So block popups, popunders and use Flashblock. But allow those websites who try to be responsible display ads by allowing text ads like AdSense to be displayed. The more profitable non-intrusive forms of advertising becomes in comparison to obnoxious forms of advertising, the more attractive non-intrusive advertising becomes to websites. Instead of using Adblock and other ad blocking programs as a giant hammer to crush all ads, use them as tools to help encourage non-obnoxious ads.
Tens of thousands of high quality independent (e.g. not mega-media controlled) sites are like mine and totally dependent upon ad revenues. Without ad revenues they would not be able to continue their existence and the Internet would be a poorer place totally dominated by big media companies who could get away with charging subscription fees to access their content. Someone has to bare the cost of developing high quality content, web servers and bandwidth, either users in general can allow a third party pay for it via advertising or users will have to bare this cost directly themselves. Would Slashdot be able to continue to exist without ad revenues? I think not.
Again use ad blocking programs as tools to "reward" sites that use non-obnoxious ads while blocking the most disagreeable forms of advertising. Advertising funds the great richness of websites we see on the Internet today, but we need to work together (web publishers like me and consumers of said websites) to encourage websites and advertisers to be more responsible in regards to the types of ads they deploy.
I'm the owner of the site in question and I did indeed receive Nathan's message earlier today. Before I get to the response I sent to Nathan, I would like to point out a few details.
First this site is not a big money maker for me. It is primarily a labor of love. I started the site as a hobby back in 1995 and took on a life of its own. Over time it has gotten more and more expensive to operate as it has become more popular. There have been many years where advertising revenues did not even come close to covering costs. I don't expect to ever get "rich" on this site, I just hope to earn enough to pay expenses and justify the time I spend researching new content for it.
Last fall I came to a realization, I had to bring costs under control and increase revenues in order to be able to continue to operate this site. After reading and tracking many threads in different forums about banner advertising and ad-blocking, I felt this was one area that I could both reduce my costs and increase revenues. As an experiment I developed countermeasures that would deny access to my site when people were using ad-blocking software I could not circumvent.
To my utter surprise, I immediately began to see an increase in advertising revenues and have seen no negative impact in my traffic levels. If my current revenue trends continue, I will be able to afford to shift the site to a dedicated server later this summer as will be necessary to handle my projected growth in traffic.
In regards to the comment about the "apparent" irony of my promoting ZoneAlarm while ZoneAlarm has ad blocking abilities. My reason for promoting it is that in my normal consulting life, I find way too many machines that have been compromised by hackers, malware and worms/viruses. By promoting security products like ZoneAlarm I am hoping to encourage at least a few people to take a more active roll in protecting their computers. BTW to date, I have never earned a commission off of that banner, even so I keep it because I want to raise awareness of the issue.
In regards to the following comment: > no, free of charge does not mean I give you permission to force > unwanted and useless content into my home. advertising being > heard isn't a right. it's a privilege that can and will be revoked if > taken too far. and it HAS gone too far.
I don't force anyone to visit my site and access my content, however, the terms of gaining free access to my site is to also accept my ads. If users block my ads, they are redirected to a AD-FREE page that explains this. Users are then free to either unblock my ads, pay a subscription fee to access my content ad-free or use someone else's site. The choice is up to the user.
===== NOW ON TO THE REPLY I SENT TO NATHAN: Thank you for writing us with your opinion in a polite and thoughtful manner. I will attempt to address some of your points below.
> First, I think that if you cannot encourage subscriptions by > members-only content or other benefits, perhaps you need to rethink > the design of your site. There are many sites that I gladly pay a > subscription to because the benefits offered to subscribed members is > worth my time and the value is good.
The ability to generate subscriptions has little to do with our use of banner ads. We feel that having two options to access our site allows users to choose what method works best for them. If they are willing to directly support our efforts, they can access our site banner ad free. If they are not willing to support our efforts directly then we expect them to support us indirectly by allowing our ads to run. We don't expect users to act upon our ads, we simply expect them to give us the opportunity to try and find ads that would interest them.
> Secondly, I believe that the issue here is trust. Websites have lost > my trust as a user when it concerns advertising. Although you say > your site does not use pop-over/pop-und
Slashdot Mirror
So block popups, popunders and use Flashblock. But allow those websites who try to be responsible display ads by allowing text ads like AdSense to be displayed. The more profitable non-intrusive forms of advertising becomes in comparison to obnoxious forms of advertising, the more attractive non-intrusive advertising becomes to websites. Instead of using Adblock and other ad blocking programs as a giant hammer to crush all ads, use them as tools to help encourage non-obnoxious ads. Tens of thousands of high quality independent (e.g. not mega-media controlled) sites are like mine and totally dependent upon ad revenues. Without ad revenues they would not be able to continue their existence and the Internet would be a poorer place totally dominated by big media companies who could get away with charging subscription fees to access their content. Someone has to bare the cost of developing high quality content, web servers and bandwidth, either users in general can allow a third party pay for it via advertising or users will have to bare this cost directly themselves. Would Slashdot be able to continue to exist without ad revenues? I think not. Again use ad blocking programs as tools to "reward" sites that use non-obnoxious ads while blocking the most disagreeable forms of advertising. Advertising funds the great richness of websites we see on the Internet today, but we need to work together (web publishers like me and consumers of said websites) to encourage websites and advertisers to be more responsible in regards to the types of ads they deploy.
I'm the owner of the site in question and I did indeed receive Nathan's message earlier today. Before I get to the response I sent to Nathan, I would like to point out a few details.
First this site is not a big money maker for me. It is primarily a labor of love. I started the site as a hobby back in 1995 and took on a life of its own. Over time it has gotten more and more expensive to operate as it has become more popular. There have been many years where advertising revenues did not even come close to covering costs. I don't expect to ever get "rich" on this site, I just hope to earn enough to pay expenses and justify the time I spend researching new content for it.
Last fall I came to a realization, I had to bring costs under control and increase revenues in order to be able to continue to operate this site. After reading and tracking many threads in different forums about banner advertising and ad-blocking, I felt this was one area that I could both reduce my costs and increase revenues. As an experiment I developed countermeasures that would deny access to my site when people were using ad-blocking software I could not circumvent.
To my utter surprise, I immediately began to see an increase in advertising revenues and have seen no negative impact in my traffic levels. If my current revenue trends continue, I will be able to afford to shift the site to a dedicated server later this summer as will be necessary to handle my projected growth in traffic.
In regards to the comment about the "apparent" irony of my promoting ZoneAlarm while ZoneAlarm has ad blocking abilities. My reason for promoting it is that in my normal consulting life, I find way too many machines that have been compromised by hackers, malware and worms/viruses. By promoting security products like ZoneAlarm I am hoping to encourage at least a few people to take a more active roll in protecting their computers. BTW to date, I have never earned a commission off of that banner, even so I keep it because I want to raise awareness of the issue.
In regards to the following comment:
> no, free of charge does not mean I give you permission to force
> unwanted and useless content into my home. advertising being
> heard isn't a right. it's a privilege that can and will be revoked if
> taken too far. and it HAS gone too far.
I don't force anyone to visit my site and access my content, however, the terms of gaining free access to my site is to also accept my ads. If users block my ads, they are redirected to a AD-FREE page that explains this. Users are then free to either unblock my ads, pay a subscription fee to access my content ad-free or use someone else's site. The choice is up to the user.
=====
NOW ON TO THE REPLY I SENT TO NATHAN:
Thank you for writing us with your opinion in a polite and thoughtful manner. I will attempt to address some of your points below.
> First, I think that if you cannot encourage subscriptions by
> members-only content or other benefits, perhaps you need to rethink
> the design of your site. There are many sites that I gladly pay a
> subscription to because the benefits offered to subscribed members is
> worth my time and the value is good.
The ability to generate subscriptions has little to do with our use of banner ads. We feel that having two options to access our site allows users to choose what method works best for them. If they are willing to directly support our efforts, they can access our site banner ad free. If they are not willing to support our efforts directly then we expect them to support us indirectly by allowing our ads to run. We don't expect users to act upon our ads, we simply expect them to give us the opportunity to try and find ads that would interest them.
> Secondly, I believe that the issue here is trust. Websites have lost
> my trust as a user when it concerns advertising. Although you say
> your site does not use pop-over/pop-und