Why Web Designers Should Not Use Ad Blockers
Editor’s Note
This post is an article from our new series of “opinion columns,” in which we give people in the Web design community a platform to raise their voice and present their opinion on something they feel strongly about to the community. Please note that the content in this series is not in any way influenced by the Smashing Magazine Editorial team. If you want to publish your article in this series, please send us your thoughts and we will get back to you.
— Vitaly Friedman, Editor in Chief of Smashing Magazine
I’ll start this article with a positive statement: Most people frequenting the web design community (whether they are casual readers or regular design bloggers doing research) understand that nothing is truly free (not even content), and appreciate the fact that many blogs, design resources, and tech news sites rely on advertising to keep them afloat.
But unfortunately, not everyone gets this, and not everyone understands that with some viral pushing of certain trends and ideas, we as a community could be inadvertently shooting ourselves in the foot while we try to make our own browsing experience less ad-intrusive, and more comfortable.
Because of the advent of social media and the apparent ease with which trends, habits, and ideas can be spread, and because of the incredible speed with which such ideas can be spread, the mere discussion of ads being too intrusive on web design blogs could cause a serious problem in a presently-thriving community.
Ad Blockers Hinder the Community
The design blogging community would not be what it is today without ads. It’s true that you could make the argument that much of the trash and superficial design writing online wouldn’t exist without the support of advertisements, but that is just a natural byproduct of mass media. Infomercials would not exist if ABC and the Discovery Channel didn’t exist. But that doesn’t mean ABC and the Discovery Channel never produce quality content. The bad content will always exist if money is involved — but that doesn’t make the financial benefits necessarily evil.
We should be proud that we are part of a community whose advertisements are often from high-quality software and app development companies. Many of these companies have worked hard to produce useful and beautiful products that assist us immensely in our workflow. Many of such products are offered free of charge, with pay options for enhanced versions. You don’t find that kind of thing very often in other media, so we should be willing to support our advertisers fully, and should from time to time take a look at the products they offer and, if we genuinely find them useful, share them with our contacts.
Ad Blockers Promote a Me-First Attitude
Nothing succeeds when individuals are selfish. Ultimately, selfishness will lead to demise because a community cannot truly thrive if the individuals that comprise it are only in it for themselves. When you choose to block ads while you surf the web, you’re basically saying “I only care about my own comfort, and I don’t want anyone else to benefit from my web surfing.” It’s a shame that any web designer would have that attitude.
What would happen if ad blocker plugins started spreading like wildfire throughout the design community, rendering virtually all ads useless? That would be a terrible thing, and would effectively destroy many of our favorite blogs, and would negatively impact many of the very people in the community we claim to be “friends” with.
Ad Blockers Could Cause a Mini “dot com bust”
I’m in no position to intelligently analyze the dot com bubble burst or “dot com bust” of the late 90s, but if we promote an “everything should be free” industry, then we’re just setting ourselves up for something similar.
To get an idea of the type of revenue streams that we’re hindering when we use an ad blocker, go to the BuySellAds “buy ads” page and do a search for any of the top design blogs, then click on the “more details” link to view the amount of money that advertisers are willing to pay for a simple square or rectangular ad on many of these websites.
Sure, you can have a negative, selfish view of this, thinking that these sites are getting rich because of your web browsing, but that would be a terrible attitude to have. No, these advertisers are not making these website owners rich, they’re putting thousands of dollars into the design community, which is positively affecting all of us.
If we ignore the contribution these advertisers are making, we could inadvertently cause our own little bubble to burst. That’s why it really upsets me when I see design blogs promoting the use of ad blockers, and even worse when I see design bloggers writing about blogs being too ugly because of ads.
Ad Blockers Make the Web Less Real
When I worked for a big design agency here in Toronto, I almost always used Internet Explorer for my browsing. My co-workers didn’t understand why I used IE so much. Mainly I did so because I was used to it from years of using IE6. But it was also great because it gave me a realistic view of the web, because I saw things the way our clients did. What does this have to do with ad blockers?
An ad blocker reduces your ability (if only slightly) to design with your clients’ needs in mind. With ads showing through in full force, you’ll always see things the way they’re intended, and, as mentioned, you’ll be supporting the quality ads that have helped build our community.
Ad Blockers Shouldn’t Be Used (for Quality Blogs)
As a community, we should take a stand against any person or blog that promotes the use of plugins or other methods that effectively take money out of the pockets of the very people who are willing to put money into our community. I wrote this article because I saw a tweet promoting a roundup of Google Chrome extensions, one of which was an ad blocker. I found a few of the extensions useful, but I wouldn’t bother promoting the roundup myself because I don’t want to promote the use of such a plugin.
If you run a web design blog, don’t promote the use of these browser plugins, and don’t complain about the amount of ads that appear on your favorite blogs — because you probably wouldn’t even know about those blogs if they didn’t have ads on them. Instead, have a balanced view of ads on design blogs, and help support the community by using the products and services that our advertisers are selling (or in some cases, generously giving away).
Some Useful Related Links
- Chris Coyier’s Screencast “On Web Advertising”
- Ad Management Plug-Ins And Tutorials For Your Website
- Online Advertising And Its Impact On Web Design
- Successful Strategies For Selling Ad Space On Low-Traffic Websites
- The Path to Advertising Nirvana
T-bot
June 14th, 2010 12:13 pmThis is the most absurd article I’ve read on Smashing. This is very similar to something I would expect our current govt to do. How rude of me to block annoying ads that take me to spyware infested sites! Shame on me for trying to enjoy my internet experience! Its very simple really. How about YOU block surfers who have an adblocker enabled????
Louis
June 14th, 2010 5:19 pmThis article is about blocking ads on Web Design blogs, not the internet in general. Web design blogs don’t post ads that lead to spyware (unless it’s Google ads that can’t be controlled, but even those are very rare, if at all).
Tomáš Kapler
June 14th, 2010 12:21 pmI’m maybe strange, but i like advertisement. Maybe it is because i am marketing profesional, so ads are inspirational.
But I must say, tha i have probably never clicked any advertisement, my personal CTR is probably somewhere about 0.0001. I’m a bit ashamed of this fact, but I’ll probably never be able to do anything with it. Sorry content providers.
Christopher
June 14th, 2010 12:47 pmThe only ads I block are the ones my anti-virus freaks out over. Which I think is absolutely fair.
rob
June 14th, 2010 12:49 pmpeople that use ad blockers are people that won’t make a click on them if they were visible anyways.
if i turn off the adblocker i will know where the ads are and i wont mind looking at there, i just notice that they are stuff around that i really don’t care. so making my experience better me, as an user, i just prefer to remove them.
wicket warwick
June 14th, 2010 12:50 pmthe day they stop using animated, flashing ads that distract and annoy the hell out of my browsing experience i might consider disabling adblock for a selction of websites i’d like to support.
Jeremy
June 14th, 2010 12:53 pmWhen ads are no longer a conduit for malware (or the websites selling the ad space take an interest in all ads displayed on the page and ensure they’re safe) I’ll turn off my adblocker permanently. Until then, I’ll only turn it off for a few select websites.
Kumail Hunaid
June 14th, 2010 12:53 pmJust because you walk into a store, doesn’t mean you have to buy something. Just because you visit a website, doesn’t mean you have to benefit them.
I do agree however that if you regularly visit a website and if that website respectfully places adverts, it would be thoughtful if the adblocker was disabled.
In conclusion: Block all ads on the internet but if you like a site & they don’t spam you with ads, disable your adblocker only for that site.
We can stop arguing & get some work done now.
James
May 1st, 2012 3:34 pmIf you’re reading the content then you’re taking the product.
Your example actually highlights the issue, it doesn’t defend it.
Donny Davis
June 14th, 2010 1:06 pmSince I have to help people with infections that can be traced back to ads all the time, Ad Blocks will be enabled on my systems and my clients’ systems by default.
It is not just a matter of intrusive, annoying ads, but also of malicious malware.
Alex O'Neal
June 14th, 2010 2:07 pmSeems to me this is a false dichotomy. Some of the audience I design for use ad blockers, some do not; when I’m designing and testing, I do both. When I run page weight analysis, I run it both with and without ads.
I use blockers for much of my personal browsing, I don’t for most of my research, and I do both for design and testing of any given web site. Asking me to never use ad blockers, as if all of my audience were unable to use ad blockers themselves, moves my experience into a more limited area, and makes me less likely to understand the design possibilities and needs of my users.
Alex
June 14th, 2010 2:13 pmI don’t block ads. I block Flash. I’m happy to support a website by viewing a simple graphical ad, and if it’s relevant to me, I may even click-through. I don’t even care if the ads are ugly or somewhat obtrusive. If I don’t like it, I just don’t look at it. But I don’t appreciate Flash ads that spike my CPU, bringing my system to a grind.
crashfellow
June 14th, 2010 2:46 pmAd’s in general have begun to take over the web. In much the same way that our television and mail and mobile phone have become overloaded with promotions, sales, and trickery.
I understand the needs for ad’s. I agree that many websites run on this. However when a website has ad’s literered in the background, the content, the sidebar, at what point does this become ridiculous?
I will click banner ad’s if i need to purchase a product, as long as that site has informed me of it. I will purchase a blu-ray through an amazon affiliate link, if that site has promoted it to me.
But why should the experience on a site be hindered and damaged by the advertising which takes more focus and prominence then the content.
Even looking at this article on a 1680×1050 resolution, the only content i see is : Why Web Designers Should Not Use Ad Blockers (Opinion Column) and “please note” literally the rest of the screen is ad’s (in the content and sidebar) and the top navigation menu.
If anything, this view? shows exactly why people SHOULD use ad blockers, because basically there’s no article in the top fold of the page.
Louis
June 14th, 2010 5:31 pmWhat if Verizon contacted you before you posted that comment, and offered you $1000 to post a link back to their website in your comment. Would you do it? I don’t think you would hesitate even for a second. That’s the point.
As long as advertisers are willing to pay the money to advertise their services, and as long as there is a clear distinction between what is paid content and what is not, then I think it works. We can’t blame a website for accepting money to post ads in strange places, because many of us would do the same thing for the right price.
Matti
June 15th, 2010 7:23 amNo, that’s not the point. That’s not the point at all, actually, have you read anything of what crashfellow has written? (S)he’s saying that the problem is that the layout is completely crippled with ads and we can’t see anything without scrolling down, even on a large display. And what you’re comparing this to is putting a textual link in a comment… How stupid is this comparison? It would be more like “what if Verizon called you and offered you $1000 to include a script file in your comment that will make a Flash pop-up appear whenever visitors would see the comments?”. What do you think is more ideologically correct? Ruining your user’s experience (as most of the articles on SM try to help you avoid) or resigning the money?
You’re totally inconsistent: selfishness is acceptable to justify ads, but not to justify blocking them…
Louis
June 16th, 2010 7:35 pmMatt, you’re missing the point here.
