Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.

JBazz

macrumors 6502
Apr 14, 2006
491
2
I am with NATO. The mosquito one did it for me. That and the fact that the ads take a word or two of what you are reading and bring up something they think might be related. Cant tell you how many times I have been reading an article on lupus and seen ads for penile disfunction. (Lupus sufferers are 90% women. :rolleyes: )
 

ghost251

macrumors newbie
Sep 18, 2015
4
0
What you've got to understand is that even as your eyes skim past the banners, logos and names you do still take the information in, your brain is still processing the information (similar to subliminal messaging, has things to do with the subconscious). Anyway, if ad-blockers etc. were used on an industrial scale (like apple are threatening to do, see : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34268416 ) then I'm pretty sure the ad companies would realise what was going on and would pull out their funding. This would mean that websites would stop getting the money to run their websites. Everyone in the internet industry would be faced with a choice, pull out or start taking money from the consumer...

The internet would not be free.

This website would cost money to look at.

Facebook would have a subscription fee.

YouTube wouldn't be free.

Don't kill the internet...


PS Sorry for relighting an old conversation (I feel very strongly about this subject):)
 

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Aug 24, 2009
8,784
215
UK
Ads ruin my web experience. They're annoying and even though I make effort not to click on them anyway, they impact my internet speed (since my area's internet is still in the 90s) and just generally get in the way. So I use adblock.

I wouldn't disable it even if it helped starving Africans.

edit: just noticed this is a necro thread. my apologies
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cape Dave

jafingi

macrumors 65816
Apr 3, 2009
1,470
158
Denmark
I block ads. Even though I've been in the affiliate industry a few years ago. I hate the way that ads are intrusive for my viewing experience, and I don't click them anyways. If sites were to come up with good, relevant and non-intrusive ads, I would unblock that site without a doubt.

...
I don't like intrusive ads either and have made it a point to keep those off this site. If you do block ads in general, but like using this site, you should pay the $25 for the ad-free version.

arn

Hi arn,

I think you should make it clearer that you actually have this option, as I didn't know about it. Generally, when I block ads on a site that I really like to use (and use for many hours a week), I usually pay for an ad-free version to compensate for that eventual loss you get from my distraction-free experience. If I had known that you had that option, I would have done it long time ago. But I'll do it now.

Thanks!
 

JackieInCo

Suspended
Jul 18, 2013
5,178
1,601
Colorado
I will never go without an adblocker on any phone or computer. I've been using them for many years on my Macs and a few years on my iPhones thanks to Jailbreaking. On my iPhone/iPad, I use a Cydia app called adblocker networks that allows me to block ads in apps, yes, I did say apps and it works great.

On my Note 4/Note Edge, I have them rooted and use adaway. It too blocks ads on everything from apps to my browsers. The internet is amazing without ads.

Unfortunately, on my iPhone, I tried a website using purify and a few ads got through. I've only upgraded my 5S to 9.0 and kept my 6+ and iPad on 8.3 so I won't lose my jailbreak.

One site that I go to started forcing an ad to popup anyways so I simply signed up for a free account and the popup stopped though I still block the ads on it.
 

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
16,391
5,831
Hi arn,

I think you should make it clearer that you actually have this option, as I didn't know about it. Generally, when I block ads on a site that I really like to use (and use for many hours a week), I usually pay for an ad-free version to compensate for that eventual loss you get from my distraction-free experience. If I had known that you had that option, I would have done it long time ago. But I'll do it now.

Thanks!

We never pushed it. We are revamping it before actually re-announcing/launching it.

arn
 
  • Like
Reactions: jafingi

Tech198

Cancelled
Mar 21, 2011
15,915
2,151
So AdBlock obviously blocks ads (I'm assuming some of you here use it). But is blocking ads a bad thing? I mean don't most sites get their revenue from these ads? Are we doing the sites a disservice in some way? Is AdBlock bad for the "free" internet?

I was going to use AdBlock all the time, but this crossed my mind. Thoughts?

oh man.. you've just opened up a can of worms on this one..

its good for users because we don't wanna have ads adds as the 'focus' for everything.. I don't wanna go to CNN and see an many ads..

I don't mind the odd one or two, not not too many..

However, its a battle, because the web site owners wanna get paid, to they stick more ads, making us users use more and updated ad blocking software to prevent them from being displayed (and thus not helping "them" in any way)

it only helps the end user.

if were a webmaster, and i make my living on my website, i'd be shocked got round my ads, if i need the money to pay for bandwidth, server cost of running etc..

but that's the world we live... I don't think their is any solution to achieve both sides.

