I know a significant number of Hacker News readers use ad-blocking options, which is why I thought of making this my first submission to HN.
My confession:
(1) I'm a publisher that relies on advertising as my only viable revenue model
(2) Before that, I ran the digital department of an ad agency that managed millions in online campaigns
So my opinions will be predictable.
But I'm going to (hopefully) sway the conversation into an area few think about -- the "independent web" exists because of advertising. There are thousands of websites that gain either significant viewership (and thus expense) or require significant time investments whereby online advertising makes the effort worth it for those involved. If "ad blocking" and "do not track" increase in popularity, the independent web will be in serious jeopardy. As a publisher of one such site, I know first hand.
And beyond just those important websites that provide thought and opinion which may be contrary to the "mainstream," are a host of other pure information sites on cooking, building, etc. that many of us find useful from time to tim.
And extending further, the massive ecosystem of hosting companies and their employees would also be at risk if their clients are no longer able to pay bills.
The unintended consequences of stifling the only currently viable revenue model for thousands of websites is far reaching.
Yes. Lots of ads do indeed suck (I made good ones!). And there continue to be unscrupulous ad networks that do bad things (though significantly less than 3 years ago). As imperfect as it is, it's the only option.
So -- brains of HN -- if you feel blocking ads is important, and realize that broader use endangers a great deal if important content online -- what's the alternative?
This seems much the same as the music industry (Well, the RIAA crowd at least) wanting to sell a product that is, by its very nature, easy to copy and transfer.
For a relatively brief period there was an opportunity to sell prerecorded music in way that was coupled to a physical medium. When cassette tapes and home recording came along there were still enough impediments (degrades sound, time involved even if you used high-speed transfers, still needing to move around a physical item) that this particular business model was still viable.
Now, however, technology is such that offering an mp3 is much like serving a Web page. You'd like to believe the end user will use this or that rendering tool in a very constrained and predictable manner, but you really have no control over it.
Rather than accept that this business model is, by the nature of the product offered, more or less doomed, some music business people felt entitled to continue it. They turn to the legal system to try to control what users can do.
They are failing, over and over, but they can't seem to grasp that their cherish business model's time has come and gone. Their sense of entitlement is too strong.
Instead, the exhort users not treat their digital files as, well, digital files. They tell them there will be no more music if people copy and share. The tell them digital restriction management is really for their own good.
Yet some people are making money from their music. The successful ones are those who understand the technology and what people will use it for, understand how, when, and where people value music, and work with it rather than fight it.
People making money from ads on their blogs may be over-estimating the true value of their sites.
There are many people who download music they can find for free, but if they were forced to pay they would do without because it just isn't all that important to them. Likewise with Web sites. I read many sites, but there are few I would pay for. If a site owner cannot find another way to monetize a site (subscriber-only, or republishing and selling collected content as a PDF), maybe it's because there's insufficient value for the readers. No one is entitled to their cherished business models.
I don't think there really is an alternative because it doesn't matter.
I don't look at ads. I 100% ignore the adwords results on Google or the featured ads. After spending years using the internet it's gotten to the point where I don't even see ads anymore without ad-block unless they are injected video ads.
I use ad-block for the purpose of saving myself time. Having to deal with a 10 or 30 second ad into almost every short video is ridiculous. It's not like everyone watches these ads. Most of the time prior to using ad-block I instantly switched to a different tab.
Ads kill the internet. I've had some sites serve certain annoying ads in the past. If a site plays an ad that plays sounds, guess what? Even if you couldn't control what ad you served I'm never going to visit your site ever again, no matter what.
A real alternative would be to produce something of value. Give me a good product, service or content and I'll consider paying you for it. Spend less time trying to force people into buying stuff they probably don't want.
Ad blocking is an arms race. The more ad revenue that's lost to ad blockers, the harder the ad networks will work to make their ads unblockable. (Startup idea: a combination ad network / cdn, so that ad blockers can't block the ads from your site without also blocking your graphics/css/js.) Eventually ad blocking becomes AI-complete.
The idea of micro-payments for online content and services has been around since Softbank Services Group failed at it in 1995 with $10 million tossed at the problem.
And it's a suggestion that shows limited awareness of the enterprise costs of attempting to create and deliver compelling content at scale.
If you (rhetorical you) desire free content, then a value exchange is implied. For now, no better value exchange has been created than a moment of your time for ads. It sucks. It can be irritating. But it's the only solution that works right now.
That being said, I like flattr -- it's altruistic and well conceived. But it won't work because you (again, rhetorical) are both lazy and entitled... and won't micro-pay for content you consume, but then doesn't please you.
Comments
I know a significant number of Hacker News readers use ad-blocking options, which is why I thought of making this my first submission to HN.
My confession: (1) I'm a publisher that relies on advertising as my only viable revenue model (2) Before that, I ran the digital department of an ad agency that managed millions in online campaigns
So my opinions will be predictable.