The ads are what pay for the content. I’m sorry that this topic has upset you. That’s not my intention. Let’s just disagree politely. If I’m inconsistent, just point it out, and try to be nice. I’m doing my best at that, but if not, then I apologize.
My point is: Wanting free content with ZERO ads is selfish on the part of the user. The website needs to pay for the content production, and other costs, and they need to make a living in order to feed their families. That’s not selfish. That’s business.
When users use an ad blocker, they’re taking what they want and they have no intention of giving anything in return. Our community doesn’t need that kind of attitude.
crashfellow
June 17th, 2010 12:19 amFree content without ads is not selfish. It’s a desire on the part of the user to receive content, without being bombarded with ad’s.
I’ve been using the net since i was a teenager, so i’ve been around long enough to remember when not every website had ad’s on it, the most ad’s you saw were on geocities websites.
The primary thing here, is that a website viewer comes to the website to read an article not to be transformed into a banner clicker. For myself personally, when i go through Google? i refuse to click any adsense links. When i go to website’s with random banner ad’s, with an ad blocker blocker turned off i will never click on the random ad. The issue here isn’t ad blockers, the issue here is people (online ad companies/marketers) have the view that every time a person see’s a banner, they are one step away from clicking on it, that people come onto a website to click a banner.
This works fine in a marketing book? not in reality.
An issue here is that many of the ads? have absolutely no relevance to you. Many ads sell you bank offers purely based on your location… in that vain, there are websites that randomly follow you from site to site offering you the same deal, or a slightly better one.
When we talk blocking ads, this isn’t just a great price on a blu-ray, or a recommended host offer, we’re talking ads that have been designed to hound you at every turn and have little to no relevance (see facebook). For those? ad blocker on. For flash ads that take up the entire page? ad blocker on. For 10+ ads which cover an entire page? ad blocker on. Unless people stop attempting to shove ads in people’s faces? this will be a reality. Just like people throw junk mail in the bin, and fast forward ads on the tv.
Btw – i am a he lol
Sean
June 20th, 2010 12:49 amAny agreement you have with an advertiser to place ads on your website is a contract between you and the advertiser, not your site visitors. Hosting and maintaining your website – including content – are part of the costs of doing business.
If I can demonstrate through the quality of (free) content on my website that my services will fulfill the needs of potential clients, said clients will hire me. If I am dependent on advertisers to make ends meet, I need to place my focus and energy on improving my services, not how to get more visitors to view the ads on my site. Thankfully, my design work speaks for itself, thus, I have no need to desperately guilt visitors to my site to disable their adblockers.
For the record, I use adblockers, as well as script blockers, cookie blockers, incoming and outgoing firewalls, and any number of other addons and plugins that protect my privacy and help me control what enters and exits my computer via browsers or otherwise. And nobody who knows me would consider me “selfish”. (Name calling is frequently resorted to by people who have no cogent arguments to support their opinions).
James
May 1st, 2012 3:37 pmIf you don’t like the ads, then don’t visit the site.
You have absolutely no entitlement to free content. The reason that ads have become more prominent is because people are (more than ever) less willing to pay for things.
How on earth do you expect any business to be sustainable if they neither charge for a service, nor cover the cost via 3rd party income?
What kind of imaginary utopia is your brain stuck in?
James
June 14th, 2010 3:00 pmI actually enjoy ads, as long as they aren’t popping up in my face every few seconds. It’s interesting to see others creative, whether it be horrible or fantastic, and some are very unique. It’s like going to the super market and taking notice of some product packaging that really stands out and is well done or billboards that stand out form all the rest. Also, having run a site that relied on advertising, I know how it can be to try and make money this way. So, if I frequent a site on a regular basis because their content is useful I’ll click on a few ads even if I’m not remotely interested in them, just to help them make a few bucks.
Mohammed sudif
June 14th, 2010 3:01 pmActually a lot of times ads could be a source of inspiration or sometimes a useful ad could lead you to the product or service you are looking for, but I’m totally against tasteless ads please if you are a web designer give the guys your opinion on the ad and how people might get the wrong idea if you made your ad improper.
PGabor
June 14th, 2010 3:04 pmThe article is just wrong. Using an adblocker has nothing to do with one’s occupation. Yes, I use it permanently, it is a self-defence. 99% of those Flash ads are nothing more than visual pollution. I turn them off with an adblocker plugin just like I’m hitting the Mute button on my remote control immediately when a screaming commercial block starts on tv. I don’t agree that designers or developers have to suffer these ads’ negative effect just because we have web-related jobs.
I happen to know a few people able to create great Flash designs. To make some extra income every once in a while they do ads on the side. More than once I asked them why those Flash banners were so obtrusive, annoyingly ugly, and eye-hurting. All of them gave me the same answer: to meet their visually uneducated clients’ expectations. Since the ad creation pays much less than building whole sites, the designers don’t waste their time trying to educate their clients. They do the job, take the money, and browse the internet with their adblocker switched on too.
This situation won’t change with a “let’s take the **** because it’s fair” grassroots movement. When the people who are responsible for the visual pollution change their practice, the visitors might change their habits too.
Giorgo Paizanis
June 14th, 2010 3:39 pmFirst, I’d like to congratulate you on creating an article that provoked so many comments. I originally intended to read all of them before posting my opinion but the list just kept going and after about half way, I had to just skip to the end and post…
Annoying ads bother me just as much as the next guy, but I appreciate the fact that I can pay for quality content with my attention instead of actual dollars. And that is exactly what we are doing. If you don’t want to pay directly for content through membership, then be prepared to sift through some ads.
On the other hand, if I was an advertiser I wouldn’t want to include in my web analytics people who willingly install software on their computer just to avoid an ad or two. Just take them out of the mix and let me track what might actually result in clicks (or sales).
Still, I think that it is a little selfish to use software to view websites without ads while those sites are providing quality, free content based on their ability to take in ad revenue. That is sort of like using pirated software or music because “it should be free anyway.” Why should it be free. Someone has to spend time and effort and if they provide good value then they should be able to make a living and continue to do the service. It’s even more messed up to deny these benefits to design / tutorial blogs because they are probably helping you make money for your own business.
So, if you are an advocate of ad-blocker software, then you should also advocate for membership based – ad free – websites. Otherwise you are just manipulating the system and being selfish.
Louis
June 14th, 2010 5:36 pmGood comment, Giorgo. To add to what you’ve said… Content on web design blogs should not be free unless haircuts, apartment rentals, sandwiches, and automobiles all become free. If there’s no balance, the economy suffers.
Tim
June 14th, 2010 7:44 pmWell, then why not start charging a fee and see what happens to your blog? My bet is you will see a dramatic decrease in visitors and you will make MUCH less money than if you allow everyone to visit your site with ad blockers enabled.
Donald
June 14th, 2010 3:53 pmWhat a load of rubbish. Do you think I want to be reminded of what I do for a living when I am not at work? Especially when the majority is both not relevant or inspiring. If I want inspiration I come to places like SM – or – Do the research into related material myself. I don’t need some screaming $2 ad to cloud my judgment of the “latest trends”. If I want to buy something, again, I will research the best buy – for me.
The whole point of a personal computer is to create a personal experience including in the online space. I watch shows on line to escape TVC’s… because I want to.
Paul
June 14th, 2010 4:07 pmSince the piracy argument has been made and many people argue that they wouldn’t bother paying for music, but they’d certainly download it for free, you should ask the question “Do users find my content valuable enough to have to tolerate advertisements?” If the answer is no, even for those who insist on adblocking, you then have to ask yourself if the potential exposure is worth the cost of bandwidth, etc.
Then, of course, you have to consider the additional exposure those users may be creating for your site through sending friends links, “liking” articles on social networks, etc. Even if they’re using adblocking, there’s additional potential revenue they may be making you, even if it isn’t as “direct” as viewing advertisements.
Ryan
June 14th, 2010 4:47 pmMy biggest issue with ads is that the more we try to block them, the more intrusive they are becoming. You can’t watch a video clip anymore without having to sit through a 30-60 second advertisement. Sometimes they even disable sound options on these ads so you can’t even turn them down or mute them without shutting off your speakers entirely.
If continuing to ad-block means we are just going to keep having the ads forced down our throats in more and more intrusive ways then I would be all for going back to the ‘old days’ where you could simply ignore the flashing ad on the side of the pages.
Ideally I think a compromise is in order between the consumers and the advertisers, but ultimately it’s the kind of thing that the market will have to work out itself. If enough people get upset with crazy ads which jump through hoops to get to us, they will stop supporting the sites that run those ads.
I do understand that ads are a necessary part of the equation, but the advertisers are going to push their luck too far if they’re not careful. The business model has to change.
typical
June 14th, 2010 4:51 pmi use a flash blocker wherever i go tho.
Casey
June 14th, 2010 4:53 pmTo me it sounds like you guys are clinging for dear life to banner ads. They are going away and you should come up with another way to support your business. You shouldn’t rely on convincing your visitors to not block your ads. Ad-blockers are not selfish, expecting your customers to do something they don’t want to get to your content is selfish. Figure out a new way to monetize your content and lets all move forward.
Louis
June 14th, 2010 5:38 pmThis article is not written by Smashing Magazine. I wrote it, and I came up with the idea. They had no influence on the content of it, so it has nothing to do with whether or not they are “clinging” to their banner ad revenue.
Stuart
June 14th, 2010 5:30 pmI dont generally post but this article has piqued my interest simply for the amount of varied comments.
The biggest downfall for pretty much all web-vertising is the hosting of these adserververs, I’ve bailed countless times on sites where “g1.abig.adserver.com” stalls killing the rest of the page loading – 9/10 the rest of the page is what I’m interested in. Google invest mega $$ in their infrastructure to meet demand and to supply a seamless experience, yet ad companies dont seem to be following the same process producing an often annoying and nearly always fractured experience.
I’d like to hear why these “blog” sites would die without adverts ? Like starting any business – if the it’s going to cost you more than you can afford to run it then you must re-think what you want to achieve or reduce your expectations.
From the master Seth Goldin: Finding new ways, more clever ways to interrupt people doesn’t work.
jb510
June 14th, 2010 5:52 pmOne of the things I loved about the web when I first came to it… a long long time ago… was the wonderful LACK of advertising compared to other mediums. I passed the point of tolerating the ads a long time ago. I don’t run an ad blocker, I have briefly in the past but now I just run a flash blocker which incidentally blocks some ads too. However the flash blocker IMHO just makes flash work the way I always thought it should have, ie click to flash.
Call me an anarchist but I think people are free to block ads, just as content owners are free to adopt alternative distribution models (pay walls) if they feel that would serve them better. Personally I look forward to paying for higher quality content and seeing fewer ads.
