Is ad blocking the problem?

[Lite]

Ars Technica's Ken Fisher recently wrote an impassioned pleato turn off ad-blocking software like AdBlock Plus to save the online publishing industry. His attempt to turn back the clock on digitization, however, would likely accomplish the opposite.

Fisher has a good point: ad-blocking software almost certainly does hurt sites like CNET by denying them revenue. As he points out, "[m]ost [large] sites...are paid on a per view basis," not a click-through basis, which means that ad-blocking software very literally takes money out of the pockets of publishers, leading consumers to "devastat[e]...the sites you love."

So who should change? Consumers using the technology, or the publishers?

Online media publishers should change, as asking consumers to change is a recipe for failure...and for stagnation rather than innovation in business models. It's not the consumer's job to figure out a successful business model for the vendor.

Lest online media feel particularly aggrieved by the pilfering of ad-blocking software, perhaps it would be comforting to know that we in the open-source world have been dealing with similar pressures for over a decade.

In the early days, many of us agonized over how to monetize the popularity of freely available software. The more money open-source developers made writing software, the more open-source software would get written, went the reasoning. Free riders sucked money out of the system.

Most ironically, a big chunk of those "free riders" include the very open-source software companies that ask the market to pay for their own software. Most gladly borrow MySQL, JBoss, Tomcat, and other open-source software components without encouraging their users to try the paid-for, commercially supported versions of these software projects. Why would they when they can economize on such pieces and focus efforts to lure buyers to their own software?

And yet, years and scads of free riders later, open source is bigger than ever. Did the market miss the memo that declared that open-source software had to be monetized directly or would fade into oblivion?

Of course not. Rather, open-source software developers started to charge for value around or beyond the core open-source software bits. Google gives away immense amounts of open-source software but charges for advertising around it. Facebook contributes actively to open source, too, but also charges for advertising and other services on its site. Red Hat charges for easy access to updates through its Red Hat Network.

The money didn't leave open-source software with the free riders. Vendors just found novel ways of charging them.

In a like manner, pressure from ad-blocking software won't kill the media. It will simply change how media gets consumed and paid for.

I'm not suggesting that this will be an easy process. In open source, we've spent well over a decade (and billions in venture capital investments) trying (and often failing) to figure out winning business models. But we're getting there, and the monetary returns are bigger than ever.

Charity is a great thing, but it's the wrong model for online media, whatever the validity of Fisher's arguments about the near-term hurt ad-blocking software does to media sites. Blocking ad-blocking software will only retard online media's evolution toward more robust and dynamic business models.

Source: C|Net

[*dcs18]

Think I'll vote pro AdBlock (despite the fact that Publishers might accuse me of being insensitive and selfish.)

[Lite]

This website wouldn't exist if it wasn't for advertising. Websites need this revenue.

[oZ.]

Firefox v3.6

+

Ad Block Plus + EasyList

= no ads

[DKT27]

I did notice this article before. But it's better that you posted it.

I don't know if it's even possible. If nsane.down and nsane.forums needs revenue to run the site, I'm ready for it. But I'm not ready to allow ads on other sites. So is there any way that I can block ads on the other site but not on nsane?

[jalaffa]

So is there any way that I can block ads on the other site but not on nsane?

I'm not a great fan of ads either. But the ars technica article did make me think twice about my practise. As written "blocking ads hurts the sites you love. Please consider not blocking ads on those sites."

I doubt I will do much clicking on ads even if I allowed them to be displayed, but as pointed out "There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis.

For me to whitelist any site the ads would have to follow some rules. They should not be annoying (sounds, pop-ups, flickering, video etc.)

ars technica have a nice guide on how to whitelist your favourite sites here

In Ad-Muncher it only seem to work in IE8 for me :(

[Toshiro]

I dun care about the adds.. If it's not a popup or popunder I don't mind having adds on a site.. (okok, maybe if it's stuffed with adds)

[DKT27]

Thanx Jalaffa. I didn't even know that I could disable adblock plus for some favorite sites.

+rep for the useful article Jalaffa.

From today adblock plus is disabled on nsaneforums and nsanedown from my side. :)

[*dcs18]

This website wouldn't exist if it wasn't for advertising. Websites need this revenue.

No worries adBlock, NoScript, CookieSafe & Firewall (website filtering) disabled on nSane (as long as porn is not the source of revenue.) ;)

[Sl@pSh0ck™]

In Ad-Muncher it only seem to work in IE8 for me :(

I can't get Ad Muncher to work on firefox or opera neither, I have set nsane on "no filtering on url", but all ads here are still being blocked.

[jalaffa]

In Ad-Muncher it only seem to work in IE8 for me :(

I can't get Ad Muncher to work on firefox or opera neither, I have set nsane on "no filtering on url", but all ads here are still being blocked.

Same here. Also with Chrome it does not work. There is definitely a problem with the software. I did report this bug in their forum, but they kind of neglected it :(

[Bizarre™]

@nivrid05:

It might be the built-in popup blocker in Firefox and Opera

[jalaffa]

@nivrid05:

It might be the built-in popup blocker in Firefox and Opera

That was the response from Ad-Muncher also...

But if I disable filtering all together in Ad-Muncher, the ads are displayed in Firefox, Opera and Chrome.

[Sl@pSh0ck™]

@nivrid05:

It might be the built-in popup blocker in Firefox and Opera

That was the response from Ad-Muncher also...

But if I disable filtering all together in Ad-Muncher, the ads are displayed in Firefox, Opera and Chrome.

same here ... so it really must be in Ad muncher ...

[Lite]

Most sites have these little "contextual ads" - simple words or images. In my opinion on most sites these are not intrusive.

Blocking pop-ups, pop-unders and those "click-through" pages is fine in my opinion as these are annoying.

[majithia23]

well lite ,

yes you are right .

revenue is generated from advertisements to keep a free site running ,

but what if

, when malware strikes via bad ads on good sites ?

reports cnet.com

:think:

shouldnt there be some kind of signatures embedded into authentic ads ,

which are recognized by ad blocking softwares as "safe ads" and automatically allowed to be displayed ,

while blocking malware ads ?????

just a thought :think:

( off the record , i blocked ABP on nsane :)... )