Why is ad blocking wrong?
There's a few reasons:
1. Advertisers are interested in eyeballs, not clickthrus
Advertisers are alot more interested in the eyeball factor, not the clickthru factor. Heck.. the company I work for (as a software engineer) has allowed ads that don't even have a single clickthru hotspot on them.
2. Blocking advertising is stealing
Even if you don't clickthru to an ad's website, you are still stealing. Most ads are paid to the publisher (and any third party) on a CPM basis (cost per thousand viewers), not a CPC basis (cost per click). Advertisers also do not pay for bandwidth (the middlemen do, and we get paid regardless of whether you view or not, as long as the ad was successfully shown on your system), so that argument is wrong. If you do not want to view advertising, write a check for 0.1c per pageview to the publisher (assuming a very cheap CPM of $1.00 USD/ thousand, most are about $2.00 USD/ thousand) of the website in question. For visiting a website such as slashdot once a day for a month, you stole about 3cents from that user... and this is just for the homepage.
3. Most correctly designed ads do not affect page load time at all.
My employer's ads have a strict maximum 30 KB "inline" download. All other advertising content is loaded in AFTER pageload
4. Most correctly designed ads are not "annoying" and do not negatively impact system performance
Ads run via my employer have to pass a strict Quality Assurance process.... and we do reject back to creative agencies ads that are to annoying, consume more than 10% CPU on a 1.5 GHz P4 system, break on Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, or Apple Safari, Opera on Windows XP, Windows Vista, OS X 10.4, Ubuntu 7.04 and openSUSE 10.2
While I'm aware that many other vendors of advertising middleware technology (which is what EyeWonder is.. a vendor of advertising software and standarized serving JavaScript for rich media advertisements) may not require their ads to be as "good" as ours, most publishers do enforce a minimum amount of quality.. you would not believe how many times I had to assist creative departments in making advertisements function better in order to run a website.
Opinions on why ad blocking is wrong
Why adblocking is a user's choice:
(besides all of the obvious arguments)
1. Page content:
Most of the ads that are blocked on the web are third-party and there is no (even moral) agreement between the domain visited and a totally unknown domain that is running within it. The site owner simply sets up a script or an empty space on his pages and allows an adserver to use them. Usually a site owner has no idea what ads will be displayed. Even 3rd-party adservers are not aware of what ads THEY are serving on YOUR site at any given time. You could argue that a person is infringing on the content of the page ... but that argument could only hold water IF the ads were served by the domain itself and NOT from unknown 3rd-party feeds. Legally, a third party feed is NOT part of the author's page ... it is an empty hole in the page waiting to be filled by whatever someone ELSE wants to put there. Even television, radio, newspapers and magazines know the material they have to present. They KNOW what the content is and you are allowed to skip thru those or look/listen to something else if you are able to. It is not thievery in any form.
2. Responsibilty:
Most media types have at least a partial responsibility for the advertising content they serve .... yet host sites of web ads NEVER claim any personal responsibility for "bad" ads or advertisers. If you buy a product through a store, the store is the first place that has to make good on a faulty product. Web sites never make good on any shady products, programs, or services that users get ripped off for ... or for any damage done to a person's machine through any malware, keyloggers, and trojans that may occur. Add to that the privacy invasion, tracking, cookies, and (my favorite) 'marketing analysis' scripts that get injected into your machine by a domain that I never requested to see. If complaints arise, they only give you a "How did that get in there? I'm getting in touch with my adserver and have that removed" ... as that's it. No responsibility. You can't break a tv by seeing a bad ad. A computer on the other hand is a 2-way street . All other types of advertising media are benign , while the web is interactive. It would be well within my rights to block anything that the host site takes no responsibility for ... and that's that! This part alone would get any "illegalities" thrown out of court. No responsibilty or accountability ? ... no restrictions on denying its acceptance!
3. Text ads:
At first, people said that they didn't mind text ads, but that is changing to. Many sites are using this kind of advertising for total deception now. They use text ads that are designed to look like a site's feature or navigation (some of them actually intersperse text ads and site articles). All of the sudden, users want to know how they ended up on another domains with and offer to buy something.