Jarrod
June 14th, 2010 6:46 pmThere is a profound amount of asshattery in this article. First, only web design blogs deserve to not be blocked?! What kind of logic does that follow? If I visit an automotive site, is it okay to block ads there as long as I don’t drive a car? Second, if ads were of high quality and targeted, and not so overly plentiful, as seen above and to the right, maybe blockers wouldn’t be used. See the oft mentioned Fusion ads as the perfect example. Midol doesn’t advertise during football games. The reason? It’s not their target market. If you just throwing up any ad because someone is willing to give you money, your visitors are free to skip/block them.
destiya dian
June 14th, 2010 7:13 pmPersonally, I prefer to see ads than to pay for the content. as long as the ads don’t disturb me to read the content..
And I think, most of design blogs use responsible ads..
Nick Yeoman
June 14th, 2010 7:26 pmI do all my development on a machine with an ad blocker. I do all my testing on a separate machine without an ad blocker.
The only reason this would be an issue is if you don’t have your testing procedures in place. Get VMware it will save you tons of time.
badpixel
June 14th, 2010 7:29 pmThe problem is the non creation of intelligent targeted ads.People, the truth is that not a lot of work is put in to developing real ads.Intelligent ads and new non stressfull methods of involving the user/targeted person.
It’s quite normal for a design person to reject poor quality advertising.We are talking about not your usual user.Come on,show some respect.!!
The “click and put up with tons of it” just for the site to “survive” is no longer a strategy.Not for this area.
Saying u are a bad bad person for using an ad blocker is just childish.
This is not the answer teamsmash!
Maybe you should engage the community in finding new, smart, efficient ways to advertise.Ways that are not so stressfull.Here, i think, is the real answer.
Letting a design person know that this is the solution and this is what he/she should do is at least narrow minded.
A more creative approach to this problem is actually what this article should do.
A lot of this kind of articles recently.
Too aggressive for me.This “give me more for the content” approach is not a good sign.
I belive that this is just a masked questionnaire
Cheers
Tim
June 14th, 2010 7:34 pmIf someone can write an ad blocker, it would be just as easy to write something that not only blocks the ads but creates a “fake click” on each one, so that the websites you frequent can get the money for click-throughs, while the visitor is not annoyed by a bunch of stupid ads. Somebody should get to work on that so that the Internet doesn’t disappear soon ;)
Ad blockers in browsers are not doing anything to increase OR decrease your sales. You can have 1 big ad on your site or 15 small ads or whatever. If people see them but don’t click on any it doesn’t make you money. It is generally only when visitors actually click on the ad that you get the revenue from it. That is, unless you charge the advertiser ahead of time, which means you’ve already made the money and it doesn’t matter.
How many people do a search in Google and click on the results that come in the the first yellow box at the top of the results page? I know I never do. Why? Because they are paid search advertisements. They may offer something relevant, but chances are I’m going to find better sites content-wise in the organic search results.
Similarly, if I’m watching tv and a commercial comes on, yes I’ve seen it, but that is not going to make me go out and buy whatever product or service it was advertising. All advertisers are taking a chance by paying for advertising. There are no guarantees.
If a blogger thinks that he/she is offering a valuable service to the community they can always put a little paypal donate button on the blog. No guarantees there either, but I know I’ve donated to places like NeoOffice and Cyberduck because they are offering a valuable service (and product).
Cuddles
June 14th, 2010 8:50 pmDesigners should spend less time complaining about ad blockers, and more time designing ads or a way of delivering ads that is no where near as intrusive as they’ve become. Sure they serve a purpose, but they also completely distract the user from the content. There was a time when an ad what as a small white google box off to the side with a few google links in it… or even at the bottom of the page for a user to look at afterwards. You noticed them but they weren’t distracting, and occasionally they had relevant content too. If people want me to stop using an ad blocker, they can start by improving the browsing experience so I don’t feel like i’m visiting their site to view advertisements.
O'Ryan
June 14th, 2010 9:11 pmYea of course i use ad blockers. should i not use a pop up blocker as well because it could contain an ad?
I only block specific ad sites. and i do so because i find their ads to be very invasive/abrasive to my browsing experience.
if your giving me a flash ad with 3D content and all kinds of fancy effects and my CPU is pegged at 100% because of your 72×900 ad… your blocked.
but if you give me a noninvasive nicely designed ad that is relevant to my needs… then heck i may even click it.
Martin Chaov
June 14th, 2010 9:11 pmAds are not bat, sometimes I like just watching a nicely done advert, or just a beautiful banner.
Zeebrugse Zot
June 14th, 2010 9:31 pmNice try, but my blocker is here to stay.
I wouldn’t mind paying a reasonable fee to visit a quality website as Smashing tho.
nate
June 14th, 2010 9:56 pmIf nothing else, this article has given me even more reason to switch to Firefox just so I can get a better adblocker. I am fed up with crappy unskilled in your face advertising crap that destroys the browsing experience every good designer tries to build into the site. I also sincerely hope that by using adblock and encouraging everyone I know to use it that we can drive out these worthless spam sites that have a million keywords and 3 line articles and scraped top 10 lists. they waste my time and clutter up Google, and destroy the web experience. I think I’m going to deliberately visit Louis website with FF/adblock just so he has another excuse to complain about something he should be smart enough to figure out a better alternative.
ron
June 14th, 2010 10:13 pmjust now realized that I use a pop up blocker by default and its great because i don’t think about it …
but,
“Designers should spend less time complaining about ad blockers, and more time designing ads or a way of delivering ads that is no where near as intrusive as they’ve become.”
this logic doesn’t work
I think if all ads are blocked then ad’s will become more integrated into blogs to the point where you would just have to block all images and then we are back to the days when i was in 6ths grade and we would turn off images so we could surf the web faster….
cortex
June 14th, 2010 10:15 pmone of the worst articles on smashing for years. you shouldn’t give someone a forum who is looking for somebody to dupe and who is “raising his voice” to spread poorly researched and biased information.
cx
ptarmigan
June 14th, 2010 10:38 pmto refer to the actual cartoon: worst post ever :P
Niubi
June 14th, 2010 11:14 pmNot all sites need adverts – just check out DubLi. FWIW, I don’t really use an ad blocker, I just ignore them. I do, however, have a pop-up blocker since they drive me CRAZY.
Keith
June 14th, 2010 11:16 pmI use an ad blocker to protect my computer from malicious sites. I am a beginning designer and support my own site. Not all users have an ad blocker. I think we are all being a little self-righteous. (some click, some don’t, im happy for the visit).
What if the government or other regulating entities make the same claim and justification for not using/using their products or services, would you be so quick to gripe about it.
Thats the wonderful thing about the internet, it should be free of choice and of charge.
Some sites like msnbc have developed a Flash Player that wont work if you use an ad blocker.(im thinking of changing brands) i don’t need anybody forcing me to use a product because it interferes with their profitability(Apple), and i use a Mac :-)
Then internet is to big to start pushing people around and limiting their freedoms.
Lets wait a few years and we will all be restricted in our use of the internet if this type of thinking prevails.
Shadow
June 14th, 2010 11:31 pmFunny… msnbc works great for me! I use Firefox with Adblock and the adblocking hosts file from “someonewhocares.org/hosts” (great file, love it). I haven’t felt the need to use greasemonkey yet.
Frankly, if you are someone who occasionally clicks on the ads then fine. But personally, I have never clicked on an ad. They are always obtrusive to me. When I want something, I search for it (ever heard of google?)… Then I check the reviews… Then I go to the site (and behold, the only time I will click on an ad).
If ads work for you, great! Don’t block ‘em… But as for me, I will always block them. And if a site won’t let me use it with adblocking, then I’ll just never use the site. And if it’s a crazy enough site that I need to use it, I’ll install greasemonkey, and block the ads that way.
Keith
June 14th, 2010 11:22 pmI almost forgot i also use anti-virus, a firewall and no script. should i stop using these also?
Shadow
June 14th, 2010 11:33 pmYes, noscript and flashblock are also both requirements for any system that I setup or use!
Adam Eivy
June 15th, 2010 12:03 amI started posting a comment and then found I had a lot more to say on the subject of ad blocking and why, as a Web Developer, I think it’s a good thing: http://intellectualpirates.net/ad-blockers-making-the-internet-better/
Caspar Hübinger
June 15th, 2010 12:28 amLouis, thanks for the article. It really got me thinking.
I’m a freelance webdesigner and my clients are mostly other freelancers and small businesses. I’m not much into the “big design scene”, so to speak.
I have been using an adblocker ever since I ran into one for Firefox. Never have I wasted a thought on the potential usefulness of actually noticing ads on websites. I do now, and I will configure the plugin more carefully, because you hit on a simple truth I just hadn’t applied to the very topic so far: “nothing is truly free” – and I’d add: nor does it need to be as long as every human being has the potential to create.
Thanks again.
foljs
June 15th, 2010 12:39 amIf adblockers were illegal, I wouldn’t surf the Web
I call BS.
Also: if adblockers were ubiquitous, there would be 80% less web. And it wouldn’t be only the bad blogs and sites dissapearing. Stuff like smashingmagazine or Daring Fireball would be out of the question too.
Hell, imagine a popular adblocker add-on with wide browser penetration that could also block text based Google ads…. Even Google, could fall.
I would be happy to pay for content I like, with a micropayment scheme, so I can say, pay $1 per month on my favorite blog or $2-5 dollars per month for content-heavy sites like smashingmagazine. I would have like a $20 web-content bill per month and much better quality content. But that has to be as effortless as breathing (like buying a song from iTunes sorta is).
Jonathan
June 15th, 2010 1:06 amAs with any topic there are always (at least) 2 sides, and this is simply a rehash of an argument that’s been brought up a number of times earlier in the year [http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars]
I’d just like to weigh in with a few points/opinions of my own:
1. Not all people who block ads do so intentionally, or even want to – I use the NoScript plugin which, by blocking JS by default will stop BuySellAds & co’s ad serving code in its tracks.
In some cases I enable JS for the site I’m viewing, so the ads appear, but you can’t expect people who browse hundreds of sites a day to set up and maintain a whitelist.
So I’m not being ‘me first’ with regards to ads, I’m simply looking out for my own security on the web first and foremost.
Perhaps Smashing & co. should make available a NoScript whitelist file for the sites in its Network?
2. I agree that in many cases ads don’t have the same problems as those of old – they’re now small, static images (usually 125×125) – but they’re still being implemented in ways which are annoying to readers. Some sites have added so many ads to their sidebars (and main content areas!) that in manycases useful content such as category lists etc. are pushed hundreds, if not thousands of pixels down the page.
And depending on the design of the site the ads may jump so far out of the page (as they are designed to do) that every single time you view a page your attention is distracted – not for long I’ll grant you, but it can still be very annoying.
3. As for whether the design community would exist without ads on blogs I have 2 things to say:
a) Blogs existed for a long time (and still do) without ads, and did quite well, because the individuals writing them did so purely for the fun of it.
Monetisation of blogs is not a pre-requisite for a community or network of sites. I’ve not got a problem with good blogs making money for their effort but…
b) …something that’s always concerned me is the possibility that the desire for revenue will overtake the desire for simply publishing good content, and I think this can be seen all over the place, including on this network.
Sites that started off with 2/4/6 ads in their sidebars now have 10+, plus banner, in-content, and header/footer ads all over the place, actively in the way of the very content which made them popular.
