Is anyone ok with this policy? Almost made the decision to read an article on business insider but thankfully I didn't have to because I would have had to turn off adblocker. While they obviously have their reasons for doing this (I bet they're losing tens of dollars!) it's a slap in the face to anyone wanting to read your website. And business insider? I hardly doubt you're hurting for the cash, come on. That's even a site linked to by gaffers in heated debate.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
A Poorly Thought Out Thread Title for an Ad-funded Forum
- Thread starter Ubername
- Start date
- Status
dc3k
Member
So I can be served their crappy content that I was roped into clicking in some other article?
Fuck them. I have no patience for sites that do this. It's an internet article, I'm not taking food out of anyone's mouth. And yeah, they should work for free, their work is infinitely replicable and is making them $$$$ no matter what. Bullshit they're working for free. And I support those who deserve it.
cormack12
Gold Member
Generally yeah - if it's a reputable site and the ads are not intrusive.
adBlock is a sledgehammer to crack a nut because of the ridiculous adverts that plagued many sites (and I enable it for more with some exclusions). Flash popups, javascript popups, ads that had fake close buttons. Ads that were loaded out of line which made the page jump about, ads that were attached to the background image of a website - click anywhere and it pops a new window etc.
To me it's no different than chucking a fiver to wiki/the guardian etc. I used to buy the Guardian or 'i' and I no longer do as get most of what I need online from the site.....
adBlock is a sledgehammer to crack a nut because of the ridiculous adverts that plagued many sites (and I enable it for more with some exclusions). Flash popups, javascript popups, ads that had fake close buttons. Ads that were loaded out of line which made the page jump about, ads that were attached to the background image of a website - click anywhere and it pops a new window etc.
To me it's no different than chucking a fiver to wiki/the guardian etc. I used to buy the Guardian or 'i' and I no longer do as get most of what I need online from the site.....
Personally I would never give any money to those sites so I guess you know what kind of person I am. But I would also much rather pay a subscription than be subject to advertising. People minimize the effect advertising has on us as a culture and our habits, im not okay with giving ad freeness up and no one else should be, either.
You say "if they're not intrusive" well what's the line? A "you can't read this unless you disable Adblock" is definitely intrusive. It's a complete intrusion into what I wanted to do, which was read an article, and now I'm watching ads that affect my habits and behavior. That's fine though because that's equal in value to the content I was getting? Absolutely not.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your claim that they are making money is based on.... nothing. Unless you have a copy of their financials, please don't make any statements about it. Your opinion on their quality and that you don't want to support them is completely unrelated to the fact that they are a company with employees who do their work and need to be paid for it. Whether it's shitty work or not doesn't change the fact that by using and blocker you are not paying for their service. If you don't want to pay for people's work that's your choice, but don't pretend that you're not stealing by using adblocker.
How many subscriptions to news sites do you have? How many news sites do you visit using adblocker?
The people writing those articles are paid a salary. And yeah I'm not stealing, look up what constitutes a theft.
Rocket Scientist
Member
They are paid a salary thanks to people who don't steal the content through adblocker. It's quite simple. Visiting a website isn't free. You pay by being exposed to ads. If you turn off the ads you are not paying for your use of the site. You are stealing the content.
Nearly 9000 but I don't see how that has much to do with what we're talking about
How is visiting a website not free?
Air Zombie Meat
Member
How do you not understand that websites are funded by ads? This place is too.
No I do, you're misunderstanding. Being funded by ads doesn't mean denying access to those who aren't part of your business model. That's just hostile. And paying an entry fee to view a site is dumb. How do you not understand that? You're paying an entry fee by watching an ad, for nothing other than the privilege of viewing something infinitely replicable. The same service can be provided a billion times over with little to no cost to the proprietor.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Air Zombie Meat
Member
This is just your speculation though. For all we know they might be making more money by doing it. If they end up losing out then that's the gamble they took.
I get that you don't like it (no-one does) but it's for the benefit of the advertisers that are paying their bills.
Rocket Scientist
Member
It is if they decide to.