4. Summary:
No one has any right to tell a person what can he or can't view on the web. The internet was a place that was designed for the SHARING of information. The people on this board and with this product offer it for free and share it with everyone and work on it all the time. We receive no money for doing it and neither this forum or the Adblock Plus forum have no ads. How is this possible you ask? BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THE INTERNET WAS SUPPOSED TO BE and we do it because we like the 'sharing' involved! The internet became popular because it was the last place that folks could go to without being bombarded by advertising. It was the last "commercial-free" haven ... and greedy site owners and advertisers are trying to ruin it! Television still hasn't learned their lesson and their viewership continues to decline.
Blocking a group of users that represent about 1% of the internet is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my years on the internet. Nobody seems to understand that ABP users HATE & DON'T TRUST ads served on the web. I don't care about "click-thrus" ... about impressions ..... about greedy people who want to force that other 1% to see their ads. I care about three things ... my eyes, my computer, and my privacy. And if that is how I can save them, I will do whatever it takes. My computer, my choice.
ps: I find that a blogger's article about (eg) "Is ABP theft?" will show up in at least 100 other "advertised" blogs in their entirety .... and no one complains about theft. In my opinion THAT is stealing! Someone else's article surrounded by YOUR ads.
(besides all of the obvious arguments)
1. Page content:
Most of the ads that are blocked on the web are third-party and there is no (even moral) agreement between the domain visited and a totally unknown domain that is running within it. The site owner simply sets up a script or an empty space on his pages and allows an adserver to use them. Usually a site owner has no idea what ads will be displayed. Even 3rd-party adservers are not aware of what ads THEY are serving on YOUR site at any given time. You could argue that a person is infringing on the content of the page ... but that argument could only hold water IF the ads were served by the domain itself and NOT from unknown 3rd-party feeds. Legally, a third party feed is NOT part of the author's page ... it is an empty hole in the page waiting to be filled by whatever someone ELSE wants to put there. Even television, radio, newspapers and magazines know the material they have to present. They KNOW what the content is and you are allowed to skip thru those or look/listen to something else if you are able to. It is not thievery in any form.
2. Responsibilty:
Most media types have at least a partial responsibility for the advertising content they serve .... yet host sites of web ads NEVER claim any personal responsibility for "bad" ads or advertisers. If you buy a product through a store, the store is the first place that has to make good on a faulty product. Web sites never make good on any shady products, programs, or services that users get ripped off for ... or for any damage done to a person's machine through any malware, keyloggers, and trojans that may occur. Add to that the privacy invasion, tracking, cookies, and (my favorite) 'marketing analysis' scripts that get injected into your machine by a domain that I never requested to see. If complaints arise, they only give you a "How did that get in there? I'm getting in touch with my adserver and have that removed" ... as that's it. No responsibility. You can't break a tv by seeing a bad ad. A computer on the other hand is a 2-way street . All other types of advertising media are benign , while the web is interactive. It would be well within my rights to block anything that the host site takes no responsibility for ... and that's that! This part alone would get any "illegalities" thrown out of court. No responsibilty or accountability ? ... no restrictions on denying its acceptance!
3. Text ads:
At first, people said that they didn't mind text ads, but that is changing to. Many sites are using this kind of advertising for total deception now. They use text ads that are designed to look like a site's feature or navigation (some of them actually intersperse text ads and site articles). All of the sudden, users want to know how they ended up on another domains with and offer to buy something.
4. Summary:
No one has any right to tell a person what can he or can't view on the web. The internet was a place that was designed for the SHARING of information. The people on this board and with this product offer it for free and share it with everyone and work on it all the time. We receive no money for doing it and neither this forum or the Adblock Plus forum have no ads. How is this possible you ask? BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THE INTERNET WAS SUPPOSED TO BE and we do it because we like the 'sharing' involved! The internet became popular because it was the last place that folks could go to without being bombarded by advertising. It was the last "commercial-free" haven ... and greedy site owners and advertisers are trying to ruin it! Television still hasn't learned their lesson and their viewership continues to decline.