And more and more they’re publishing blatent filler or link/comment-bait posts in order to increase links and impressions – which makes them more attractive to advertisers – and sacrificing quality in the process.
4. Ads blockers won’t destroy the blog advertising business, but even if they do so what? I just means that your business model doesn’t work – find a new one.
Premium content, subscriptions, ebooks, conference speaking – people will ALWAYS want something for nothing, but there will always be ways to make money from your ‘free’ content.
James
May 1st, 2012 3:39 pmIf you’re blocking javascript then you’re missing out on a whole lot more than just ads. I find it hard to believe you have any kind of usable experience on the internet without JS tbh.
Who blocks JS anymore anyway? What is this 1995? What imaginary security risk do you think that JS poses?
Maybe you’re thinking of Java?
Sanchit Thakur
June 15th, 2010 1:34 amLouis I second that.
If our clients on Web won’t make money, who will suffer in all this?
eman
June 15th, 2010 1:41 amIf content is multi-paged-2-liner with 10-liner ads on each page, my ad-blocker goes to work …
Be reasonable and keep a good content to ad ratio on the page and you will see how people support …
Saud Khan
June 15th, 2010 1:55 amFirst of all I think, opinion columns on SM is a great feature. This particular piece by Louis may have provoked users because of “Me-First” label; but it resulted in discussion that also raises some important points for design blog owners.
I agree with Louis that ads are necessary for large number of design blogs to survive. But, designers do have to share some responsibility. I think most website owners (specially belonging to web design community) need to pay more attention to quantity, type, placement and relevance of ads in their website.
Although I have never used any ad-blocker, I believe their existence is fully justified and I will not support any campaign to ban them. However, I would like to see blocking ads on per site basis instead of providing a universal switch to ban ads on all websites. Per site blocking will force publishers to pay more attention to quantity, type, placement and relevance of ads in their website – otherwise I believe even uglier form of in content advertisement spreading all over.
Matt
June 15th, 2010 3:11 amI only disable certain types of ads. Normally when I visit design web blogs I’m at work, and at one point a certain provocative ad for some online game called envoy I think was doing the rounds. Clearly NSFW but the stupid ads were everywhere. Also there have been times where an ad will pop up covering the content, and now matter how many times I click to close the stupid thing stays open. Only remedy is the ad blocker.
So I mainly use ad blockers on a need to basis.
Evan
June 15th, 2010 3:33 amI spend quite enough of my attention on advertising. Involuntarily.
Anything I can do to take back some of that, I’m going to do.
mark
June 15th, 2010 4:57 amWait a minute… I am in my home, on my free time, and I should stop and worry about the economics of all the websites I surf and block the ads?
Can I call the company reps at home with questions on the service/product? Could I have their I.P address in case I want to check up on them? Nah, it is my time, not corporate ‘sell time’ on a TV channel. Web commerce is doing fine and will continue to do fine without users worrying about each ad they block starting some Vietnam War-type domino effect toppling the entire web.
This article basically is also a ‘me first’ plea from someone who thinks they have something to lose if you block too many ads. If you are going to argue the point for not blocking ads on the grounds of commerce, you can argue that in capitalism, the choice to turn off the ads is the market speaking to you and your system of ads. Maybe it is a model that just isn’t meant to work, long term.
If that worries you, the fact that @80% of people polled do not like be targeted by ads based on personal info. It is likely to see some sort of legislated ‘no target’ list, similar to the ‘no call’ list for telemarketing.
James
May 1st, 2012 3:43 pmIt’s up to you what content you consume. But if you don;t like their payment method, then stay off the site.
No one is forcing you to be here; you want to consume the content, and the cost of that consumption is ad exposure. Don’t like it? Then get lost.
Same goes for Facebook haters. I dislike their terms of use, so I don’t use Facebook. But the number of people that shout and scream about how horrible they are and continue to use their fee-less services, the irony is astounding.
Why are you entitled to have whatever you like?
Michael Tefft
June 15th, 2010 5:23 amI use an ad blocker all the time. Too many sites have so many ads that it significantly adds to the load time and detracts from the readability of the site. I don’t see how using an ad blocker makes someone a selfish person. Unless I am mistaken (it wouldn’t be the first time), you only make money on ads if someone clicks on the ad. I don’t visit web sites to shop, (unless it is a site I specifically go to to shop) so I never click on ads that appear on web sites. When web sites start to limit the ads on their pages to a level that is not absurd, I may stop using ad blockers. But until that happens I will continue to use an ad blocker and feel no guilt.
James
May 1st, 2012 3:47 pmDepends on the site. PPC is one of many models of online advertising; sometimes it’s exposure, visitor count, conversion etc. etc.
My favourite news site sells advertising based on hits. So a significant number of blocked ads would impact their income – and the thought of losing that news source because of people like you infuriates me.
I also never click on the ads. But that’s for the advertisers to worry about, not the content creators.
Tonijn
June 15th, 2010 5:32 amThis is total bull****.
You’re saying a Dentist better not brush his own teeth, a Doctor needs to keep on smoking and a Farmer shouldn’t be a vegetarian.
–
Ads suck. They are not effective. Users hate them. But why then do we still use them? Because companies are afraid to switch over to different businessmodels.
Giorgo Paizanis
June 16th, 2010 10:15 amThat logic made no sense at all. Some ads are effective otherwise companies wouldn’t spend money on them. I’ve discovered a few products (even though it’s rare) through banners.
However the ads are too abundant and that decreases the effectiveness and frustrates everyone. Publishers should just keep the ads minimal, be highly selective, and charge more to the individual advertisers instead of trying to make money on the next ad.
Quality over quantity would make things better for everyone.
James
May 1st, 2012 3:48 pmAre you drunk or just stupid?
Zai
June 15th, 2010 6:34 amI use Adblock Plus https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865/
but allow ads from certain sites like smashingmag.
Ruth
June 15th, 2010 6:48 amLabeling an article as an opinion should be placed in a blog category. As far as I know smashing magazine is a site that shares insights and inspiration. However, this article has “smear campaign” written all over it. It points out a call to action, which is to stop using ad blockers. And it sounds like a PR statement.
I’m not saying that the article is bad. All I’m saying is that your argument is construed because you are using the ends to justify the means. The ends being the ads, to which we all know wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the countless internet users and their contents shared across the globe.
The design blogging community wouldn’t be here without their passion to create and showcase their work. The design blogging community wouldn’t be here if they didn’t continuously post quality content to attract an array of internet users.
Remember the time when you were willing to pay for your own website? Remember the time when you believed you had enough ideologies you could change the world? Well apparently, like all yuppies’ sob story, some people are corrupted by the money driven corporate world.
James
May 1st, 2012 3:51 pmWanting to put a roof over your head and pay your bills isn’t being a yuppy. It’s being sensible.
The cost of the content isn’t your choice, it;s the content creators choice. If you don’t like that cost, then don’t consume it.
I assume we won’t be seeing you again?
Ron
June 15th, 2010 7:55 amThink of it like this,
instead of me paying for the content on the site, or a download pdf or what ever people keep saying would make money in place of ads, the adverting company is paying my fee!!
what is bad about that?
If I had to choose between paying for content on websites or seeing ads, if that was the really choice (which people keep suggesting) I would choose to see ads, and until people pay for all there content I don’t believe for a second that people would opt to pay for every blog they read.
Instead online what we keep seeing is very time people work hard to create paid content, users start pirating.
by looking at ads, we pay with our eyes and another company with real money pays with dollars, I would rather keep paying with my eyes.
DEAR SMASHING,
You could test people by having a paid membership where the ads go away when you sign up. doubt many would sign up but it would be interesting.
Paul
June 15th, 2010 8:10 amThat’s the test for how valuable users perceive content. If you force advertisements and prevent ad blocking users from viewing the site and it severely affects your traffic, your content has been perceived by many as not worth viewing if they HAVE to view ads. If you adopt a subscription model and it severely affects traffic, your content has been perceived as not worth paying for. At that point, it’s time to consider the possibility that the service you’re providing is not worth more than a 100% free view by most. If your goal is to make money, logic would dictate that you should reconsider what content you plan to provide, or if running your own blog is even a viable business decision. The internet is expanding exponentially, so obviously there are going to be an exponentially increasing number of failing blogs and websites where 5-10 years ago they might have been more successful due to the limitation of content available online.
Stop acting like you’re entitled to anything other than a chance in the market with an idea and a business plan. If you fail you have no one to blame but yourself.
Ron
June 15th, 2010 3:46 pmI am not saying i am entitled to anything i am just point out that maybe the current business model is not so bad… because i don’t have to pay for content.
Allie
June 15th, 2010 8:27 amOne thing successful blogs do is tell a company they would like to do a review on their product, or mention that they like a product and they would give it a review on their blog, which has such and such traffic and so many hits a day. They then say to the company- “if you want me to do this, pay me X amount of dollars for the review.” The company either says yes or no. That’s a way to make money, and a way for people to get a review on a product from someone they ‘trust’.
The internet is so vast and huge, that the usual rules of capitalism are different since websites and content you can view on the web has not yet been judged to hold monetary value. I’m not speaking of buying website space or products sold, but the actual viewing of content.
James
May 1st, 2012 3:53 pmI’d much rather read ad supported content, than biased content paid for directly by advertisers.
It’s odd that you think that would be MORE and not less savoury.
Paul
June 15th, 2010 7:55 amYou’re trying to make customers conform to a business model rather than the other way around. Your business model should reflect that of your customer/user base, so if 80% of your users value not viewing advertisements you need to consider whether your user base is even a group work targeting for revenue, and if they are, how much they’d spend in order to view your content if you adopted a subscription model. It’s really simple, people! There’s a reason why iTunes is so wildly successful but major record labels/distributors who choose not to work with iTunes/digital distribution companies have been suffering financially. One was willing to adopt a new business model to mirror their potential customers, while the other is still trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Additionally, maybe you should consider _multiple_ streams of revenue to supplement potential losses from ad blocking software (assuming those are actually losses). Many sites have adopted a hybrid advertisement + premium model, where advertisements are displayed for non-subscribing members, and premium content is provided for subscribers. This is also a great indicator for how much time you should spend on your free content vs. subscriber content based on how much you make from each group. There are so many ways to take control of your own web blog/business without blaming others. Don’t be lazy.
Jon
June 15th, 2010 3:09 pmamen
Ron
June 15th, 2010 3:55 pmI would like to point out the iTunes is a big company taking business from other big companys and in this case the artist are still screwed. It doesn’t change the fact that the music industry is still messed up where the artist just gets whats left over.. so i think music is not the model we should follow.
You are right the model will change, and most likely it will continue to be a complex mix of different types of profit creations. But as some point with all business the money will be coming from users
Tim
June 15th, 2010 6:43 pmiTunes is GIVING money to record labels and artists that would otherwise receive nothing because people would download the music using bittorrent. Where have you been living?
