Quoted and changed slightly so as to make more sense.
What I’m saying is, if you really want, you’ll catch more flies with honey. Otherwise, you can scream “illegal” all day long like a greedy fool.
Ahh the irony…
^ Good one 
I can appreciate a good one, but the problem remains: I’m surfing the net, not looking for business. You conduct business over the internet, because of the ads. And given the right scenario, I’m sure that you are leeching off on somebody else’s hard work 
I’m sure before you start giving, if any, really, you received a lot. I don’t see it as the right thing to do for the middle man (you) to cut right in between and squeeze money from content freely distributed by others, by hijacking that content and placing ads on it. I don’t see it as the right thing to do for the garbage man to collect just because you happen to smell its garbage. I expect each to receive according to its excellence.
I’m sure your “hard work” on your sites is one (if not both) of two things: considerable help from people on sites like this one, SitePoint, received gratis, using tools like Wordpress and ready made BB. And you say that the same people helping you gratis should “pay” when they visit your site? Smelly, smelly!!!
Further more, I don’t see it right for you, the middle man to complain you don’t get income just because you “spread the word”. That’s cardboard business, where the middle mans all get rich for nothing. You know, like in business of (re)selling lands, houses, products. Re-ing anything just as a cover for ads means you need to get over it. Let people decide if they found something worthy to be thankful about it, right But I guess the money stay in the way of that!
I don’t see it as the right thing to do for the middle man (you) to cut right in between and squeeze money from content freely distributed by others, by hijacking that content and placing ads on it.
You seem to assume that all contents on the Internet has been stolen from somewhere else. That is an incorrect assumption.
Ive been stranded in Frankfurt Airport, I started looking at the videos of different airports, peoples comments, flight updates etc
The most annoying thing was every video I opened I had to endure the same ad for 15 seconds - after around 4 vids I left the site.
Constantly thrusting ads down my throat ensures I never buy from that company…
[ot]This is an extremely interesting topic but can we please keep it civil and not call liars to anyone? Not even in general? Many people may think that we are starting to insult each other and I want the debate to keep on going… without offending anyone
I’m have to say that I’m truly impressed with the passion that people are debating this subject… but keep the good manners, please
[/ot]
There are many reasons to block ads and many of them have nothing to do with damaging the profits of the site owner/creator.
It may be selfish for the visitor not to realize that someone’s business model is based on offering him ads as well as content… but after all, that’s not his problem.
Yet, insulting him, calling him a thief or hurting his feelings because he doesn’t do what it is expected of him (that is, making you money through the ads) is, in my opinion, simply wrong.
Ads can make you a lot of profit… but each day this is harder. To ignore the fact that things evolve and business models need to adapt to new trends and tendencies is calling for failure. Ad based websites was a good thing a few years back. But every day new sites go live… thousands a day… that means more competitors and less money for you because at the end you will have to share with them.
Then, of course, you find those who don’t want the ads (for whatever reason) but, let’s be honest, not everybody installs a blocking ad software… only certain type of ads are already blocked by default by the browser (pop-ups). Why? Well, because unfortunately too many people abuse of ads. The same is true for other type of ads, of course… but pop-ups are even more intrusive (I find pop-unders very intrusive as well)
For some reason, people seem to think that because they published their site, even they are keeping it fresh and adding new information, they should have revenue. But, how many times have you gone to a shop, and bought nothing? And you had an assistant available to answer to your questions, if you wanted, or that even showed you the product you wanted in different colors and sizes…
And how many times have you changed your channel and decided that a movie was not interesting enough to endure the amount of ads you had to suffer? Maybe even you had the time to go to the bath, get something for dinner or supper, and answer the phone… and the ads were not over!
Should they complain because you didn’t buy anything or you change the channel? Should anyone complain because people don’t click their ads?
In this situation, you need to find solutions which may very well to complement the revenue you get from advertising with something else.
Having said that, I think that the OP said that he got 7000 views per day but only $5-$10 revenue. For the number of people he gets, he should be wondering why because those low figures can be caused by ad-blockers only. I would say that a high percentage of the lack of profit comes for other reasons.
Edit: Why places like Google and facebook still make big figures with ads? Well, they sell them, for a start. I mean that they act as a publicity agency and other people pays them to show ads. Also, if they have any success is because the integration of their ads is not intrusive. People may choose very well to ignore the ads. And third, they try to make them as relevant as possible… although they still have a long road to get it (specially facebook)
I thought it was
I can appreciate a good one, but the problem remains: I’m surfing the net, not looking for business. You conduct business over the internet, because of the ads. And given the right scenario, I’m sure that you are leeching off on somebody else’s hard work
And you’d be wrong…
I’m sure before you start giving, if any, really, you received a lot. I don’t see it as the right thing to do for the middle man (you) to cut right in between and squeeze money from content freely distributed by others, by hijacking that content and placing ads on it.
Again, I’ve never hijacked anyone else’s content…
I’m sure your “hard work” on your sites is one (if not both) of two things: considerable help from people on sites like this one, SitePoint, received gratis, using tools like Wordpress and ready made BB. And you say that the same people helping you gratis should “pay” when they visit your site? Smelly, smelly!!!
So many things wrong with this statement.
- I have 5k posts on SP, so I’ve paid back WAY more than I’ve gotten.
- The people who built WP and the such knew they weren’t going to get paid going in. I build sites to get paid.
- The number of people who “helped me” are very low compared to the number of visitors that I receive to my sites. Suggesting that everyone should get something for free (which they do anyway as they are not forced to click on ads even if they view them) is silly IMO.
Further more, I don’t see it right for you, the middle man to complain you don’t get income just because you “spread the word”. That’s cardboard business, where the middle mans all get rich for nothing.
If nobody spreads the word then industry suffers.
Anyway, kill the ad model if you wish, all you’ll do is force ads underground. Instead of visiting sites with clearly demarcated ads, you’ll see more thin affiliate sites that are completely slanted to selling a product (not that you will know it), fake review sites, text ads disguised as regular hyperlinks, or you’ll be forced to pay for your content that you so gladly take take and take without giving anything back to it’s creator. Then you’ll be looking wistfully back at the days when you had some ads on the pages that you viewed but at least could have some trust in the content within.
Nothing in life is free.
I can appreciate a good one, but the problem remains: I’m surfing the net, not looking for business. You conduct business over the internet, because of the ads. And given the right scenario, I’m sure that you are leeching off on somebody else’s hard work
Wait, what about
I can appreciate a good one, but the problem remains: I’m watching tv, not looking for business. You conduct business over the airwaves, because of the ads. And given the right scenario, I’m sure that you are leeching off on somebody else’s hard work
One of the reasons I don’t have a TV is the amount of actually good and original content is way too low. However, I don’t consider it “stealing” if I am watching someone’s tv and see ads. The shows get onto a channel because the channel owners think the show will be popular enough to attract whatever the advertisers’ target demographic is.
The internet is more egalitarian than television or radio but people providing content still have costs. I’d rather they choose to show advertising than block access and tell me I have to register and pay.
Of course, I do appreciate it more if the ads are actually bothering to entertain me : )
I wish I could. Stupid ads make for depressing moods. And I’m yet to see smart ads (or simple ads, just not moronic ones) being the heavy part in ad industry. That’s why PPV has a market share and it goes so well! 'Cos crap with ads you can find anywhere at any given time!
It seems that you know what I’m talking about and why I have such a good use for my ad block This is the present situation and not some fictional one!
So why should I give you FREE ad viewing and FREE ad clicking? You have yet to convince me about the utility of your website, but you demand that I see the ads anyway.
The final question is this: not that you choose to have ads to support/gain, but why to even consider FORCING me to acknowledge them!
If you do CHOOSE ads, than surely I MUST have the ability to CHOOSE to block them.
Your view is more like supporting those door-to-door and telemarketers type of thing. More like supporting spam: hey, if it’s for a “good cause” then who’s to stop?
In the end, if I’m forced to eat ads, w/o control, where it will this stop? Today you say “I need unconditional support”, tomorrow will be like “WTF man! Just give it a rest, can’t you see that’s all I see everywhere?”.
For other media there is a control, there are rules. Just because here there aren’t clear regulations, doesn’t mean abuse goes as well! I have the right to ignore and you have to right to propose. PROPOSE not IMPOSE!
And yes, tke71709 and C. Ankerstjerne, I agree there is some quality content supported by ads, but very little of it is actually providing income for the original quality content generator, and even very little of it is original.
Once again, Re-ing anything (ideas, content) with freeware tools doesn’t qualify one to ask: “Surrender your time, your browser! I deserve money for being slick!”
I consider Ad blocking as a quality control tool. You have that on TV, on newspapers, everywhere. Why not on the internet? I’m not about to swallow just about any king of crappy ad you can throw at my browser. I need to control it for users like: children, old people, clueless victims. My children, my parents, even my wife 
Look back and remember what was wrong with internet about the ads! Remember the autodial tools to charging telephone numbers? Remember physhing attempts? Remember p0rn? The illegal one? That can get you in trouble with the law? Just because I have to not block ads! So some guy with a pimp nick to afford extra … what? Jacuzzi herpes, night club hepatitis B? What?
You point me to a possible future wild web if ads are blocked. I point you to a past wild west internet having ads transformed in a WEAPON! Your possible future is some bugaboo to make me reconsider and do a stupid thing: let other control me over internet.
I can appreciate a good one, but the problem remains: I’m watching tv, not looking for business. You conduct business over the airwaves, because of the ads. And given the right scenario, I’m sure that you are leeching off on somebody else’s hard work
The difference is that you know: there are going to be some ads, there is going to be some content that will offend you.
BUT…
But YOU KNOW before hand. So you can choose. You have a rating system for shows on TV. A rating system for printed media. You are WARNED. You choose to buy Penthouse Or watch “Mature Audience”.
Is there a noonnope blocker that I can use for my site in case he accidentally lands on my site? I’m really scared after reading this thread
Seriously, I think ad blockers are useful and I’m fine with people using them (though I’m not using one myself - I need to see ads for learning and research). But many times I wished I had an unwanted user blocker. There are all kinds of users you don’t want to see on your site - from spammers and fraudsters to plain PITA.
There are lots of blockers and filtering type of services that block ads, rates sites, etc. - all to help the user. But how about the site owner? There has to be a user filtering system that profiles users. Site owners have to be protected too. Food for thought.
Actually, yes… Everything on the internet is free unless you take steps to make it un-free. That’s the way it was designed to work. It wasn’t designed as a business model, it was designed as a collaborative resource for scientists & researchers to share information and it has grown from there.
Being that it’s free, it is up to you (the site owner) to put whatever security measures you feel are necessary to prevent the masses from viewing your website or content. Otherwise, you will be indexed by search engines and people will visit your site one way or another.
To assume that there are rules that website owners are owed remuneration from casual visitors is just false. If you want to enforce that sort of thing you’ll need a gateway into your website that visitors have to read and agree to before they enter. Otherwise nobody will know your rules.
It is only some publishers who want think that the advertisers owe them an income who would insist that the ads must be visible. The advertisers themselves would prefer that their ads are only seen by those actually interested in their product as then they will not waste so much money on paying for all those who “accidentally” click on the ad without having any interest. Allowing those with absolutely no interest in their ad to block it completely allows the advertiser to more accurately target the ad to those people it is actually intended for. So ad blockers actually HELP the advertiser in targetting their ad toward the right people. Sites that try to disable the ad blockers are not only stealing from their visitors, they are stealing from their advertisers as well.
Very good point. And very important too. The advertisers were forgotten in this discussion but it’s they who are paying money. I’m pretty sure too that advertisers actually do appreciate the ad blockers. I don’t run ads on ad networks anymore, but I sure know what it means to spend money and get crap traffic. If something helps increase the traffic value (and ad blockers do increase it), all the better.
I’ve followed & read this thread with interest, but I am firmly on the side of supporting ad blocking plugins. Some website owners seem to think they have a right to milk money from their sites by showing adverts all over the place, and that just isn’t the case. The web is an open place, and a site can be interpreted by many different devices, in different ways. If you want a guaranteed income, then you need some kind of membership structure and also people willing to pay for it!
Oh, I think this would make a good topic for a poll.
Might as well put a poll about race mixing on a white supremacist website.
The audience is skewed here, a poll would prove nothing as SP does not represent your average Internet user and has little to no actual “business people” on it as evidenced by the level of discourse found within the “Manage your site” sub-forums.
If you want to know what a bunch of web developers think go for it, but the results wouldn’t be all that interesting or applicable to the real world.
Exactly. This topic would never have been started in the first place if the person who started it had considered the advertisers and the ad network and what effect their proposal would have on what the advertisers would be prepared to pay to cover the extra accidental clicks and how much bigger cut the ad networks would take to cover the cost of the extra bandwidth to deliver the extra unwanted ads assuming that wasn’t cancelled out by the reduction in the number of people visiting the site. Either way the web site would make far less money from the ads they display if they were able to ban the use of ad blockers on their site which defeats their intention in suggesting it in the first place. Still if they do so and are successful in driving visitors away from their site then it will benefit other sites with similar topics.
Anyway, given that it is impossible to stop people from blocking whatever they want blocked on the web having a poll about whether “sites should be allowed to alienate their visitors and advertisers so as to eliminate their advertising income by not allowing ad blockers” is rather redundant.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the way these blockers work, the adds are still loaded but not displayed. So the advertiser is actually charged for the impression.
If you put yourself in the position of the content provider, its hard to side with ad-blockers.
There is nothing wrong with going into a store and not buying anything. Just like there is nothing wrong with going to a site and not clicking on the ads. Blocking the ads would be more like buying something from a store with the intention of returning it after you used it.
No, the ad blocker as far as I know stops the browser requesting the resource, otherwise it wouldn’t stop things like tracking pixels being able to track you etc.
From my point of view, I will never ever click an ad. Even if the ad interests me, and the product or service advertised is something I want, ads have been so abused and misused in the past that my mindset is basically to distrust ads on websites. I will most likely google for something and look that way if it displays something I want.
eruna: Do you think you should be forced to watch all ads on TV if you are watching their program / content? Should you not be allowed to leave the room, talk to someone else etc while the ads are on?
If I’m on mobile broadband and I pay for all my bandwidth, why shouldn’t I stop ads to save on that bandwidth?
The trouble with the shop analogy is that you can ‘try’ the ‘content’ or products in the shop before you have to pay - check the quality, see it etc. If a webmaster forces me to display ads before I’ve even seen the content, it’s equivalent to a shop charging someone for a product before they are allowed to see it, and no refunds if you didn’t want the product after all. If I like content on a website, I will find a way to support it in another way.
Thank you for proving my point that the audience here is so skewed so as to make a poll ridiculous.
Case in point above.