But I'm going to (hopefully) sway the conversation into an area few think about -- the "independent web" exists because of advertising. There are thousands of websites that gain either significant viewership (and thus expense) or require significant time investments whereby online advertising makes the effort worth it for those involved. If "ad blocking" and "do not track" increase in popularity, the independent web will be in serious jeopardy. As a publisher of one such site, I know first hand.
And beyond just those important websites that provide thought and opinion which may be contrary to the "mainstream," are a host of other pure information sites on cooking, building, etc. that many of us find useful from time to tim.
And extending further, the massive ecosystem of hosting companies and their employees would also be at risk if their clients are no longer able to pay bills.
The unintended consequences of stifling the only currently viable revenue model for thousands of websites is far reaching.
Yes. Lots of ads do indeed suck (I made good ones!). And there continue to be unscrupulous ad networks that do bad things (though significantly less than 3 years ago). As imperfect as it is, it's the only option.
So -- brains of HN -- if you feel blocking ads is important, and realize that broader use endangers a great deal if important content online -- what's the alternative?
This seems much the same as the music industry (Well, the RIAA crowd at least) wanting to sell a product that is, by its very nature, easy to copy and transfer.
For a relatively brief period there was an opportunity to sell prerecorded music in way that was coupled to a physical medium. When cassette tapes and home recording came along there were still enough impediments (degrades sound, time involved even if you used high-speed transfers, still needing to move around a physical item) that this particular business model was still viable.
Now, however, technology is such that offering an mp3 is much like serving a Web page. You'd like to believe the end user will use this or that rendering tool in a very constrained and predictable manner, but you really have no control over it.
Rather than accept that this business model is, by the nature of the product offered, more or less doomed, some music business people felt entitled to continue it. They turn to the legal system to try to control what users can do.
They are failing, over and over, but they can't seem to grasp that their cherish business model's time has come and gone. Their sense of entitlement is too strong.
Instead, the exhort users not treat their digital files as, well, digital files. They tell them there will be no more music if people copy and share. The tell them digital restriction management is really for their own good.
Yet some people are making money from their music. The successful ones are those who understand the technology and what people will use it for, understand how, when, and where people value music, and work with it rather than fight it.
People making money from ads on their blogs may be over-estimating the true value of their sites.
There are many people who download music they can find for free, but if they were forced to pay they would do without because it just isn't all that important to them. Likewise with Web sites. I read many sites, but there are few I would pay for. If a site owner cannot find another way to monetize a site (subscriber-only, or republishing and selling collected content as a PDF), maybe it's because there's insufficient value for the readers. No one is entitled to their cherished business models.
I don't think there really is an alternative because it doesn't matter.
I don't look at ads. I 100% ignore the adwords results on Google or the featured ads. After spending years using the internet it's gotten to the point where I don't even see ads anymore without ad-block unless they are injected video ads.
I use ad-block for the purpose of saving myself time. Having to deal with a 10 or 30 second ad into almost every short video is ridiculous. It's not like everyone watches these ads. Most of the time prior to using ad-block I instantly switched to a different tab.
Ads kill the internet. I've had some sites serve certain annoying ads in the past. If a site plays an ad that plays sounds, guess what? Even if you couldn't control what ad you served I'm never going to visit your site ever again, no matter what.
A real alternative would be to produce something of value. Give me a good product, service or content and I'll consider paying you for it. Spend less time trying to force people into buying stuff they probably don't want.
Ad blocking is an arms race. The more ad revenue that's lost to ad blockers, the harder the ad networks will work to make their ads unblockable. (Startup idea: a combination ad network / cdn, so that ad blockers can't block the ads from your site without also blocking your graphics/css/js.) Eventually ad blocking becomes AI-complete.
Good idea, ClarityRay has already solved the problem - www.clarityray.com
Thing is, if we're blocking adverts, you could argue we're not the people you want to be targeting in the first place.
There's no way to know that, is there?
And with impression-based advertising, if you're blocking ads on sites you visit, you're blocking the income needed to pay the bills.
If the ads weren't awful, people wouldn't block them.
Micropayment networks like flattr and gittip might work, if they could build social momentum like tipping a waitress.
The idea of micro-payments for online content and services has been around since Softbank Services Group failed at it in 1995 with $10 million tossed at the problem.
And it's a suggestion that shows limited awareness of the enterprise costs of attempting to create and deliver compelling content at scale.
If you (rhetorical you) desire free content, then a value exchange is implied. For now, no better value exchange has been created than a moment of your time for ads. It sucks. It can be irritating. But it's the only solution that works right now.
That being said, I like flattr -- it's altruistic and well conceived. But it won't work because you (again, rhetorical) are both lazy and entitled... and won't micro-pay for content you consume, but then doesn't please you.
Human nature... it's not altruistic.