Ron
June 16th, 2010 8:02 amI have been living knowing people who have record deals, your right in a way they are making something instead of nothing.
What I am saying is that yes the artist is now making .09 cents on the dollar for a song instead of nothing, but that’s still a crap system because the content creator (the artist) gets the very short end of the stick, I pray this doesn’t happen to the blogging industry.
Tho i am not saying ad blocking would cause this, but i am saying don’t look at the music industry as a good example
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/
Allie
June 15th, 2010 8:20 amYes, I have a me first attitude. Anyone else found their computers over-run with viruses and having to re-install their operating system because of ads? (and I am talking about high traffic, popular sites where you would not expect foul play)
Now I have super beefy protection, but when I find a blog/website I like and then find I have to run a sweep or scan after visiting it, I’ll just give up on the site and not go back, thus, hurting that particular site even more. So I need ad blocker. It helps load the content faster, it protects my computer, and Like other comments I’ve seen, until they make it so ads are actually aesthetically matching the site, they harm the design of the site.
Nicolas
June 15th, 2010 9:09 amUnbelievable article… of the morals of displaying ads…
If people hide them, maybe there is a reason for that don’t you think. Maybe they are bothered..
I think that instead of preaching for the annoyance, you should spend time trying to think of a better business model.
But at least it creates the debate! :)
Colin
June 15th, 2010 10:00 amWow hot topic, 315 (316 now) comments!!
With more than 50% of you saying you block ads, you are basically saying that if this site was to go down that you wouldn’t care !
A couple months ago Smashing Magazine was begging us to ‘give them money’ and to click their ads so they can keep giving us FREE content!!!
Ads are part of life, some jingles make you buy stuff, and the next person go crazy and googly eyed.
We are hit with more ads than you can block. Accept it, it’s the web.
Now SPAM!!! There is something we should all work on getting rid of together !!
Ron
June 15th, 2010 3:49 pmGreat point we should draw a line between ads and spam… the questions is how. I think there has been a lot of ad blocking do to fear of virus and tricky ads, or take over ads, this should be stopped, but ads in a sidebar, that doesn’t seem so bad
Giorgo Paizanis
June 16th, 2010 10:24 amI agree totally, but let’s kick it up a notch. Publishers should also be selective about the ads they choose to allow. Ads should be relevant and have the potential to be useful to the reader. Also the ad design should compliment the blog design. Magazines already do this, but some blogs haven’t quite figured it out. For example, you won’t see cheesy 2.99 deals with large colorful starbursts in high end magazines. Not only would that be out of place, the editors of the publication wouldn’t allow it.
Ron
June 16th, 2010 10:43 pmI think your on to something here, I have read financial blogs where they are very careful about the ads they show because they don’t want to encourage bad loans or investments.
its easy to make the connection because its seems like money, here in the design world its the same, ads on this site make me think or its lagit because its on smashing thats part of the power,
so smashing responsibility maybe to make sure i am not getting ripped off by there ad, which i am guessing they do
Jeff
June 15th, 2010 10:03 amWouldn’t it be great if all articles on this site didn’t start off with an ad. If you are running a site as a sole stream of revenue, then I get that certain sites need the ads, and that’s fine, but do us all a favor and keep the ads out of the content. By placing ads in the content you are just giving the reads the middle finger in a sense.
mj
June 15th, 2010 10:21 amShame, but until lot of web authors are including viruses, spywares and other bugs into pages, I won’t turn off my NoScript.
I am not using AD blocks, but NoScript removes them almost all, mainly because they are almost everytime served using JavaScript.
I do understand your opinion, but the treat is too high.
Peacce
Giorgo Paizanis
June 16th, 2010 10:28 amI see nothing wrong with this because it is just protecting your computer. Advertisors need to work harder to ensure safe delivery of ads if they want to break through. That’s really a different story.
Mark C
June 15th, 2010 10:26 amWhile I don’t use adblockers directly, I do use and recommend the free Readability bookmarklet ( http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/ ). You use it on a page-by-page basis, and it’s a good compromise for articles you’d like to read but popup landmines and intrusive ads keep getting in the way.
justintime
June 15th, 2010 12:52 pmcoming from a site that sells 1/3 of its canvas. nice.
Rudy Sanchez
June 15th, 2010 1:02 pmI use an ad-blocker, I have ever since I’ve been able to do so. The web evolves, technology moves forward.
Now, as far as this whole “we need to support the community,” are these same people buying newspapers and skewing craigslist and google news?
I love Smashing, and when the opportunity came to support them (like buying their book) I did so. Everybody needs to adapt and change to technology. Lots of people write and publish online as an ancillary to their primary business, and if we really want to support them, let’s support their businesses and keep them profitable so they can continue to devote part of their day online.
bc
June 15th, 2010 1:48 pmUntil advertising companies guarantee that all of the syndicated ads they run will never contain malware, trojans, cross-site scripting and so forth, I will ALWAYS run ad blocking software.
Given how common these kind of attacks have become, and given that they have originated from “legitimate” web advertising firms, allowing ads is not even an option.
Really, I’m surprised at the naivete expressed in this article. My IT security contacts almost require this for everyone in my organization.
redwall_hp
June 15th, 2010 4:58 pmBuySellAds, The Deck, Fusion Ads, etc. They don’t run any Flash ads. They’re just plain image files. You can’t get malware through there.
Jon
June 15th, 2010 2:30 pmSo I cant ignore the tv commercials because that may kill tv??? P2P is killing music??? Come on, this is a very ignorant post, very selfish, you want money from you ads, thats all. Shame on you!!!!
Giorgo Paizanis
June 16th, 2010 10:30 amTiVo is an example of what happens to tv when ads are bypassed. It did effect the number of advertisers and subsequently the quality of content.
Jon
June 15th, 2010 3:06 pmOne more thing, this is a web design oriented website and the ads offer free design websites… ¿WTF?
Giorgo Paizanis
June 16th, 2010 10:36 amI do agree with you on this though. They should be more selective with the ads. I don’t mind seeing an ad for some plugin I might use, but not for something that ultimately puts web designers (the main audience here) out of business by automating what really should be done by a trained professional.
Ron
June 15th, 2010 4:00 pmI am guessing the title was intended to create some buzz, but maybe it would better read Why using ad blockers my hurt the blogging community…
This is not so much about the web designer but the business model.
If my client wants to to create ad space great ill do it, if they want me to build a membership site with paid content, well i’m a hired gun.
so kind of a weird call to arms, seem there is a lot of harness here (me included i am guessing) but it would be good to conversation about, to see what the new world of only profit looks like and who web designers can stay live in it. — anyway hot topic
Matt
June 15th, 2010 6:10 pmLove how Smashing Magazine has an article to not do something they are doing themselves :D
Tim
June 15th, 2010 6:47 pmThere is a reason why AdBlocker is one of the most popular browser plugins for Firefox and Chrome.
PGabor
June 15th, 2010 7:05 pmSimply put: it’s not the trail pulling the airplane but the other way around.
bruceleevscheese
June 15th, 2010 8:56 pmKudos for a hot debate topic! Nice article. I find myself agreeing and disagreeing. Yes to advertising. No to aggressive begging.
Negative reinforcement advertising – having to enter your email address to subscribe to the newsletter before viewing the content, animated slide-ins, even huge blocks of color that take up a third of the page and slow loading time – all “tricks” to “lead the eye” and force attention – this is actually a kind of bait-and-switch for someone who was drawn by your content. Guess what? If it’s on the page, some of us might scan it for that reason alone. Personally I’ve gotten pretty good at ignoring any and all animations – but if it’s an auto-play video, they get the axe.
It’s not enough that you got another unique visitor? Just by clicking on your link the reader has provided you value. Be happy with that.
Content first, ads second, my opinion. On sites where the ads are first, I for one close the tab and look on one of google’s other million pages on the topic. If I want their newsletter I’ll *look* for the button (and I should find it). Chances are? I DON”T WANT THEIR DAILY SPAM. As analytics gets more recognized mainstream people will realize that numbers lie, and membership mortality is pretty rampant. You want engaged customers, not annoyed passersby.
I think this not so much threatens the development community as it does forces the marketing community to recognize that (some) people are not Pavlovian sheep. Step up your own game.
Why are the superbowl ads so successful? It’s not the captive audience. It’s the genuine connection and engagement, in this case, via high-production value storytelling. Ask not what the customers can do for your ad, ask what your ad can do for your customers.
Gregor
June 15th, 2010 11:32 pmLOL.. nice try.. But no, I won’t throw away my beloved AdBlocker. I want my internet to be ad-free.. Advertising is evil..
Norman
June 16th, 2010 5:54 amLets face it – there’s FAR too much junk on the internet as it is – probably 80-90% of it is copied or is just plain useless.
So if by using an Adblocker it leads to the demise of most of this junk because they can’t afford to pay for their blogs/websites/junk then so be it…
Oh and the sort of people who would install an Adblocker would most likely never click on an ad in the first place!
Tiago Sá
June 16th, 2010 6:40 amNothing is free? What about open source software that you can modify and use at will? How about free and open technology in the web and outside it? What about my Firefox which I can use and modify and redistribute as I WANT, and if I want (and I’m legally entitled to) Mozilla will never see a penny from their advertising connections? This is just an example.
Web advertising is a good idea. It’s a fundamentally good idea that is now, as of today, rotten to hell and back. Web adverts are not only a source of viruses and spyware, but they are also an annoyance because they blink and they make sounds and they steal your focus and they steal your clicks and they are bad. That’s it. I block my ads because they’re all annoying and I don’t care about them in the slightest. If you want me to buy your sh!t, pay for something I like. Like Red Bull and their F1 team and Rally team and Planes and whatnot. Like some console who has games that I like (there’s none, but never mind). Like Puma who sponsors teams I like and I buy their products. Like Lancia who had awesome Rally cars and I just boght a fantastic Lancia Delta HF last month!!!
Web advertising is just an annoying. And look! Wikipedia doesn’t have ads! Many heavily used websites don’t have ads. They’re far from the majority, but they’re about 5% to 10% of the most used sites in the web.
Tell me again how nothing is free? I think that’s just your usual bull**** from capitalist americans that can’t understand how the world is supposed to work without direct money transactions between costumer and supplier.
Giorgo Paizanis
June 16th, 2010 10:43 amWikipedia had to take donations becaus their content was being supplied by biased sources and they needed to regulate. With no money involved you get poor quality.
Ron
June 17th, 2010 9:57 am“nothing is free” is true, even for open source its free to you, but its cost others lots of time, and effort.
Open source is free to the end users but cost lots of creative and development time. So its not “free” to just you don’t have to pay the cost.
Also firefox gets money google for having them set as the default landing page, which is great because its helps fund an open source project, but some one is paying, time, money, and effort.
Bluejay
June 16th, 2010 7:15 amNothing succeeds when individuals are selfish. Ultimately, selfishness will lead to demise because a community cannot truly thrive if the individuals that comprise it are only in it for themselves. When you choose to be over aggressive serving ads while hosting content, you’re basically saying “I only care about my own profit, and I don’t want anyone to benefit from my web site without paying.” It’s a shame that any web designer would have that attitude.
Louis
June 17th, 2010 9:59 amAgreed. Thank you.
Charles
June 16th, 2010 8:29 amIf a site can’t live without ads… don’t ask me to save it!
I agree with people saying a lot junk/spam/scam/mirrors live on ads. I am always amazed to see how much content (texts, images, videos) is created only to “trick” google, to raise there traffic to sell more ads. To me, it’s pollution and I do all I can to fight it. I preach adBlockers usage… and you’re asking me to stop using it?
I learned web design in the late 90′s, when “internet community” didn’t mean “social media” thought tutorial’s and new groups made by other users. No add, and it didn’t die… it was born add free. Then company tried to apply the same “TV/paper way of doing things” on web… a lot of them laid off writers and blame it, as Louis Lazaris is doing, on the ads not being suitable on the web. It’s a free world… let it be… but let me also laugh when I read people complaining it’s not working. It can die… my travel blogs will always be there and adFree… I will answer to questions in formus etc… Companies will still have plenty profit opportunity on the web.
I am willing to pay more ( I already paid 40$ a month to my ISP ) … don’t get me wrong. But I believe in “micro-payment”. I spend more money on “music” since I can get it right now, cheap and knowing (well…thinking… I could be wrong) that artists are getting more from an album sold on iTune than from a store. They did not fight torrent sites, they made it easier, faster… Don’t block adBlokers, create content and context I’ll be willing to (micro) pay for.
How much extra money would Smashing be doing with me if I was not using an ads blocker?… Well close to nothing I guess and I would be more than happy to pay twice that nothing to have an ad free site. I understand the tools to “micro-pay”( e.g. 0,01$ an article…. 3$ a year) do not exists yet and iTune is in some way a monster, but I believe it’s coming. AdBlockers is only speeding things up.
leeberti
June 16th, 2010 8:34 amThis is by far, without comparison, the funniest op-ed I’ve read in the recent years. Thank you for the laugh.
Paul
June 16th, 2010 1:28 pmI’ll start this article with a painful but true statement: If you’re reading this paragraph and haven’t yet purchased something from one of the wonderful, creative advertisements found anywhere on this site, you are STEALING time, money, and creativity from me, this site and its beloved advertisers. The success of our advertisers is directly responsible for the content you’re viewing today!
Why Web Designers Should Buy From Advertisers (Opinion Column)
Unfortunately, some of you selfish individuals seem to have forgotten that it’s money that makes the world go ’round. While you’ve been living the high life, saving your money for things you deem more worthwhile, you’re robbing advertisers everywhere of earnings — earnings that could be used to support sites like this one for advertising spots. We as a community are solely responsible for keeping businesses who pay for advertising on design blogs afloat, because they are the ones who keep our favorite sites online, our bloggers blogging, and our sites full of beautiful, eye catching, trend setting advertisements.
The Selfish Clicker: Stealing Today, Paying Tomorrow
You might be thinking to yourself, “But I click every advertisement I see to support design blogs!” You might even think you deserve a medal for your valiant efforts. What you don’t seem to understand, possibly because you possess what the modern science of phrenology refers to as “the criminal brain,” is that your empty clicks are costing advertisers money in the long run. They took the time to create some of the most awe-inspiring advertisements ever seen, and out of the goodness of their hearts, spent their own hard earned money for advertising space on sites like this knowing that they had made a sound business decision. Users like you come in, see these advertisements and, after a few minutes to regain consciousness from witnessing something that you were certain was forged by the hands of Goddess herself, manage to steal money straight from the wallets of advertisers with a single left click.
If the advertisers spend all their money advertising but don’t make any back through purchases, they’ll wither and die, creating a domino effect of failing business models, famine and plague that will inevitably destroy the internet as we know it. All because of your disgusting selfishness.
Why “Your” Money Isn’t Really Yours
You might be wondering at this point why an advertising company might be entitled to “your” money. Well I’ll tell you why, wisenheimer. When you grow up some day and run a business like us grown-ups, you’ll realize that you’ll have to invest some of your own time and money. Investing is really like building a magical time capsule (patent pending) that duplicates whatever you put into it several times over. Put a dollar into your magical investment time console, dig it up in 3 months, and you’ve just entitled yourself to several dollars and possibly even some change. The neat thing about investing, however, is that when you put time into your hypothetical time capsule, it’s magically converted into money as well!
Unfortunately, there’s only one thing that can prevent you from digging up your future money: Time Thieves. When you choose to browse the internet and don’t purchase products from advertisements on the sites you browse, you might as well just travel back in time and steal money from everyone else’s magic investment capsules. So you see, you’ve intercepted advertisers’ future money and have willfully chosen to steal it, keeping it selfishly for yourself, dooming the entire internet and possibly all of civilization as we know it.
The Consequences of a Me-First Attitude
I’m in no position to intelligently analyze the potential consequences of what could happen if time thieves steal from advertising companies, but here goes anyway! In the future, all the advertising companies are dead. When advertising companies die, capitalism dies. When capitalism dies, so does modern civilization. When you’re cold and starving, pushing a shopping cart full of your belongings and fighting off cannibals, you’ll have no one left to blame but yourself.
Using Your Time Travelling Powers For Good Rather Than Evil
There is hope, however. We’re not in the future yet, so there’s still slim chance, if everyone manages to throw enough stolen future money at advertisers, that we could potentially restore capitalism, democracy and order. I think you owe it to your future children, their future children, and their future children’s children to at least try. You don’t hate children, do you?
Peter
June 16th, 2010 3:54 pmAwesome! :D
Louis
June 16th, 2010 7:42 pmNow I know I’m famous — because I’ve been parodied. :–)
Peter
June 19th, 2010 7:16 pmNo, you’ve been criticized in a sarcastic way.
Ron
June 16th, 2010 11:03 pmThanks for this Paul you put some work into it, I agree the title was very demanding and maybe would have been better to say something like “Why ad blockers could hurt blogers” but then you would not have made this great remake you wrote.
In addition my point is this, if blogs have to make money to survive (like any business) if ads keep more blogs alive I would rather advertisers pay for the content with money and ill pay with my eyes, but that’s my choice and others may choice differently.
(plus if i was on a PC I would block more ads because of viruse fears, I installed an ad blocker on my girlfriends computer because of viruses, but on a mac it’s not as big of a deal.)
we can not tell people what to do (tho i’m doing it now, oh philosophy)but we can point out the pros and cons of both for users and blogs.
so we should talk about the pros and cons of both, the title of this article is kind of inflammatory tho… but eh also creates interest
Louis
June 16th, 2010 8:04 pmEveryone should read this comment by Thomas, which explains exactly why the disabling of ads could have negative longterm consequences on internet content.
Paul
June 17th, 2010 7:53 am“For you, the visitor, that’s *bad*. It means advertisers spend money on feeding you biased information instead of on hoping to catch your attention.”
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes that internet users will continue to visit these sites, generating revenue for the now “bad” websites. If you can pull this off, obviously your users find your new advertorial method acceptable. If it is truly bad for us users, we’ll realize it and stop visiting the sites that do this (it’s actually quite easy to spot a site like that vs. a legitimate review site if you’re not totally disconnected with reality). This isn’t *bad* for us, it’s *bad* for the bloggers who don’t want to do this and just want to maintain a potentially failing business model, producing content users might not find valuable enough to view as anything other than completely free. You can’t say that it’s going to ruin the internet for users, because anyone attempting to run a successful internet business will always build it to work with what users want.
Again, for probably the seventh or eighth time I’ve responded to this damned article, it’s not the user’s responsibility, and it isn’t the user’s concern as to whether or not a business fails. If a business attempts to make money in a deceptive or annoying way, users tend to avoid that, whether that be obnoxious advertisements or obviously deceptive and “*bad*” advertorials. If you produce something worthwhile (not just to you, but to your users) and are able to provide it in a way where you can make money, great! If you can’t, don’t complain or try to blame anyone but yourself. Just because your fantasy business model might now be failing doesn’t mean it’s going to be the end of the world for people using the internet, it just means you need to stop clinging to your fantasy of how things should work and adapt. Businesses adapting won’t make things *bad* for us. If they do, those business haven’t actually adapted and they’ll fail.
Thomas
June 17th, 2010 10:39 amPaul, users do continue visiting these sites, and usually without realizing that they’re being misled. Just read the example below.
One of the largest providers of online medical information is WebMD, which not only runs the main WebMD site but also eMedicine, Medscape and a bunch of other sites, getting many millions of visitors per month.
WebMD has “sponsored” tests and articles. One of the sponsors of those tests and articles is pharmaceutical corp Eli Lilly, which manufactures Cymbalta, an SNRI which is marketed for treatment of depression in combination with pain symptoms.
So, WebMD has a “depression screening test”, sponsored by Eli Lilly. It tests for the nine diagnostic criteria from DSM IV for depression, and adds a tenth: pain symptoms. There are many more possible symptoms, but out of all the ones not listed in DSM IV, WebMD chose this one.
Why? Well, to those making the test, it associates any possible pain they may have had with the other symptoms, so when they go to the doctor, they’ll be sure to explicitly mention it.
The test actually isn’t a depression screening test at all, it’s a Cymbalta-requester grooming test. Just by doing the test a patient becomes far more likely to say the right things to his doctor to get a Cymbalta prescription.
Now, you could say that people should just be aware of this. But the problem is that if you haven’t studied medicine, you just won’t be able to spot the bias.
In the tech industry, it’s the same. Most designers and site owners lack the technical knowledge necessary to critically evaluate, say, a detailed hosting service review or guide.
Moreover, what they recommend to their clients (who usually know even less) is based on what they know, and what they know is largely determined by what they read. If what they read is subtly influenced by financial interests, it creates a corrupt playing field.
And yes, you are responsible. You are (or should be) aware that there are only a limited number of business models, and that explicitly taking action against one of them will have the direct effect of promoting other ones. So you know exactly what the long-term consequences of what you’re doing are.
Your decision to use ad blockers is a vote against the ad-based business model, and therefore a vote in favor of other business models. And you, just like everyone else, carry responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
Honestly, though, I’m getting sick and tired of the “it’s not the consumer’s responsibility” argument. I am not aware of any laws against using your brain every once in a while, so expecting you to think about the long-term effects of the things you do really isn’t that much to ask.
Paul
June 17th, 2010 12:00 pmSo would you argue that a vote against javascript is a vote for deceptive marketing and biases? What about someone using a browser that doesn’t support images, only plain text? Or plain text readers? Because the results are often the same, as nearly every advertisement uses some form of images or javascript in order to not only display advertisements, but also track them ensuring that the content providers receive credit for it.
Your logic is incorrect as you’re making the assumption that every user who currently uses adblock would then SUPPORT a business model like the one you’ve described rather than simply abstaining from even visiting a site that employed said tactics. A refusal to participate in targeted advertisements is not equivalent to a pledge to support a site that employs alternate tactics for making money (such as biased content).
