Andariel Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Ad-Blockers threaten the revenue streams of websites. Is it terribly unrealistic to assume that websites may seek new ways of combating them? People need to realize that they don't have "rights" on the internet. The owner of the website can do whatever he/she chooses and if that includes blocking you from seeing content because you're blocking their revenue source that's perfectly okay. Like waco said, people need to drop the entitlement assumptions. I really only lurk here but I felt compelled to throw in my two cents about this issue. Entitlement assumptions? "Revenue streams"? Ugh. I don't know how many of you here have been on the web long enough to remember when there were NO ADS on any sites. On a site such as OCC, I assume some of you have been around and do remember. The internet is supposed to be about information, not making money. I'm so sick of the overcommercialization of not just the internet, but everything in this world today. If someone wants to make money with their site then fine, but they aren't going to do it by shoving ads in my face, and they aren't going to tell me that I can't view the site if I block ads, because it's easy enough to get around that too. The only thing they will do at that point is earn some bad will from me and I may no longer choose to refer their site to a friend (who may very well NOT block ads). There's no "deal" in place for me to view ads to see their content. I pay for my internet access and if you put something on the internet that is not password protected, then it's for anyone to view in however way they choose. Just like TV: they can show ads but I don't have to view them. I've already paid for the delivery of the content. (cable TV also used to have no ads, btw, which was the point of paying for TV - but people let them in and became complacent) Now at the same time I understand there are hosting costs to consider. But if a site I like is in such bad shape that they can't even cover their hosting (unlikely, because if their hosting costs are that high then their traffic is probably high enough to cover the costs), then I have no problem with them asking users to donate and I am willing to do so if I enjoy the site. Also, offering two versions of a site: a free one with ads and a donate version with no ads, that is also acceptable. People are still free to block ads from the free version, of course. Full disclosure: I run a web site, which has text ads ONLY on it, and if users choose to block them that is fine with me. There are many, MANY other ways to monetize your site if you so choose. Referrals/affiliate deals are one example that is a much better source of income than ads, though I should point out that even the tiny amount of ads I have on my site more than covers the hosting costs, without ever being annoying to the user. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammin Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) Do websites make ad revenue just from pages with ads loaded or is it just for clicks? I haven't seen this answered so far. I'm sure it would be relatively easy to go and find out for myself, but I'm feeling lazy. If you do get paid just for ads appearing, I'm assuming they (whoever are providing the ads) can tell when they get blocked and that doesn't count? Edited July 17, 2008 by jammin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCC10281982B Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 I've herd of x# of displays for x$ so. However, I don't know if they (whoever are providing the ads) can tell when they get blocked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Now at the same time I understand there are hosting costs to consider. But if a site I like is in such bad shape that they can't even cover their hosting (unlikely, because if their hosting costs are that high then their traffic is probably high enough to cover the costs) This makes no sense. They are able to afford high traffic because of the ads. High traffic and no ads == no money for hosting. Bandwidth is expensive. Relying on donations is a horrible business plan and I'm shocked you even considered that a good alternative. By blocking ads on your favorite sites you are contributing to the eventual failure of that site. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 I can remember when public information was free, now you have to really search to get it for free. Everyone wants to charge for any little thing and it sucks... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andariel Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 This makes no sense. They are able to afford high traffic because of the ads. High traffic and no ads == no money for hosting. Bandwidth is expensive.Part of my work is maintain web sites for clients, and I also do some network consulting; so believe me I understand what bandwidth costs. For the majority of sites on the net, hosting is very cheap because their traffic is simply not high enough to incur large hosting costs. For high traffic sites, they have a large enough user base to be able to easily turn that into enough money to cover hosting. Do you really think that TweakTown can't even cover their hosting costs? Even if half of their users were blocking ads (and believe me, nowhere near 50% of internet users block ads - it's closer to a third), they'd easily make enough money from the ones who don't block ads to cover hosting costs. They should also have some reliable affiliate deals in place - this is key for any high traffic site. No high traffic site should rely solely on banner ads to make money. In this case, TweakTown is trying to squeeze out a higher profit. This has nothing to do with hosting costs. Relying on donations is a horrible business plan and I'm shocked you even considered that a good alternative.Again, I never said to rely on that solely. I said it's acceptable to ask for donations and that someone like me would be willing to donate to support a site even though I block ads. By blocking ads on your favorite sites you are contributing to the eventual failure of that site.If I wasn't going to click on any of the ads anyway, how is this true? Just loading the ads doesn't earn the site anything in most cases. Sure some ads pay per impression but these are less common and pay out much lower than PPC ads. Also. remember that I'm not saying a site shouldn't have advertising. I'm saying they shouldn't tell me I can't decide to block the ads. I think that is a point of confusion here. It's their choice to have ads, and it's my choice to block them. It's even their choice to ask me not to use an ad blocker. It's NOT their choice to deny me access to something on the public internet because they don't like that I block the ads. I can view the content however I want. I can block ads, scripts, cookies, flash, or anything else I like. I can view their site in a text browser and not see a single picture or ad anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 For high traffic sites, they have a large enough user base to be able to easily turn that into enough money to cover hosting. A user base allows the site to continue it's existence because of advertising, yes. It's NOT their choice to deny me access to something on the public internet because they don't like that I block the ads. Oh really now? It's their site, they can choose who can and can't view it. You have no inherent right to be able to view whatever you want on the internet just because you say so. Your argument is baseless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andariel Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 I haven't seen this answered so far. I'm sure it would be relatively easy to go and find out for myself, but I'm feeling lazy. If you do get paid just for ads appearing, I'm assuming they (whoever are providing the ads) can tell when they get blocked and that doesn't count? To put this simply, the majority of sites make money from actual clicks on the ads and not by how many times an ad is viewed. There are some ads that pay for views (pay per impression, usually expressed as CPM which is the amount they pay per 1,000 impressions of the ad) but of course these don't pay as well as pay per click (PPC) ads because there's no guarantee of a conversion. On the plus side, ads that pay per impression don't necessarily have to be targeted towards your site's audience whereas ads that pay per click surely do if you want the most clicks. There's more to it than that but that's the basic idea. PPC ads are more reliable for both the publisher (site owner) and the advertiser. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamikaze_Badger Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 It's NOT their choice to deny me access to something on the public internet because they don't like that I block the ads. I lol'd. Seriously, a website is privately owned. You have no rights on the webernets. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 webernets. Intarwebs! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compxpert Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 I lol'd. Seriously, a website is privately owned. You have no rights on the webernets. I wholehartedly agree. I know you should be able to block ad's believe me I do too but If they so choose to make it so you can't then that's their choice. If you don't like it then tell them you won't refer people to their site anymore. Though I find it very unlikely they will care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andariel Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Oh really now? It's their site, they can choose who can and can't view it. You have no inherent right to be able to view whatever you want on the internet just because you say so. In fact I do. If something is on the internet, it's public by default. It's only private if it's behind some sort of security. This my friend is the very nature of the internet. ^_^ If they would like make the content private and choose who can view it and who can't, then they need to move to a subscription model. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now