Blocking a group of users that represent about 1% of the internet is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my years on the internet. Nobody seems to understand that ABP users HATE & DON'T TRUST ads served on the web. I don't care about "click-thrus" ... about impressions ..... about greedy people who want to force that other 1% to see their ads. I care about three things ... my eyes, my computer, and my privacy. And if that is how I can save them, I will do whatever it takes. My computer, my choice.
ps: I find that a blogger's article about (eg) "Is ABP theft?" will show up in at least 100 other "advertised" blogs in their entirety .... and no one complains about theft. In my opinion THAT is stealing! Someone else's article surrounded by YOUR ads.
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it"
-
Alan Baxter Verified
- Contributor
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:27 am
- Location: Colorado, USA
Well, there have been plenty of opinions posted in these forums justifying ad blocking. I hope you aren't just trolling for the same old responses -- we've already seen them. I'm glad to hear you and your employer are so responsible and I respect your opinions, even though I don't agree with most of them. I feel no need to argue with you. We've said our peace over and over, so I hope your posting doesn't start another flamefest.
BTW ... in addition to my previous post, here is something for the hosts sites to think about:
If a site demands the viewing of ads on its site (as this would be considered 'forced payment'), they could actually be held legally responsible for some or all computer damage, privacy invasion, faulty products, or monetary loss incurred by either viewing or doing business resulting FROM its ads. Do host sites and 3rd-party ad servers REALLY want to go there?
If a site demands the viewing of ads on its site (as this would be considered 'forced payment'), they could actually be held legally responsible for some or all computer damage, privacy invasion, faulty products, or monetary loss incurred by either viewing or doing business resulting FROM its ads. Do host sites and 3rd-party ad servers REALLY want to go there?
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it"
Actually.. this isn't true for the vast majority of major websites. We are not an adserver.. we get orders from the advertiser's advertising agency (companies such as Red Interactive, Glow Interactive, or in some cases, a divison of the advertiser itself, such as Staples) with "IOs" (Insertion Orders directly for the publishers themselves. Most of the industry works just like this actually! The IO order has such things as flight dates for the campaign, impressions on the site, and location on the site and ALWAYS has 2 signatures on it.. one from the advertiser's media agency AND one from the site's ad operations team. Many publishers then use adservers to do ad rotation, but they are aware of the ad before it was added to the adserver. This might not be true for many smaller websites, but we charge way to much for such smaller websites (We require a minimum $500 dollar order before even considering it.. $500 of OUR charge.. which is $2.00 CPM on average ON TOP of what the website charges). I think the only "ad networks" we serve are basically MSN, AOL, Yahoo!, and OSTG...rick752 wrote: 1. Page content:
Most of the ads that are blocked on the web are third-party and there is no (even moral) agreement between the domain visited and a totally unknown domain that is running within it. The site owner simply sets up an empty space on his pages and allows an adserver to use them. Usually a site owner has no idea what ads will be displayed. Even 3rd-party adservers are not aware of what ads THEY are serving on YOUR site at any given time. You could argue that a person is infringing on the content of the page ... but that argument could only hold water IF the ads were served by the domain itself and NOT from unknown 3rd-party feeds. Even television, radio, newspapers and magazines know the material they have to present. They KNOW what the content is and you are allowed to skip thru those or look/listen to something else if you are able to. It is not thievery in any form.