I’ve also discussed the ramifications of not purchasing from advertising companies who have paid for advertising spots, as the failure of said advertising companies would ultimately lead to a failure in the very same business model many people feel NEEDS to survive in order for critical information like “10 reasons why jQuery is neat.” No one seems interested in that, though.
Thomas
June 17th, 2010 2:51 pmBlocking javascript is a vote against javascript. If many people start blocking it, site owners can display both ads and content without using it.
Blocking images is a vote against images. If many people start blocking them, site owners can display both (text) content and (text) ads without using them.
Blocking ads, however, is a vote against the ad-based revenue model, since one cannot serve ads without serving ads.
If you decrease the profitability of the ad-based revenue model relative to that of other revenue models, you increase the profitability of other revenue models relative to the ad-based revenue model.
So, in fact, a refusal to participate in targeted advertisements has exactly the same effect as a pledge to support a site that employs alternate tactics for making money.
Compare it to a seesaw. In terms of balance, lowering the weight on one side has the same effect as increasing the weight on the other side. Likewise, lowering the profitability of one revenue model causes an immediate increase in the relative profitability of other business models.
As for not purchasing from the companies that buy ads, well yes, it would have the same effect if people stuck by it religiously.
In reality, however, if people don’t block ads chances are that they’ll one day stumble across one with something that appeals to them and make a purchase. Plus, even if that doesn’t happen, ads still help the advertisers in branding their products.
If you’ve seen a company advertise for years on sites you regularly visit, chances are you’ll remember that company when you eventually need to buy a product they happen to sell.
Paul
June 17th, 2010 3:15 pmYour assessment of “relative” success is correct, but your seesaw analogy only works if it happens to snap in half, causing the advertising kid to fall on his ass while the other one is still standing in the exact same position as they were before it broke. A company losing money using an advertising model doesn’t magically make money with another business model unless users use and support the new model.
X = 1
Y = 1
Y – 1 = 0
Does X = 2 now magically?
There’s no guarantee that people using advertisement blocking software will support an alternative *bad* business model like you’ve described, they simply choose not to support the current model. Sure some might, but as an individual who uses ad blocking software I can assure you I have no interest in supporting or visiting an advertorial article or website. People who block ads and people who avoid biased websites are not mutually exclusive groups.
Louis
June 17th, 2010 6:26 pmThomas, you should have written this article. You know exactly what you’re talking about, and I applaud your boldness in the face of all of this opposition.
True, I was somewhat harsh in some of my original words. But I’m often too honest, and that is one of my downfalls.
Great job in expanding on this. I think you’ve helped out quite well, especially with the example from medical websites. Thanks.
Chitrang
June 17th, 2010 1:07 amWhat a load of crap. Can’t believe this is on SM.
Katie Pitt
June 17th, 2010 3:41 amGood reminder to install an adblocker.
Mon
June 17th, 2010 7:20 amI actually “kind of” agree with this article that because I don’t go out my way to find the most awesome-est ad-blocker on the internet and I don’t get bothered by TV commercials. Like someone on here said, ads are necessary, not only because the community needs to support themselves; also the economy. No one buys stuff, money won’t get spread around. Simple as that. Nothing is free, and I believe in ad supported or premium service because of this one simple reason.
But I wouldn’t go my way out to state ALL USERS SHOULD STOP USING AD-BLOCKERS! Same reason there’s Tivo (which I don’t own one and probably misspelled), and same reason for premium services. The end-users get to choose what they want to do. But for complete free loaders… think about the consequence like the above user stating about biased info being pushed in your face.
Thanks Louis for another enticing article.
Tony
June 17th, 2010 9:30 amHow many people here are shouting proudly about using AdBlockers, yet are running Ads on sites they own?!?
Sally
June 17th, 2010 9:46 amLouis –
If the ad section on your own site were more attractively designed (and not 40% of the page width), you wouldn’t feel compelled to guilt trip the entire community into not blocking it.
Louis
June 17th, 2010 9:57 amAnd your intention with this comment is to make website content owners feel guilty about making money for countless hours of work.
The sidebar on my website has more than just ads (I really don’t know if you’re talking about Smashing Magazine or my own site, but it’s about the same, size-wise). And, all my most recent articles include a smaller sidebar that’s only about 150px wide.
I think this article really hit a nerve with a lot of people that have very little intention of giving, and only intend on taking. Sorry, but I can’t agree with that attitude.
Paul
June 17th, 2010 11:03 amYOU created content intended to be distributed. YOU setup a website to distribute said content. YOU allowed the website to run on a server where ANY user on the internet could access it using any number of ways of accessing the text (readers, rss feeds, image/css/js blocking/limited browsers, etc.). YOU have done so on your own accord, with no agreement with ANYONE that you would be owed or given anything back. YOU have made an investment that YOU are responsible for. If I go to your site and don’t look at your advertisements you’ve strewn about I’M taking? Your information is available on the internet through a variety of means from your web server, and you’ve willfully made it so, yet you feel that you’re entitled to something back? You’ve gone out of your way to setup a domain to PUT YOUR “INFORMATION” out there (I use the term information loosely when it comes to content design blogs generate). You are pushing this information into the internet and claim that it’s free, yet you argue that people are taking from you? I didn’t log onto your computer and start looking at private documents without giving anything back to you.
If you were handing out food, and you tried to hand out advertising fliers along with it each time, BUT STILL GAVE THEM THE FOOD if they didn’t want the advertising flier, would you then say these people are putting you out of business?! That’s what you’re doing, only you’re not even handing out something tangible, it’s just copying data over an infrastructure you’ve willfully set your website up on to pass data to any client that requests it. Think we’re TAKING your precious information? Then be selective with who you push it on and stop crying about your finances when you’ve wasted money on an investment that isn’t paying off, or start selling your product if it’s really worth what you think it is. If you can’t understand that then you’re clearly so blinded by your self-righteous and self-entitled attitude that I can’t think of any other way to express the failure in your logic.
By the way I’ve just freely posted this comment BUT IF YOU DON’T CLICK ON THIS WEB ADDRESS YOU’VE JUST TAKEN FROM ME WITHOUT GIVING.
http://humour.200ok.com.au/img/pancake_bunny.jpg
Ron
June 17th, 2010 1:05 pmHey Paul maybe taking the meditor a little father but, ad blockers are kind of a weird world.
It’s like each person can make a law that you are not allowed to hand out fliers with free food, but in order for the free food to keep coming some people need to get the fliers and interested people can then acted on the information if interest, but if everyone makes there own law of disallowing the handing out of fliers with food then there is no more food.
however in our real world I personally believe there will always be advertising and there will always be ways to block it, the more someone is hurt by ads they more they block, the more people find good solid relative helps ads they more they will open up….
or not
anyways you have a lot of passion, nice link
Paul
June 17th, 2010 1:24 pmAs ridiculous as it seems to continue with the food metaphor, why not just stop handing it out to people who aren’t interested in your fliers and stop calling it free? If you have expectations then, sorry to say, you’re only providing something for *Free.
Ron
June 17th, 2010 5:53 pmI like the food thing, to answer to your questions
– “Why not just stop handing it (food) out to people who arn’t interested in your fliers and stop calling it free”
I guess that is what restaurant are for and it’s a different business model.
and I would like to have my free food cause I can’t to eat at all the nice restaurant and I just hope there are other homeless people like me with not much money for paid food who will take the flyer so we can keep getting food.
so there will always be restaurants and there will always be food banks.
**If the food bank poisons the food, don’t go there, if your on a PC and your scared to hell that every food bank is poisoned, get virus protection and block some ads, (maybe take fliers from the non-posionous food banks once your sure)
again we have to choice and we should look at the Cons and the pros of food bank fliers.
Louis
June 17th, 2010 5:04 pmPaul,
I never insinuated that not looking at ads was stealing, nor did I say that you owed anyone anything.
This is not about what we have a right to do. This is about ethics and morals within the design blogging industry. Yes, you’re absolutely right — everyone has the right to ignore ads and even block them if they wish. I never said that was not their right. My point is: Don’t take it to the extreme. If you have a problem with ads, fine, just try to ignore them. But understand that if you choose to remove them completely, then you’re doing damage to the community, because those ads are very valuable to the publishers and advertisers.
If you want to live in an industry full of people only interested in what they can get for themselves, that’s fine. I have no problem with you feeling that way. But I don’t want to be part of an industry that encourages that kind of behavior. I don’t believe good communities are built on such principles. Those types of communities will ultimately fail.
Ron
June 17th, 2010 5:59 pmLouis sounds nice,
tho i agree with some of what you are saying it all sounds kind of idialistic, maybe a good direction to move,
but ill just kindly point out that the most industry’s in the world today seem to be more selfish then giving, thats kind of the idea of most of the world, maybe thats why their are so many poor and hungry people because “industry” and “people like us” are always looking for the cheapest stuff only caring about our selfs and its hard to give when we are losing something and its not just out what the extra we have…. oh wait i am proving your point….
Louis
June 17th, 2010 6:30 pmLol.. you’re right. :)
But seriously, I understand what you’re saying. It’s hard for everyone to say “Yeah, I’ll do this, because it helps the industry”, but then everyone just assumes the worst, because they assume *nobody* will respond that way. So they say “why should I do that, if no one else is going to?”
Anyways, thanks for your thoughts.
Sally
June 18th, 2010 7:59 am“This is about ethics and morals within the design blogging industry.”
Don’t push your morals on me!! LOL! You jumped the shark with this one, love.
Paul
June 18th, 2010 8:18 amBut you’ve missed the point — YOU’RE PUSHING YOUR CONTENT OUT ONTO THE INTERNET FOR FREE. When someone performs a google search, you’ve pushed your content out ahead of someone else’s. You WANT people to view it on any number of potential browsers/viewers that are highly likely to prevent/block/disable advertisements! We’re just using the internet in a way anyone should, by protecting ourselves from any potentially malicious, annoying or obnoxious content. Yet you feel we’re just getting whatever we can, when you’re trying to tie us into your entitlement to revenue?
How about you stop trying to get whatever you can and realize that you’ve made the unilateral decision to put in work with no guarantee, offer or agreement regarding any income within an infrastructure that supports the use of any number of browsers/readers that would disable/prevent/ignore advertisements, and take that self-entitled attitude into the business world. How about you stop living in a fantasy world where you feel you’re entitled to income while you work from home, rather than finding a full-time job with a corporation who has real job duties and expectations for you instead of complaining about how unethical it is for someone to access your freely available content with something that doesn’t fit your concept of an ideal, “moral” user. Morality is relative, and you’re trying to push your moral view on everyone else in your favor even though you were the one to initiate and push your own content, in advance, out into the world onto everyone else with a clear (but obviously obscured through soft language) expectation of revenue for doing so.
You even said yourself, “And your intention with this comment is to make website content owners feel guilty about making money for countless hours of work.