Paying to get rid of ads is just good way, but its like saying "donate" to support us... (unless u really like the site, or other exemptions)

it will only be short-lived, because there is plenty of info out there for free and other ways like using ad-blocking software that would be better suited on a larger scale.

And with ad-blokcing on iOS9 by default, it should be interesting what happens.
 
Last edited:

Gildarts

macrumors regular
Oct 20, 2014
236
171
This is a lengthy debate. Here's my stance.

And I also will note that if I see specific instructions on how to block ads on these forums, I will delete them. I'm not as extreme as some webmasters... in that I remember Ars used to ban people from their forums if they admitted blocking their ads. But, it's just a bit of a slap in the face discussing how to specifically block ads on a site whose is supported by ads.

I've heard all the arguments and disagree with them.

1) "I don't click on ads anyway". It doesn't matter. Ad revenue is generated from impressions and/or branding purposes. If you block them, you are still removing revenue from the site.

2) "It's the same as skipping commercials on TV." It's not, because whether you skip ads or not on a TV show, it doesn't affect their revenue.

I don't like intrusive ads either and have made it a point to keep those off this site. If you do block ads in general, but like using this site, you should pay the $25 for the ad-free version.

arn


You know what I hate most about this stupid nonsensical discussion?

The hypocrisy.

First off, if anyone is serious about any kind of business whether that be website or otherwise, he or she will (have to) find a sustainable business model. As the entrepreneur that is your first and biggest responsibility (before you can even get started!). You are responsible for making sure you make enough money to be able to keep doing what you want to do.

The narrative that comes from website owners is disgusting. They are trying to offload their responsibility to their readership. And that's just sad and disgusting. Arn clearly says YOU are taking revenue away form the site.. YOU are responsible for the site's revenue. And by not doing what he wants you to do YOU are not just not taking your responsibility, YOU are also a thief!

It baffles me that he could even utter that without shame. "The readership is responsible for the site revenue and if they refuse this responsibility they are thieves."

Come on now... Talk about a world upside down...

Secondly, and to me the funniest and most ironic thing is they push the narrative of their readership being leeches if they use an ad blocker when almost non of their content is original. Almost all of the content comes from somebody else that got it from somebody else. Especially in the blogosphere and tech sphere their is this constant parroting going around. Why should I pay MacRumors for what they read in Digitimes, Macotakara etc. ?

So basically, they are leeching of others and still want to lean on the readership and leech off of them to stay alive. And we should just accept that because somehow you think that's our moral responsibilty? You're the one that needs a moral compass, not the readership that blocks your ads.


People get bombarded with ads all day whether it's in front of the tv, highway billboards, magazines or bus stops, but these places don't make money off of you without your consent, they don't invade your privacy to do so and they don't design their business model to be entirely dependent on you to be sustainable.

If you're an entrepreneur of any kind then revenue is your responsibility and yours alone and if you cannot handle that responsibility then go you should consider getting a job.

Any person that tries to offload that responsibility to someone other than himself I do not respect and I will certainly not let that person turn me into a cash cow.

I have adblock, there is no whitelisting and no exception no matter how much I like or visit a site and the reason why is: me blocking ads is not related to the way I feel about the site in any way. No matter how much they will try to convince me otherwise.

PS: If you want to allow ads, first off that is very generous of you. My rant is just a response to the narrative that people somehow have a responsibility to do so. I respect any decision anyone makes in regards to blocking or not blocking ads from any site. However I will not respect any stance that states that people are somehow responsible, morally or otherwise, to do so. That is a disgusting stance that tries to manipulate or guilt people into something that they should not have to accept.

As if wanting an adfree web experience is a crime..


Namaste
 
Last edited:

Weaselboy

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 23, 2005
34,463
16,163
California
If you're an entrepreneur of any kind then revenue is your responsibility and yours alone and if you cannot handle that responsibility then go you should consider getting a job.

I'm not asking this to be argumentative, I am genuinely curious. How would one pay the bills to run a web site/forum like this? As I see it one can either charge a fee for access or sell ad space. Is there some other option I have missed?
 

Gildarts

macrumors regular
Oct 20, 2014
236
171
I'm not asking this to be argumentative, I am genuinely curious. How would one pay the bills to run a web site/forum like this? As I see it one can either charge a fee for access or sell ad space. Is there some other option I have missed?

Even if you were asking to be argumentative, it's nothing that you should be apologizing for.

First I have to understand what you mean with pay the bills to run a website.

Pay the bills as in your living expenses and some form of salary for yourself? Or the bills to keep the website up and running? You might also mean both.

Let me start by saying that there is no shortage of monetization ideas. You've already mentioned some but I'll expand on some ideas:

- You can sell adspace correct. But there are different ways to do this. The most used way is hooking the site up to Google Adsense. But another option is selling real ad space in the form of unblockable ads (guaranteed exposure). Usually this can be an ad in the header or the sidebar. You'd then partner with the advertiser on the design of the ad and the implementation. Depending on your platform you can make plenty money of doing this. A small side bar ad could easily cost an advertiser $300. And since the advertiser is getting guaranteed exposure it would be worth a great deal to them and a lot of advertisers are willing to spend big bucks on that.

Note: This kind of ad is not flash based or Adsense based. It's really in the sites body which means that it gets loaded up with the site no matter what.

- If you decide you offer enough value and you do want your readership to pay there are tools that can detect adblockers and block people who use them from using the site. By doing so you could force contribution by making them whitelist.

The next level to that is maybe a subscription model. If MR's core readership is 10,000 regular visitors per month. Imagine they payed just 1$ per month. That's $10,000 per month. Now you can't tell me by any means that the costs of running this site is near even half that.

You could add on top of that a per article fee of 0,99$ (or even lower) for people that don't want to subscribe because they don't visit everyday. But the beautiful thing is: since the cost of an article is as much as a subscription, they might as well avoid hassle and cost by just subscribing. Kinda like what Apple does with 16gb & 64gb. This even works with numbers as low as $0,10. Most people who consider themselves non regular visitors would still visit more than 10 times a month.
A lot of people don't have a good grasp of how much time they spent on the internet just browsing for stuff.

This is just the beginning of ideas. Some of them require investment in payment methods and site changes. But you gotta spend money to make money.

Without exaggerating I can honestly say that there is a plethora of ways to monetize a website.

There is absolutely no shortage of innovation in regards to monetization of websites.


The thing is a lot people to just hookup to Google Adsense and lean over because that's easy and doesn't require a lot of work. That's not a real monetization plan.

I would call that an open model: "You can contribute by letting ads load but we don't restrict access if you block."

When you have an open model, you offer your readership choice you should respect whatever choice they make. And not guilt them into your preferred choice because their initial choice doesn't suit your purposes.

I would like to stress that I have absolutely no problem with any site asking for money or using some kind of monetization model.

I just despise the disgusting narrative that websites that quite frankly don't know what they're doing put out: "you're stealing from us by not letting us spam you with ads".

Take a page from Youtubers. They are brilliant with monetization. Do you think they just sit around waiting for likes/subscribers?

Some people don't have gmail accounts. Some people are just to lazy to click that like button. What if they just depended solely on that for their revenue?

They go to the advertisers, they tell them their stats and demographic and they say what's it worth to you? And a lot of advertisers just come to them asking them to do a review or whatever.

Like I said, there's no shortage of ideas.
 
Last edited:

Tech198

Cancelled
Mar 21, 2011
15,915
2,151
I'm not asking this to be argumentative, I am genuinely curious. How would one pay the bills to run a web site/forum like this? As I see it one can either charge a fee for access or sell ad space. Is there some other option I have missed?

Correct... however my mates has his business, he has zero advertising (i should know, i looked over his code), but that's only because he's in real estate, so they made heaps of money other ways by selling flyers, brouchers, houses etc...

I agree advertising is not required, just as long u can fit the bill for bandwidth costs, servers maintain, in other areas..

If my mate never does what he does, and never sold a thing, he'd be out of business... how can u keep going with no money ? U only have enough to start up.... no one can expected to shell out heaps of money for the rest of their life because u have no idea what lies ahead 30 years down the track.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weaselboy

Floris

macrumors 68020
Sep 7, 2007
2,381
1,476
Netherlands
No matter how morally correct or incorrect my opinion or those of others are.

I come to a site for the content, not for the ads.
 

Cape Dave

macrumors 68020
Nov 16, 2012
2,381
1,676
Northeast
This is a lengthy debate. Here's my stance.

And I also will note that if I see specific instructions on how to block ads on these forums, I will delete them. I'm not as extreme as some webmasters... in that I remember Ars used to ban people from their forums if they admitted blocking their ads. But, it's just a bit of a slap in the face discussing how to specifically block ads on a site whose is supported by ads.

I've heard all the arguments and disagree with them.

1) "I don't click on ads anyway". It doesn't matter. Ad revenue is generated from impressions and/or branding purposes. If you block them, you are still removing revenue from the site.

2) "It's the same as skipping commercials on TV." It's not, because whether you skip ads or not on a TV show, it doesn't affect their revenue.

I don't like intrusive ads either and have made it a point to keep those off this site. If you do block ads in general, but like using this site, you should pay the $25 for the ad-free version.

arn

Hmmm, I can pay for an ad free version? I did not know that.
 

OLDCODGER

macrumors 6502a
Jul 27, 2011
963
400
Lucky Country
What you've got to understand is that even as your eyes skim past the banners, logos and names you do still take the information in, your brain is still processing the information (similar to subliminal messaging, has things to do with the subconscious). Anyway, if ad-blockers etc. were used on an industrial scale (like apple are threatening to do, see : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34268416 ) then I'm pretty sure the ad companies would realise what was going on and would pull out their funding. This would mean that websites would stop getting the money to run their websites. Everyone in the internet industry would be faced with a choice, pull out or start taking money from the consumer...

The internet would not be free.

This website would cost money to look at.

Facebook would have a subscription fee.

YouTube wouldn't be free.

Don't kill the internet...


PS Sorry for relighting an old conversation (I feel very strongly about this subject):)

The internet is not free.

No problem.

The higher the better.

So?
 

benzslrpee

macrumors 6502
Jan 1, 2007
406
26
ad blocking is neither good or bad.

if you take away all the feelings and emotions, at the heart of it, it is just an evolution in the content business model... but the evolution does not favor the content business. the industry relies heavily on ads for revenue but are unable to charge for content. so does content really have value or is it "free"?

since iOS 9 launch date there have been loads articles published left, right, and center in tech blogs about how content really is not free, writers need to get paid, loss of control etc. yet need to get paid was never a concern when Google killed off the paid email market with free email. or when Apple / WhatsApp / others killed wireless operators text message revenue. or when RIAA / MPAA were making their case of why torrenting hurts their business*. or when Samsung flooded the market with low cost Android phones squeezing all OEMs not HQ'ed in Asia out of the market. or constantly reinforcing that music streaming is the only viable option despite Spotify inability to generate positive cash

tech journalists / writers** encouraged an entire generation across multiple countries to adopt the idea that content, wireless devices, laptops, desktops, medicine etc should be either very low cost or free because they did not understand the cost economics*** behind these industries.

anyway, very few companies and industries break away from this cycle once the target customer is used to things being low cost. just looked to Borders (now defunct), Barnes & Nobles (cash flow issues), airlines (average net profit is $6 / passenger... currently saved by low cost fuel), and JC Penneys (need i say more?) to see what happens when consumers are conditioned to never buy items at full price.


*note: i think *AA are a bunch of ******s... i did not really care about the outcome
**note: a few writers Gruber, Mossberg did not over index on the whole low cost and free issue
***note: i am almost beginning to think tech journalists did not even understand their own cost economics
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,473
8,170
Somewhere
So far mobile ads haven't gotten as annoying as desktop ones so I haven't looked into the ad blocking on iOS 9. Too many desktop ones get annoying so I use ad blocking software there. If site owners don't want everyone using them then they need to make sure that the ads they show aren't annoying and don't greatly slow down the page loading.
 

JackieInCo

Suspended
Jul 18, 2013
5,178
1,601
Colorado
Do a search for adblockers and you will see all the websites over the past year or so who have written about this.
So far mobile ads haven't gotten as annoying as desktop ones so I haven't looked into the ad blocking on iOS 9. Too many desktop ones get annoying so I use ad blocking software there. If site owners don't want everyone using them then they need to make sure that the ads they show aren't annoying and don't greatly slow down the page loading.
Well, wait till you open an app and instead of taking you inside the app, it redirects you to the app store to view some stupid game. I got fed up with that happening at random while using one of my frequently used apps, that I started blocking ads in all free apps.
 

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
16,391
5,831
This is a pretty old thread, so I'll close it, so we don't go around in circles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.