Most major websites (again the only ones my employer even consider serving on) take responsibility for the ads they serve. Especially "rich media advertising" since it can potentially interfere with website content. We have direct contacts at each and every website we serve to ensure that our ads remain compatibile with the hosting website's HTML/JavaScript/CSS (since for alot of cases, our ads require special hacks in order to even show up correctly in the first place).rick752 wrote: 2. Responsibilty:
Most media types have at least a partial responsibility for the advertising content they serve .... yet host sites of web ads NEVER claim any personal responsibility for "bad" ads or advertisers. If you buy a product through a store, the store is the first place that has to make good on a faulty product. Web sites never make good on any shady products, programs, or services that users get ripped off for ... or for any damage done to a person's machine through any malware, keyloggers, and trojans that may occur. Add to that the privacy invasion, tracking, cookies, and (my favorite) 'marketing analysis' scripts that get injected into your machine by a domain that I never requested to see. If complaints arise, they only give you a "How did that get in there? I'm getting in touch with my adserver and have that removed" ... as that's it. No responsibility. You can't break a tv by seeing a bad ad. A computer on the other hand is a 2-way street . All other types of advertising media are benign , while the web is interactive. It would be well within my rights to block anything that a site takes no responsibility for ... and that's that! This part alone would get any "ilegalities" thrown out of court. No responsibilty? ... no restrictions on denying its acceptance!
No comment, since my employer doesn't do "text" or "image" ads (not enough money in it)rick752 wrote: 3. Text ads:
At first, people said that they didn't mind text ads, but that is changing to. Many sites are using this kind of advertising for total deception now. They use text ads that are designed to look like a site's feature or navigation (some of them actually intersperse text ads and site articles). All of the sudden, users want to know how they ended up on another domains with and offer to buy something.
So.. you expect author's of the information you write to starve, to not have the money to pay for the infrastructure required to serve the page content? This basically advocates taking something for nothing. Try telling that to the content distribution networks (Akamai, Limelight).. that because the page viewers don't wish to contribute income to the site either via PAYING for the content directly (paying the site) or via viewing advertisements (indirectly), they don't need to pay their file distribution bills, which easily get to a few thousand dollars a MONTH. For instance, my employer, we have to serve a minimum of a few million impressions just to pay for the infrastructure... not alone the employees, rent on the office, etc... Where do you expect the publishers of the content you enjoy to receive money to continue to provide you that content free of charge? I don't care if you don't look at it, ignore it. That's what I do. And the site manages to still get paid.rick752 wrote: 4. Summary:
No one has any right to tell a person what can he or can't view on the web. The internet was a place that was designed for the SHARING of information. The people on this board and with this product offer it for free and share it with everyone and work on it all the time. We receive no money for doing it and neither this forum or the Adblock Plus forum have no ads. How is this possible you ask? BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THE INTERNET WAS SUPPOSED TO BE and we do it because we like the 'sharing' involved! The internet became popular because it was the last place that folks could go to without being bombarded by advertising. It was the last "commercial-free" haven ... and greedy site owners and advertisers are trying to ruin it! Television still hasn't learned their lesson and their viewership continues to decline.
Blocking a group of users that represent about 1% of the internet is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my years on the internet. Nobody seems to understand that ABP users HATE & DON'T TRUST ads served on the web. I don't care about "click-thrus" ... about impressions ..... about greedy people who want to force that other 1% to see their ads. I care about three things ... my eyes, my computer, and my privacy. And if that is how I can save them, I will do whatever it takes. My computer, my choice.
Take this website.. its hosted on your personal Internet connection via Roadrunner, right? Now imagine this site starts getting a few thousand viewers a second. Can your RoadRunner connection you pay under $100 for handle that traffic? Probably not. You'll need to get some sort of better connection, colocate in a data center, etc.. Now where is that money going to come from? Out of your own pocket out of the kindness of your heart? I don't think so. That's the predicaments most sites are in. Most websites don't have advertisements to be greedy. It's because they are REAL costs involved. And since they provide the content to you at zero cost, they need to recover the money somehow, and that somehow is advertising.
The way I see it.. block ads as much as you want.. just make sure to cut a check to the publisher for the amount of money they lost directly. It's not a non-zero cost for them to send that article down the tubes to you. If you like an article somewhere, donate some cash to the publisher... or better yet.. just stop blocking ads for that site.. the publisher will thank you with more content, since they can afford to do it.