The sidebar on my website has more than just ads (I really don’t know if you’re talking about Smashing Magazine or my own site, but it’s about the same, size-wise). And, all my most recent articles include a smaller sidebar that’s only about 150px wide.
I think this article really hit a nerve with a lot of people that have very little intention of giving, and only intend on taking. Sorry, but I can’t agree with that attitude.” Countless hours of work? I’m sorry, but which client did you happen to have sign off on these countless hours of work? Oh wait, you chose to do so in your own free time, without anyone’s prior expressed interest or an agreement regarding how much you’d be paid. If that isn’t a sense of entitlement I don’t know what is. Your article hasn’t hurt a nerve with people who have no interest in giving. In fact, I have no problem donating money to companies who actually who are actually genuinely interested in providing FREE valuable content like Mozilla in order to make the internet a better place. No, this reality is your article strikes a nerve with people who are able to logically differentiate between a business agreement coupled with a valid sense of entitlement versus a business investment with a warped, selfish sense of entitlement for content that truly isn’t worth its weight in flashing advertisements (of which I spotted two on your site just last night when I viewed it for approximately 10 seconds).
Let me ask this: How is it wrong or unethical for users to access your freely available content without viewing advertisements even when it provides the very same benefits many have argued for advertisers who might not actually be making direct revenue from purchases after paying for ad spots on sites like this (exposure, brand recognition, etc.)? If you’re against ad blocking for users viewing your site, your logically can be directly used to make an argument against users who don’t purchase products from advertisers. Any defense for the latter can directly translate to a defense for the former. Try re-reading my lengthy post above (the one that make you “LOL Famous!” even though you seemed to completely ignore the content of, instead choosing to make a cutesy “Hey thanks guyz!” post for).
Paul
June 18th, 2010 9:10 amBTW I hate spotting errors in something I’ve written several minutes later. I type too quickly and from muscle memory too often it would seem:
“Your article hasn’t hurt a nerve” = “Your article hasn’t hit a nerve”
“your logically can be directly used” = “your logic can be directly used”
Tom Something
June 17th, 2010 1:34 pmSome sites have terribly annoying ads that are extremely disruptive to the user experience. When I see this, I don’t just want to reduce their ad impressions; I want to reduce their visitor count.
I don’t use ad blockers because I want to know which websites to stop visiting.
David Eldridge
June 18th, 2010 9:09 amInteresting. I never thought of it in that light. That is a good argument for ‘running blind’.
Angela
June 17th, 2010 9:14 pmYou have got to be kidding me. Designers are here to be designers, not drooling capitalist flunkies.
“If you want to live in an industry full of people only interested in what they can get for themselves, that’s fine.”
How utterly ironic you would say this: that’s essentially the marketing and advertising industry in a nutshell.The whole PURPOSE of advertising is to foster more and more consumption ad infinitum (yes, I am aware of exceptions like PETA, and exceptions don’t make the rule). Which is not something I feel like supporting blindly. Our daily life is bombarded with ads 24/7 and I use an adblocker for the same reason I don’t listen to the radio much. Honestly? They are really the equivalent of this (got your speakers on?): http://www.vuvuzela-time.co.uk/www.guardian.co.uk Annoying isn’t it?
If you read a little media theory, or just pick up an Adbusters, you might find it enlightening.
Adblockers don’t make the web less real. On the contrary: they make it a whole lot MORE real.
Mike
June 18th, 2010 4:10 am[Comment removed due to abuse]
Cam
June 18th, 2010 7:42 amagreed
Sally
June 18th, 2010 12:09 pm[Comment removed due to abuse]
Paul
June 21st, 2010 8:04 amUh oh! Time to start removing comments. Pro site imho.
hellsing
June 18th, 2010 5:18 amI think many peole (like me) use adblockers not because we hate advertising, but hate to wait 20+ secs to donwload a news/blog/forum page.
It is funny that I write about 20 seconds waiting time. Twenty years ago I had to walk 10 minutes to a phone booth to call somebody. It was fine to handwrite a letter 2 nights long to somebody I loved. I travelled the city on public transport, now even my Fireblade is too slow sometimes.
Internet has changed everything, erased patience.
Cam
June 18th, 2010 7:19 amholly sh*t!!
I just turned adblock off and hit a few sites that I’ve never viewed w/o it (this one included), and I’m seriously never going to go w/o it again. The ads are very annoying and overwhelm the content. Not to mention how irrelevant they typically are. This site itself has at least 3 CSS to XHTML blocks; I’m sure most of it’s readers typically DO know how to do this themselves!!!!
‘clicks adblock back ON’
Sally
June 18th, 2010 8:03 amGoing to install adblocker now. Thanks for convincing me.
Lemur
June 18th, 2010 2:41 pmI think the only logical solution is to detect ad blockers, and offer the “no ads for me” crowd the option to subscribe (pay to view the content), with no ads presented.
Those who think the internet should be advertising free can stay on their moral high horse and pony up.
Sally
June 18th, 2010 2:45 pm[Comment removed due to abuse]
Jera
June 18th, 2010 9:37 pm[Comment removed due to abuse]
David Eldridge
June 30th, 2010 7:05 am@Lemur I don’t know if that comment was direct at my comment about smut, but I am not insisting that the web be free of advertising. I would just like for it to be free of advertising that uses sex and sensuality to make the appeal. But I am not opposed to subscription-based services. There are many models for making money on the web: time-trial, subscription, freemium, ad-supported and more. I don’t think we are locked in to a pricing (or rather support/monetization) model. The site I run is free out right, but if I ever need money to cover the day-to-day, I plan to move to a donation model, whose failure might push me to subscription/freemium.
Chris Thompson
June 18th, 2010 3:21 pmI know this opinion has been voiced elsewhere, but ad blockers are a direct result of how online ads currently work: they are incredibly easy to detect and remove. No amount of engineering in the current model is going to change that. The fact that they come from an ad server, aren’t integrated into the site, and are un-valuable means that they will always be detectable.
Plenty of projects and sites have done well by going the route of getting sponsors, being an affiliate, and integrating revenue generation. When you don’t treat ad revenue as a kind of “add-on” that you blindly hope will pay for your site, then it starts being less crappy for your users. Once you’ve put thought into the kinds of things your users might actually care about, it stops being ads and starts being monetized *content*.
Then you’re issue with ad blockers will be resolved, and everyone can be happier for it. It’s a mirror image of all the hubbub that sprung up around the Safari Reader feature (and similar tech).
Louis
June 18th, 2010 10:58 pmI should have linked to this article in the original content, but here is a good quote from Chris Coyier of CSS Tricks:
And keep in mind that in no way am I saying that Chris Coyier endorses my view here, only that he understands the importance of revenue for content producers.
Branden Silva
June 19th, 2010 7:06 amI agree with most of your points Louis. I do actually use an ad blocker but disable it for most design blogs I frequent because I like to support the community. However as advertising has become more obtrusive (which I would claim is selfish in itself) then I feel it becomes an inherent right for me to filter myself from the noise. The amount of advertisement exposure the average person is exposed to is ridiculous. And although I agree that businesses like yours, for example, need advertising to survive — you still need to consider the ramifications it has on your visitors. Obviously you tend to show things that relate to your visitors (web designing, etc) and that works out, but not every industry is like that and tend to harass and annoy users with annoying ads that aren’t relevant.
So your title “Ad Blockers Promote a Me-First Attitude” to me indicates that you don’t realize that the entire economy is based on a self-interest attitude as that was how it was designed (not ideally how I’d like to see things go, but this is the world we live in).
You don’t provide free content completely, you provide content that pays you through advertising. Yes the free content would not exist without you getting paid but equally your advertisers wouldn’t exist without your visitors. Its a mutual relationship so you obviously have to take care of your users and advertisers equally to get paid (double whammy!). Writing is definitely hard work and you guys do an excellent job but I would be careful in throwing around what is considered appropriate self-interest to the user as they can equally dish it back at you.
With that said I do think its important users know that blogs live off of advertising and they are reminded of the importance of this, so I congratulate you in writing up this article because its easy for people to disconnect themselves from the reality of how important this is to keep content free for the average user.
Keep up the great work guys.
Chris
June 19th, 2010 9:21 pmSeems like the same whining as the movie and music industry… if ads do not work for you try to find alternative ways to have an income…
Leah
June 20th, 2010 1:46 amUnfortunately, this ill-informed screed reflects poorly on SM… one less RSS feed to follow.
Steve
June 20th, 2010 4:57 amAgain, I see some misguided individual who thinks Ad Blockers deprive site owners of income.
I know, that no matter what the advert, I’m not going to be interested in it, or click on it. I already know what’s out there in the world, and don’t need flashy distracting things reminding me. If anything’s truly worthy of my attention it’ll get to me naturally, not via a rubbish banner advert.
Thus, my impressions would lower the CTR, and reduce the income to the site owner. Thus, by blocking them, I’m doing the site owner a favour; not reducing his CTR.
Ankit Jain
June 20th, 2010 8:04 amLouis, one question.
why don’t SM gives credit back to WordPress. you do not have a Powered By WordPress text. (I see you have meta-generator=wordpress, but how does that benefits to WP). I think people would be interested to know your contribution back to WP. Doesn’t WP deserve what SM is expecting from this blog-post?
Paul
June 21st, 2010 8:07 amBUT DON’T YOU GET IT THAT’S NOT PART OF THE DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW! RIGHT NOW WE’RE DISCUSSING AD BLOCKING AND AD BLOCKING ONLY.
Louis’s argument is so full of holes it’s best to simply ignore them. This whole article is a joke and I need to stop giving this site traffic. When I go home I have a few beers and play WoW and forget you worthless “designers” even existed.
Stop reading design blogs. They’re bad for your brain.
GUS the gamer
June 20th, 2010 9:59 pmFlash ads are Annoying and hog CPU time, I block the critters!!
why cant we leave our site’s name here? this defies the purpose of a blog community, dont get me started on the design community
Krand
June 21st, 2010 2:11 amI use Ad Muncher, which works for every single program on my system.
It’s an important too for keeping my system safe.
admuncher.com
Rachel
June 21st, 2010 7:57 amI use a scriptblocker (noscript) which is like an uber-adblocker.
I don’t mind looking at ads on a site like Smashing Magazine, but the scriptblocker is just so good at filtering out nonsense that I leave it on. Although I had to let this page through to do your poll!
I always incorporate my advertising into my sites properly so the ads can’t be blocked, and I can vet everything. This means my users are interested in the advertising, and there are no rubbish companies on there.
Jan
June 21st, 2010 11:27 pmUsing AdBlock in full-time work with computer is necessity if I want to stay mentally OK. There are also some other benefits: lets CPU usage, less bandwidth, page takes less space. (And of course I use whitelist when it comes to my favourite servers, saying nothing about usability of this ads which is nearly zero for me).
However most of user do not use it and never will, some people like ads and wants to know them (in fact, I even think they want to be manipulated by them). If this group of users starts to use adblockers then something is wrong with the ad and the responsible is person who chooses ads not wisely.