That's just your opinion.
And That's just your opinion as well.
How do you not understand that people want to be paid for their service?
Sure. Let's all turn on adblocker and see how long that lasts. Little to no cost is still a cost. And again, unless you have some financial data to back it up there is no point in claiming how cheap it is to have a running news site. People aren't going to work for free.
Fair point. It needs to be less in my face, is all I'm saying. Defenders of the practice just confuse me. Do people just want ads everywhere? Wtf.
They have every right to deny you direct access to their content.
Been about a decade and a half so far?
I guess there are some people who don't use it. Idk why, every browser except chrome has one built in, lol.
So they should do that, right?
jadedm17
Member
If they choose to, then yes. It costs money to serve data, whether articles, images, or video. Some companies choose to cater to all (Spotify, BBC), whereas others choose to cater to some (Netflix, Business Insider). They have their own reasons for choosing their own path. It is up to the content owners, who know a lot more about this than you, to decide a strategy which suits the business' financial situation and growth targets.
cormack12
Gold Member
You'll always be subject to some form of advertising. Like I don't know if you have a subscription to Readly or anything like that. How do you feel about these digital magazines with the pages that would have been printed dedicated to 'Creed Viking' or Rolex Oyster, Mastercard etc? You didn't ask for them, they're just there and you have to flick past them.
Or actual print newspapers? Did you close your eyes or have the papers abridged first of all advertisements? I mean you only wanted the informational content right? Even if you pick a newspaper up off the media stand and flick through it, it's basically the same. On some of those pages there will be ads that you see.
I value a free and independent media so I don't mind chucking a few quid here and there. Unfortunately that means accepting there exists, a platform for the likes of the Mail or the Sun, so I give my business to the publications I want to persist. I'm not judgmental over anyone that doesn't or chooses to run adBlock everywhere though. People do what they want.
However, you can't really complain when someone says 'I've created all this content, and to view it, you have to sit through a few adverts'. Switch it off, see if the ads are obnoxious. If they are you know never to visit again. The need for adBlocker wouldn't have been there if advertising didn't go OTT, but largely the issue on reputable sites has been resolved. adBlock has its uses for things like streams, and less savoury sites......
Phoenix RISING
Banned
Dependency upon advertisements for Revenue is precisely the reason why I am adverse to getting a job in writing. I personally do not believe that this funding model the sustainable for reasons that should be obvious through the very existence of this topic.
As with networks like ESPN laying off staff in response to Lost Revenue because more people are streaming than ever instead of sitting through commercials, websites are going to have to make the adjustment to not own any Adblock, but also secondary blogs that summarize their stories, "saving you a click."
As with networks like ESPN laying off staff in response to Lost Revenue because more people are streaming than ever instead of sitting through commercials, websites are going to have to make the adjustment to not own any Adblock, but also secondary blogs that summarize their stories, "saving you a click."
tkscz
Member
Depends on the sites. Some sites have VERY invasive ads. Some sites have three or four ads that play video running all at once. Some even have those adds that try to trick you into downloading things and will still demand you turn off your ad blocker. I'm all for people getting paid but I'll keep blocking their ads if they can't get that shit together.
OrionFalls
Member
Reviewers (freelance, not professional) earn money through advertising. I will always support junior journalists by disabling adblockers on their blog/site.
-Minsc-
Member
I don't like ads yet also understand the reason why they exist. Couple months ago I decided to put GAF on the green list. I let my crunchyroll subscription expire so now I let the ads go (until I can skip them).
Advertisements are everywhere though. Every post in this thread is a form of advertisement.
Advertisements are everywhere though. Every post in this thread is a form of advertisement.
CarpeDeezNutz
Member
You can get around those to read the article, but I find myself using adblocker or disabling JavaScript less these days since its how they bring in money. I just dont want some malware on my sheet.
Rocket Scientist
Member
.
Rocket Scientist
Member
The percentage of ad-block users is still relatively low (11% of total internet users), especially on mobile where more and more of the traffic is taking place. Ad-block usage is growing, sure, but the past decade and a half has not been an ad-block bonanza.
