist if advertising dollars are eroded enough -or- they will go to a subscription basis so that the webmaster can earn an income proportional to their effort and skill.
The post I quoted above seems to indicate that those who want to be paid for their efforts are somehow unreasonable and the freeloaders have a right to your products at no cost. I would argue the opposite. The freeloaders are unreasonable and the webmasters who expect to earn something for their efforts are the reasonable ones.
I also know that a lot of people have made the argument that allowing freeloaders will help in that they will spread your site by word of mouth etc. I can take a lesson from my consulting business. The cheapskates are NOT the people who will give you word of mouth referrals. They are ego-centric and even a little Macheavellian. My best referrals come from those who pay when the invoice is presented and who are willing to pay my current rates.
cg.
They start adding requirements like additional office hours, mandatory unpaid training etc. ... with no corresponding increase in pay. At some point you realize that you are being paid less per hour
...........................
look at it this way; if you signed up for system that stopped cold calling on your home telephone, how warmly would you feel to one who continued to ring every night at 3 am?
We all have choices; including our visitors.
Those who worry about this need to see the much larger picture. If Ad Blocking takes over the world, another form of advertising will arise.
....................
1-probably wouldn't even notice or think about it
2- I wouldn't consider it a disrespectful act
3- I might think, "this ad blocker software doesn't work so great."
4. I might think - "Google is getting pretty clever here"
But, I'd probably think #1.
1. They would notice *instantly*.
2. They would most definitely consider it a disrespectful act.
3. They might think, "this ad blocker software doesn't work so great." - but they'd more likely think "The total b*****s have found a way around my blocker.
4. They might think - "Google is *evil* - after all the nice thoughts I had about them".
You choose not to block ads; that's fine and that's your choice. But that shouldn't stop you empathizing with those who have a different POV. By the sounds of it, VERY different ;)
I guess I find it confusing that you resent being forcedto do this stuff for the college, but you don't seem to mind forcing others to see something they don't want to see.
You missed the point. Two days ago I told the dean to find someone else to teach the course because I refused to work without compensation for all of my time. The college cannot force me to work under those conditions. I can leave and spend my time elsewhere. I know of three other professionals from our business association who also quit recently for the same reason. It was no longer worthwile. When adblockers reduce income to a certain point, webmasters will find other things to do with their time. The result would be a reduction in content available.
Adblockers are the result of people who want to have their cake and eat it too. The website is MY intellectual property, not theirs. If they want to visit MY site that I created, then I have every right to expect the maximum return. If I can find a way to squeeze ads past they adblockers then the freeloaders will have the option of not viewing the site.
I agree with two of the other points made in other posts (1) that there will be alternative ads. Look at the tv ads and how they evolved to adapt to video fast forwarding. (2) if you get the ads past the adblocker, the viewers probably won't make a big fuss anyway. In addition I think they might even be somewhat more effective because of the lack of ad blindness.
Let's take one more example here. Brett has a Supporter's only forum at WWW. Suppose someone found a way to get to that supporters forum without paying the subscription fee. It seems to me that the adblocker supporters would say that it is their 'Right' to bypass the subscription fee and that Brett would have no right to force them to pay the fee. IMHO Brett would have every right to give them the royal boot or change the forum software to close the hole.
Brett has a Supporter's only forum at WWW. Suppose someone found a way to get to that supporters forum without paying the subscription fee. It seems to me that the adblocker supporters would say that it is their 'Right' to bypass the subscription fee and that Brett would have no right to force them to pay the fee. IMHO Brett would have every right to give them the royal boot or change the forum software to close the hole.
I don't block ads (except popups, which all sentient beings block), but I do support their 'rights'
However:
I also support the 'right' of sites to charge for content (and my right to go elsewhere)
I also support the 'right' of sites to demand registration / email addresses (and my right to go elsewhere).
I also support the 'right' of an 'ad blocked site' to refer users to a page of insults or porn - and expect them to take the consequences.
I would not support the 'right' of anyone to force content - of any kind - on anyone else, however.
And if the the result is a few fewer websites (there'll others lining up to take their place), I suspect the WWW can live with that.
Webmasters who worry about adblockers need to ask themselves why they set up the site; is it really all about MFA?
It isn't just about the technology war; it's about webmasters using their imagination to build successful sites which don't depend (as so many do), on wall to wall advertising with minimal content. Never forget that if webmasters weren't so intrusive, they would not now have the backlash of ad blockers.
Would they?
[edited by: Quadrille at 3:58 pm (utc) on Sep. 1, 2007]
I think you take yourself and "your surfing experience" way too seriously. Your friends do, I mean.
Get over yourselves.
Disrespect? Please.