They are actually.. that's why they make you agree that they aren't in their Terms of Service. Read section 16 of http://tou.live.com/en-us/default.aspx or section 20 of http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.htmlrick752 wrote: BTW ... in addition to my previous post, here is something for the hosts sites to think about:
If a site demands the viewing of ads on its site (as this would be considered 'forced payment'), they could actually be held legally responsible for some or all computer damage, privacy invasion, faulty products, or monetary loss incurred by either viewing or doing business resulting FROM its ads. Do host sites and 3rd-party ad servers REALLY want to go there?
Ok, let's make this plain and simple, First, this board does not receive an overwhelming amount of traffic as it is only this forum at this address. All filters are served and most conversations are done at adblockplus.org.
Second, the sites with the ToS on the 2 links you showed are not forcing you to see anything and any liabilities for advertisers are shady at best. I only found a third-party liability on one of those but I think it was more related to partner software downloads than ads. I looked quickly looked through both ToS's and saw nothing about blocking ads ... I may have missed something but I wasn't about to dwell on it all night. Nice of you to pick 2 sites that could actually afford to reimburse people. We'll see how those 'liabilities' work out if there IS a big problem there ... I'm sure it will make the internet news if that happens.
Third, why is everyone so concerned about a plugin that is utilized in about 1% of all the web traffic. Everyone seem more infatuated with the debate itself than any actual 'damage' the program is doing. And with all the different adblockers out there, why us? We only make it for the web's second most popular browser. Why doesn't anyone care about adblocking programs for the "most" popular browser ... or 'system-wide" blockers? We love the attention but this whole thing has become some kind of ridiculous discussion with many bad facts. Remember ... maybe 1% of all users use ABP. And out of that, somehow we get all this "The end is near" stuff. This program has been around for years and no one noticed it until I had a fight with Danny Carlton a couple of months ago.
Everyone keeps saying "Well, if it ever gets popular ..." and I say if people would just shut up all over the internet about it, it won't. It's all the posts and articles like THIS ONE that are driving our downloads higher every time someone opens their mouth. Be careful as I think the Windows' Host file may start getting even more popular than this because users have talked much about it in these articles everywhere. And it works system wide.
Second, the sites with the ToS on the 2 links you showed are not forcing you to see anything and any liabilities for advertisers are shady at best. I only found a third-party liability on one of those but I think it was more related to partner software downloads than ads. I looked quickly looked through both ToS's and saw nothing about blocking ads ... I may have missed something but I wasn't about to dwell on it all night. Nice of you to pick 2 sites that could actually afford to reimburse people. We'll see how those 'liabilities' work out if there IS a big problem there ... I'm sure it will make the internet news if that happens.
Third, why is everyone so concerned about a plugin that is utilized in about 1% of all the web traffic. Everyone seem more infatuated with the debate itself than any actual 'damage' the program is doing. And with all the different adblockers out there, why us? We only make it for the web's second most popular browser. Why doesn't anyone care about adblocking programs for the "most" popular browser ... or 'system-wide" blockers? We love the attention but this whole thing has become some kind of ridiculous discussion with many bad facts. Remember ... maybe 1% of all users use ABP. And out of that, somehow we get all this "The end is near" stuff. This program has been around for years and no one noticed it until I had a fight with Danny Carlton a couple of months ago.
Everyone keeps saying "Well, if it ever gets popular ..." and I say if people would just shut up all over the internet about it, it won't. It's all the posts and articles like THIS ONE that are driving our downloads higher every time someone opens their mouth. Be careful as I think the Windows' Host file may start getting even more popular than this because users have talked much about it in these articles everywhere. And it works system wide.
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it"
-
Alan Baxter Verified
- Contributor
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:27 am
- Location: Colorado, USA
Well said, Rick. I made my previous post before I saw your response.rick752 wrote:1. Page content:
<snipped>
I don't know Alan. This whole thing is starting to remind me of the old "IE vs Netscape" debates that amused people for months. Nobody really cared who used what because one did not affect the other.... it was just for the sake of debate that everyone got drawn in.
Here we have the same thing but with TONS of distorted facts. Well let's set some straight.