And yet even with these low numbers, websites and news agencies have been struggling. I can't imagine what it would mean if everyone ad-blocked 24/7.
source: https://pagefair.com/blog/2017/adblockreport/
edit: apologies for the double post.
Zog
Banned
If they aren't a site I trust and they force me to leave or disable my blocker, I will leave.Sampling their content with the risk of malware isn't ok with me. Browsing the internet without an adblocker is akin to leaving your keys in an unlocked car, eventually your luck will run out.
You sought out the content. Someone spent time and effort creating it, even if you don't believe this is the truth.
Maybe someday you will produce something of value. When this happens you might understand the situation a little better.
goldenpp72
Member
If you want to use their site the least you can do is disable ad blocker. Ad blocker should be used to quell harmful or invasive ads, not everything. You basically want to cost them money and give nothing back, even something so small as browsing passed an ad.
Zog
Banned
How do you determine which is safe or not?
Couldn't have said it better myself. But come on, viewing a website costing them something? That only holds any water if tons and tons of people are visiting. And if tons and tons of people visiting your website then you have no reason to have a grudge against someone using an ad blocker, because as some other poster said, ad block users are a minority.
I don't think you realize the cost of advertising on you, your family etc. changing your your buying habits is worth reading an article to you? Maybe so.
Yeah same here.
you are incredibly ignorant. you are by virtue taking food out of someone's mouth, yes.. and the worst part about it is it isn't the ad company, with whom your ire really is... it's the site you are using, a site you made an active effort to look at their content, while actively making sure they don't get paid for it.
I know we've mostly moved on from the idiotic notion that the internet should be free.. and that ads or subscriptions are a necessary evil to get quality content on the internet.. still infuriating to see posts like this. "their work is infinitely replicable"... so basically either "give it to me for free or I'll visit another site that stole the info from you and is giving it to me for free". what a shitty attitude.
Zog
Banned
If people see ads but never click them then it's really no different than not seeing them.
Right - whats the big deal?
30% of my TV time growing up in the 80's was spent watching unskippable in-your-face advertisements between the shows you wanted to watch (and thats on top of paying a subscription). I can deal with a few banners for free to access quality content.
Zog
Banned
Do you still pay for cable TV?
I'll still be reading the stuff while you choke down full page banners in most cases.
Here's the definition for stealing from google: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
That last part's a bitch ain't it? What am I taking and not returning? They aren't losing shit. It's the belief that a pirated copy = a sold copy. You don't know what you're talking about if you think that visiting a website without paying for it , is the same as stealing someone's bicycle. But that's a tangent and I see why some people take issue with that, even though it should be pretty clear what constitutes a theft and what doesn't. I can print gaf and show people without ads and they'll be enjoying the content without paying for it. OMG, what a travesty! How will the internet be able to sustain this massive drain on its resources? It's stupid.
Rellik
Member
It works both ways.
I understand websites aren't free. Most are funded by ads and by blocking them ads you are taking away the funding for that website and yes, taking food off people's table... but, the website also needs to find a way to not be a complete asshole about it and not shove a loud ass video ad in your face that hijacks your computer.
I do also understand that the reasoning for those kind of ads is because of the rise/dominance of ad blockers. There just needs to be a cool middle ground so people get paid and users don't get hijacked/spammed. Especially on mobile. Nothing worse than being taken to the Google Play Store or getting a "YOU HAVE A VIRUS" hijack that removes you from the page.
I understand websites aren't free. Most are funded by ads and by blocking them ads you are taking away the funding for that website and yes, taking food off people's table... but, the website also needs to find a way to not be a complete asshole about it and not shove a loud ass video ad in your face that hijacks your computer.
I do also understand that the reasoning for those kind of ads is because of the rise/dominance of ad blockers. There just needs to be a cool middle ground so people get paid and users don't get hijacked/spammed. Especially on mobile. Nothing worse than being taken to the Google Play Store or getting a "YOU HAVE A VIRUS" hijack that removes you from the page.
- Status