People have got used to finding all the information they want on the web for free, and have been habituated into ignoring ads. With popup blockers available on almost every browser, and content blockers on the better ones, the only ads that some people will even see on sites they use regularly will be unobtrusive text ads, and very few people seem to mind these.

I, like many people, have become desensitized to advertisements and simply ignore them, unless they’re very well designed or offer something I’m looking for.

I don’t think this article from AdAge is a reliable reference to support your position. I don’t have any argument otherwise, except that, it’s not in the best interest of any website to publish that a high percentage of people using the site won’t ever see ads. Few people would be inclined to advertise on their site. Also, those who don’t like the ads might leave before they give the website a chance – meaning that the majority of people using the site are already comfortable seeing ads. So, it’s probably not affective to poll only the small subset of people using the particular ad-filtrated site that is offering the ad-free version.

I have said this for several years: micropayments would be key to monetizing websites. If I could get 5 cents per month from every unique visitor to my site, I would make enough money to work on it full-time. In fact, I’d currently even take 2.5 cents per unique.

How many websites do people actually use in a given month? 100? 500 for more advanced users? At 5 cents, the decision becomes a non-decision.

A lesson I learned while working for a dollar store (at corporate) is that when something is a buck, people don’t even think twice about buying it. Once it goes to $5, it can be the best deal in the world, a person’s “decision hat” comes on and they don’t make the purchase. But if it’s a buck, they buy it.

I think this will have to come about eventually. Look at the content sites out there. They are not being developed like they used to. Why? Because people don’t see the pot of gold. Sure, there are a lot of free sites, but very few free sites exist for long without their owners getting something from them, and when sites start getting popular, remember, hosting can become a significant expense, running thousands per year. Not many people will shell out thousands to work for no pay.

I suppose that once people have a mechanism to pay 5 cents per month to access a website, they might be amenable to paying higher amounts for more valuable content, or perhaps pay for a shorter period of time (5 cents a day?).

Certainly no one will like paying, no one will volunteer to pay, but if done right, I think that people can be made to pay because there is most definitely value in what is being offered. The key is the ability to charge a very small amount, one that people won’t walk away over.

If your favorite restaurant raised its prices by 1 cent, would you stop going? If your favorite website charged you 1 penny per day, would you stop reading it?

I would never expect people to pay for my content (I couldn’t see anyone wanting to do so anyway!) The payback I get is interest in my work and the odd enquiry.

Newspapers sell advertising on their websites. If they’re clever enough, they can maybe get through adblock – if they’re really clever, they can make their advertising good–looking enough to become an integral part of the site. After all, no-one objects to ads in print. Getting over reader resistance to advertising that forces them to look and/or click (pop ups, prominent banners etc.) is the challenge.

Not having advertisements on a webpage isn’t a benefit. I actually click on interesting advertisements on websites that I frequent a lot. Either to review products or they to see if they have something I might be interested in.