1. Adblock Plus is stealing our revenue: VERY NEGLIGIBLE.
If it wasn't for the recent publicity, site owners wouldn't even notice a revenue change because Adblock & Adblock Plus have been around for years and are STILL only used by 1% of all internet users, many of whom hate ads and won't click them anyways. Actually, one of the main reasons they even noticed that their ads are blocked is because many advertisers also use Adblock Plus and the EasyList (and this is a hypocritical fact folks). Look at MY ads .. but I do not want to see anyone else's ads.
2. Adblock Plus blocks everything, too much or too little: FALSE
Adblock Plus blocks nothing by itself... filters and subscriptions do. Third-party subscriptions to ABP can be added after ABP's install if wanted ... but it is a user's 'active' choice. So when someone says,"Adblock Plus is blocking .... ", believe me that Adblock Plus is blocking nothing (but the EasyList might be).
3. There are default filters that come with ABP: FALSE
See #2.
4. WhyFirefoxIsBlocked is a group of site owners rising up against Firefox and ABP: FALSE
It is one man using it on one site .. and he owns BOTH domains. To my knowledge, no one else has been stupid enough to even use his code.
5. Adblock Plus is a new service: FALSE
No it isn't ... see #1.
6. Mozilla (or) Firefox makes Adblock Plus: FALSE
Adblock Plus is a third party, open source extension that has no affiliation with Mozilla.
7. Adblock Plus is the only way to block ad content: REALLY FALSE
Opera has an adblocker, IE7PRO has an adblocker, Maxthon has an adblocker, some anti virus programs have adblockers, admuchcher is a system-wide adblocking program, Windows Host files block ads. Ad hiders are Greasemonkey, Stylish. There are script blockers like NoScript, Flashblock.
Outside of built-in popup blockers, there are normal browser settings and optional programs that won't allow ads to work if they are turned off or not installed. Turning off Javascript, Java, and "Load images" will kill almost anything ... it will do even a better job if you don't have Flash installed either. Is there anything wrong with a user doing this? Are you going to force them to run all those things because you say so? It's their right not to.
Here we have the same thing but with TONS of distorted facts. Well let's set some straight.
1. Adblock Plus is stealing our revenue: VERY NEGLIGIBLE.
If it wasn't for the recent publicity, site owners wouldn't even notice a revenue change because Adblock & Adblock Plus have been around for years and are STILL only used by 1% of all internet users, many of whom hate ads and won't click them anyways. Actually, one of the main reasons they even noticed that their ads are blocked is because many advertisers also use Adblock Plus and the EasyList (and this is a hypocritical fact folks). Look at MY ads .. but I do not want to see anyone else's ads.
2. Adblock Plus blocks everything, too much or too little: FALSE
Adblock Plus blocks nothing by itself... filters and subscriptions do. Third-party subscriptions to ABP can be added after ABP's install if wanted ... but it is a user's 'active' choice. So when someone says,"Adblock Plus is blocking .... ", believe me that Adblock Plus is blocking nothing (but the EasyList might be).
3. There are default filters that come with ABP: FALSE
See #2.
4. WhyFirefoxIsBlocked is a group of site owners rising up against Firefox and ABP: FALSE
It is one man using it on one site .. and he owns BOTH domains. To my knowledge, no one else has been stupid enough to even use his code.
5. Adblock Plus is a new service: FALSE
No it isn't ... see #1.
6. Mozilla (or) Firefox makes Adblock Plus: FALSE
Adblock Plus is a third party, open source extension that has no affiliation with Mozilla.
7. Adblock Plus is the only way to block ad content: REALLY FALSE
Opera has an adblocker, IE7PRO has an adblocker, Maxthon has an adblocker, some anti virus programs have adblockers, admuchcher is a system-wide adblocking program, Windows Host files block ads. Ad hiders are Greasemonkey, Stylish. There are script blockers like NoScript, Flashblock.
Outside of built-in popup blockers, there are normal browser settings and optional programs that won't allow ads to work if they are turned off or not installed. Turning off Javascript, Java, and "Load images" will kill almost anything ... it will do even a better job if you don't have Flash installed either. Is there anything wrong with a user doing this? Are you going to force them to run all those things because you say so? It's their right not to.
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it"
Are you bloody serious? So what is the final amount - a couple of 100kBs? Have you ever seen the rates for data transfers to mobile devices?jhaygood wrote:My employer's ads have a strict maximum 30 KB "inline" download. All other advertising content is loaded in AFTER pageload
Oh, and yes, there still are people accessing the internet via modems, you just delayed their page load time by at least 5 seconds, probably more.
I would've closed a page again already by then because it takes too long to load, congratulations for losing a potential customer.
Thank god there's ABP!
Your connection would probably be rated to slow in that case, and failover to a static image... Plus, our ads should only show up if you're a marketed target.. i.e., in the US for the vast majority, where mobile data rates are basically non-existent (I know my mobile data connection is $5.99/mo for unlimited data transfer -- T-Mobile USA). Even then, its based totally on bandwidth.chewey wrote: Are you bloody serious? So what is the final amount - a couple of 100kBs? Have you ever seen the rates for data transfers to mobile devices?
Oh, and yes, there still are people accessing the internet via modems, you just delayed their page load time by at least 5 seconds, probably more.
I would've closed a page again already by then because it takes too long to load, congratulations for losing a potential customer.
An average break down for the heaviest ad format we provide... the Expandable Video format:
~ 30 KB for the JavaScript file
~ 40 KB for the initial SWF (loaded after onload)
~ 150 Kb to multiple MB based on the video length and your available bandwidth based on our detection platform. If your bandwidth is to slow, no video will be shown (or downloaded).
If you interact with the ad, additional content can be loaded in, bring the total ad size to pretty much unlimited. But for the most part, only 30 KB will compete with ad loading times.
Most advertisers don't use popups anymore. Even then, if you block ads, you are considered stealing in my opinion. If you want to steal content, that's your prerogative. But still, if you want to block ads, find the sites you appreciate and visit's mailing address, and start cutting them checks for the non-zero revenue they lost, at about 0.1 - 1c per page view, and then you're happy (ads are blocked) and the content provider is happy (no revenue was lost). It's like a newspaper.. they provide the newspaper for less by including advertising.. It doesn't matter if you click it or buy something or what.. but the newspaper still gets the revenue from it.rick752 wrote: Outside of built-in popup blockers, there are normal browser settings and optional programs that won't allow ads to work if they are turned off or not installed. Turning off Javascript, Java, and "Load images" will kill almost anything ... it will do even a better job if you don't have Flash installed either. Is there anything wrong with a user doing this? Are you going to force them to run all those things because you say so? It's their right not to.
My problem is that some people block ads for the wrong reason, and not realize their reasons are wrong, because someone told them said wrong reasons. Adblock Plus is stealing revenue.. it might not be much, but its steal stealing. Would you steal a stick of gum every month from every store you visit? Probably not, your morals would prevent it. That's probably the approximate revenue lost per person from using Adblock Plus.
Who cares about the advertiser? They can all burn in my opinion. But what about the content provider? That's whose side I'm taking. Content providers hate advertisers just as much as the next guy, but they need them to afford to provide you a service. That's who I care about, and that's the sole reason the company I work for exist.. we're a middle man between the website (pro-consumer) and the advertiser (anti-consumer). We reject ads that would be invasive in favor of ones that work (non-invasive to the user, but still gets a message across... btw my employer is http://www.eyewonder.com).rick752 wrote: Actually, one of the main reasons they even noticed that their ads are blocked is because many advertisers also use Adblock Plus and the EasyList (and this is a hypocritical fact folks). Look at MY ads .. but I do not want to see anyone else's ads.
Oh ... you mean this little gem? (taken from a random site). 'nuff said... btw my employer is http://www.eyewonder.com
.- Attachments
-
- SuprGlu.jpg (61.05 KiB) Viewed 5202 times
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it"
-
The Masked Marauder
- Emeritus Contributor
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:21 pm
- Location: Raleigh, NC
George Orwell wrote:"Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket."