Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
I hope the ensuing discussion stays civil.
Posted Aug 11, 2010 19:15 UTC (Wed) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059)
Posted Aug 11, 2010 22:27 UTC (Wed) by xyzzy (subscriber, #1984)
I have little clue how much advertising revenue a page impression generates these days but I'm betting it's pretty small. I'd rather use some micropayment system to pay something approximating that small amount than see ads.
Of course the more likely someone is to want to pay to hide advertising, the more valuable they're likely to be to advertisers...
Posted Aug 11, 2010 22:50 UTC (Wed) by jake (editor, #205)
I actually tend to disagree. The small minority of folks who use AdBlock or NoScript to block ads are much more likely to get annoyed with an advertiser and actively avoid their products. Advertisers *should* want to get their ads in front of people who are likely to be ad-friendly or at worst ad-agnostic -- getting them in front of those that are ad-antagonistic is likely to backfire.
I am skeptical that the minute reduction in traffic due to AdBlock and the like is making any real impact on ad revenues either. Certainly it's worse for sites with tech-savvy readers (more likely to use blockers presumably), but makes very little impact on mainstream web advertising, I suspect.
Posted Aug 11, 2010 23:04 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
If the vast majority of people who don't use adblock are far more interested in celebrity gossip than solid technology reporting then the economics dictate that we are going to see vastly more celebrity gossip news and vanishingly little solid technology reporting. Until we find a way to get Brad Pitt to use an Android phone and our interests crossover with mainstream interests.
Posted Aug 12, 2010 7:10 UTC (Thu) by PaulWay (✭ supporter ✭, #45600)
I think the original poster's thinking is that if you can somehow get an editorial in front of those AdBlock users that is favourable to a particular product, they are more likely to take that seriously. I.e. once you've convinced them it isn't advertising, they'll believe it. I don't really believe that either, because I think that turning ads off is far more of a statement about being highly selective of the information one chooses to believe than just about not getting bouncing GIFs and monkeys to punch.
From my point of view, if turning AdBlock on is killing publishing, then it deserves to die. I subscribe to LWN not because paying turns off the ads but because it has genuinely good, useful and in-depth content. I would stop my subscription if I believed that the stories were becoming merely promotional material from vendors.
The whole news industry is struggling with this, with paywalls and advertising and free content and subscriptions all stewed together, sometimes seemingly randomly. The one underlying factor is trust and brand loyalty - people would rather read a source they trust, and converting that into a dollar value is the hard part. When journalists tell us that they don't report news because it's not in the advertisers interests, they've immediately shown where their true loyalties lie - and it's not to their readers.
Posted Aug 12, 2010 12:34 UTC (Thu) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588)
Posted Aug 13, 2010 11:06 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
I'm also more than happy with the LWN paywall model. It keeps the site interesting even for non-subscribers, and it doesn't prevent subscribers sharing.
Posted Aug 11, 2010 22:47 UTC (Wed) by shmget (subscriber, #58347)
Posted Aug 12, 2010 3:11 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)
I sometimes wonder what would happen if ads were cut back to 1/100 or 1/1000 of the current frequency, if ads were such novel events that I did pay attention to them. From an admaker's point of view, you can't cut them them back so far as to become affordable only to huge corporations. But if I only had a few hundred in view in a single day, counting computers, magazines, billboards, ads on taxis and buses and so on, and there was little repetition, I might just actually be aware of some of them.
Posted Aug 15, 2010 14:39 UTC (Sun) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
But then a month ago I was reading a article and halfway down bits starting disappearing from my screen and a fripping animated transformer appeared right over the text I was reading. That killed it for me, I finally spent the few minutes to workout how to installed AdBlock just so I could read the bloody article in peace.
I suppose a lot more gets blocked as collateral damage but I'm not sure whether I care about that...
Posted Aug 12, 2010 3:27 UTC (Thu) by jhhaller (subscriber, #56103)
Posted Aug 12, 2010 9:50 UTC (Thu) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375)
The economic model that has an advertiser pay a content producer for my attention is not in my interests as a consumer. It skews the stories that writers can pitch to their editors. It stops freedom-of-the-press reporting and it queers the pitch of public discourse. Perhaps it's time for Linux news to stand up for free-as-in-freedom software reported by free-as-in-the-press news outlets. Free-as-in-beer? Have you had any free beer recently?
Posted Aug 12, 2010 13:07 UTC (Thu) by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
Posted Aug 12, 2010 13:43 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
If you send such a server pretty much anything else, such as an AAAA query, it either silently discards the packet or it returns a NXDOMAIN for an unasked A query. Probably this was sold to the user as a "security" feature, the practical upshot is that lots of perfectly good implementations will stall when trying to connect to some of the popular advertising sites.
You would think that this was something advertising companies would want to fix, but it seems not. Somewhere along the lines "we make advertising" plus "people are annoyed by advertising" became "it's our job to annoy people" and so there was no interest in fixing the problem. I don't know if it ever got fixed at all.
Posted Aug 16, 2010 22:43 UTC (Mon) by elanthis (guest, #6227)
I don't run adblock, but I do run Flashblock, and if someone had an extension that only disabled ads that screw up the page layout or are annoying, I'd gladly and happily run that too.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds