Why Stack Overflow Doesn't Care About Ad Blockers

Press2ToContinue writes: Forging a bold step in the right direction, Stack Overflow announced today that they don't care if you use an ad blocker when you visit their site. "The truth is: we don't care if our users use ad blockers on Stack Overflow. More accurately: we hope that they won't, but we understand that some people just don't like ads. Our belief is that if someone doesn't like them, and they won't click on them, any impressions served to them will only annoy them-- plus, serving ads to people who won't click on them harms campaign performance. ... Publishers can't win by forcing ads — especially low-quality ads — in people's faces. Think scantily-clad women selling flight deals, weight-loss supplement promos or wacky waving inflatable arm-flailing tube-men promoting car dealerships." It's possible that this declaration by SO might help to clarify to advertisers that it is the overabundance of low quality ads that practically force the public to seek out ad blockers. But seriously, what is the likelihood of that?

Comments

Hear hear!

[rmdingler]

Also, too, and neither: figure out a way to separate me from the paper in my wallet without making my machine load slower.

Write your ads in a language not quite so notorious as an infection vector.

Good start, though.

Advertising Bubble

[monkeyxpress]

I think the whole advertising situation will get better once the tech bubble bursts. Just look at many of the tech companies now - they are giant advertising platforms, but spend most of their revenues and investor money on user acquisition through advertising. This is like a giant ponzi scheme really.

Google worked, and will probably keep working for some time now, because one of the main use cases for search is to find stuff you want to buy. When you go to the site and start searching for a particular product, it isn't a big deal (and sometimes is useful) when ads come up for that product or equivalents you might not have heard off. The advertising has actual value in informing you about what is available. Other sites, such as Facebook, might have more information on me, but I go there to look at pictures of my friend's dogs and kids, not when I want to find something to buy. For that reason I find their ads incredibly annoying, and despite Zuckerberg going on about how they make them relevant, he would only be true if I was some kind of consumption machine that wonders around the internet like a virtual godzilla eating up every product that is shoved in my face.

My prediction is that eventually the industry will fall apart as companies realise the ponzi nature of current advertising prices, and that much of this expenditure is not converting in to sales. In that regard, the better tracking/conversion tools that the internet allows may be the industries own downfall.

Re:Advertising Bubble

[gstoddart]

You gave a bad example. Twitter is a service that is still trying to establish a real revenue stream.

Twitter is a great example of what I was giving an example of.

Twitter is, essentially, an advertising company .. that's the revenue model. It just piggy-backs on inane garbage like when the Kardashians shit.

Twitter went IPO for $28 billion dollars, in the 10 years since Twitter has been operating, they've lost $2 billion dollars.

You'll note that the poster I replied to, and quoted, said tech companies are basically ad companies, and essentially ponzi schemes. Here it is again:

they are giant advertising platforms, but spend most of their revenues and investor money on user acquisition through advertising. This is like a giant ponzi scheme really.

So, in terms of an example of a company which is essentially an ad platform, which has failed to make any money, and which was overvalued from the start and is losing money ... exactly like a ponzi scheme ... I didn't give a "bad" example.

I gave an example of exactly what I was trying to give an example of, and in agreement with the poster I was responding to.

Twitter is a bullshit vehicle which collected $28 billion of other people's money at IPO, has lost $2 billion dollars flailing about trying to have a business model, and whose stock keeps losing value.

Giant. Fucking. Ponzi. Scheme.

Worth repeating...

[QuietLagoon]

...Our belief is that if someone doesn't like them, and they won't click on them, any impressions served to them will only annoy them-- plus, serving ads to people who won't click on them harms campaign performance. ... Publishers can't win by forcing ads — especially low-quality ads — in people's faces. ...