Techie Debate

[amykhar]

A lot of people use ad blocking software now to strip banner ads off of web sites. My question is this: Is is fair to use free services that are supported by ads with the ads turned off? The ads make the content and entertainment that you crave possible. Isn't turning the ads off somewhat similar to stealing cable television?

Amy

[Joubert[$]]

I think that turning off the ads is equivalent to using TIVO or a smart VCR to block ads. (TIVO can do that, right?)

Unfortunately, the effect isn't found in the marketplace until ad spending is deemed less effective and softens. Oh, guess what, we're in that market now! When that happens, there's a ripple through the content providers. Prices are raised or people are let go or some effect takes place to restore equilibrium.

And no, television airwaves and websites aren't free. Folks can debate whether they should be free forever. They ain't. And until those who want them to be free buy a television network or web site and start running commercial free, then the argument is pretty much moot, isn't it?

PBS is now collecting more sponsor money than ever before. So is NPR. So, using software to strip banners will only mean that one of two condition will happen:

1) Companies will start charging for content (except EA! )
or
2) Content quality will suffer as sites scale back their editorial efforts.

Of course, a third option is that this thread gets moved to the Business Beat forum....

[amykhar]

I know several message boards that are either charging for memberships, or offering premium services for people who donate. Many people who use the software that EA uses, have implemented schemes where people who donate are the only ones who get to use avatars, signatures, etc. Others have turned off banner ads for sponsors.

With regards to the VCR, tivo analogy, I think it's a bit different. You lose something by using those devices - namely the abilty to see the content RIGHT NOW, which is important to some. People want to flop in front of the tv and channel surf. They don't want to plan their viewing.

Stripping ads from web sites does nothing to decrease the viewer's ability to use the site as they always have. All of the negative effects of using it go to the content provider, not the content user.

Amy

[Joubert[$]]

Touche I was only looking from the provider's perspective.

I still believe that people who mask advertising cause prices to increase in the long run.

(And I thwapp the first EA'er who quotes, "In the long run, we'll all be dead.")

[quasar]

Originally posted by amykhar
With regards to the VCR, tivo analogy, I think it's a bit different. You lose something by using those devices - namely the abilty to see the content RIGHT NOW, which is important to some. People want to flop in front of the tv and channel surf. They don't want to plan their viewing.

I'm still trying to decide how I feel about this issue, but in response to your coment above, I'd argue the opposite - you gain the ability to flop down in front of the tv and see content you want to see right now. Want to see Star Trek at 3am? No problem. Want to watch yesterday's baseball game? It's there.

Now you're going to say how is this different from a VCR? Well for your ad issue it isn't. But in general there is much freedom in telling a box to automatically record every episode of Doctor Who it encounters without having to worry about when that will be.

VCRs still require much planning, in that you need to be aware of when things are on, but Tivo only requires "I want to watch X" and it will be there whenever you want it. So I disagree with your statement above.

Sorry for completely sidetracking the conversation

Janice, who is Tivo-less

Originally posted by joubert
(And I thwapp the first EA'er who quotes, "In the long run, we'll all be dead.")

Murder is for the impatient.

-ls/file13

[evmori]

I use to be a Juno user until everytime I checked my e-mail 90% of it was spam!

There are many low cost ISP's who offer excellent service. In fact, my ISP only charges $9.95/month. I get internet access, an e-mail address & 2mb for a web page. They have all digital lines & the downtime has been negligable.

If you want free service then someone pays for it!

[amykhar]

I am sorry Ed, but I am not sure I understand your response with regards to the question? Can you clarify please?

Amy

Frankly, I'm sick to death of all of these banner ads that take up 50% of the browser and of pop-ups, pop-unders, or whatever. I heard an article about this on the radio the other day where one marketing guy said, "Heh. It could be worse. Somebody is going to launch an ad with screaming audio, flashing text, etc. that takes up your whole screen no matter what you do." The guy who runs the X.10 marketing campaign said, "We don't care if it's negative attention. It's attention. That's all that matters." Ugh.

Frankly, I'd be more than happy to pay a buck a month for some of my favorite web sites. I read quite a bit through EA. I use another site for bookmarkes, and Yahoo is my preferred destination for crap email. I would gladly pay for those because it's something that I enjoy. (Think of it this way... If I can get a month's worth of enjoyment for less than one cup of coffee at Starbuck's, I'm ahead of the game!) Heck, I'd even be willing to pay a buck a month for Epinions as long as:

1) They got rid of the banner ads and crap that take up so much real estate

2) They give me the magic "Add" button for allowing me to add products to the database

3) They give me a new rating that allows me to mark something as "off-topic" and a magic "filter" button to sweep everything out of my view that has been so marked by people on my WOT.


I haven't resorted to the ad removal software. The logical part of me says that the people who use those tools will drain the resources from sites. The owners of the sites will try to counteract that with different services, designs, etc. But If you have thousands of people drinking from a small well, there's no way that the well eventually won't go dry.

[amykhar]

Sites are struggling. Banner revenue is down significantly these days, and in order to keep earnings steady, some sites resorted to more banner ads.

Hell, we even tried it for a while by adding a banner to the bottom of each page. When I saw those were being ignored as well, I removed them a few days ago, and have begun to move a bit more strategically.

Epinions needs to start making sales. Banner ads are not going to get them the money they need. My own studies have shown that Epinions readers ignore the hell out of the ads for the most part.

Part of me would like to grumble about the selfish so and sos that want sites up and want the content, but don't want to help support it. However, the realistic side of me says that it is the SITE'S responsibility to find something that works as far as generating revenue.

If people are tuning out banners, and filtering them out as well, sites need to look to some other way to raise money, or tell the freeloaders to take a hike and shut down

All that aside, I would still think it would be pretty shitty of me to go to a site expecting to be informed and educated by their content on a regular basis, and make a deliberate effort to turn off their one source of revenue simply because I found it annoying. If their banner ads drive me nuts, I don't go to the site.

Amy

[quasar]

Well, there needs to be a delicate balance...the ads shouldn't be so overwhelming that they interfere with viewing the information. Case in point: recent switch on epinions so ads are on the left not the right. I hate it. I understand why they did it - to get their advertising in front of more eyes since it's fairly easy to ignore the right side of the page and not very easy to ignore the left - but I find it making it very difficult to read. The text is pushed further right and my eyes keep getting drawn back to the ads. It's effective if the goal is to get people to look at the ads but not very helpful if they are trying to read the content. There comes a point where you can make the advertising overcome the content to an extent where no one will use the site. Epinions isn't there yet but they took a giant leap in that direction.

Should I feel compelled to click on banner ads at every site I use? No. Should I feel obligated to look at them? Possibly. Should I find them obtrusive and getting in the way of using the site? No.

You are correct in that people have a choice to use or not use a site. At this time they also have a choice to filter out the banner ads. You are also correct that it is the responsibility of the website to ensure financial viability. A smart person realizes that some percentage of ads will never be seen.

Janice

[evmori]

I am sorry Ed, but I am not sure I understand your response with regards to the question? Can you clarify please?

Amy,
My point was the ads were annoying & overwhelming. That's why I dumped Juno. Sorry I wasn't clearer.

Banner ads on sites can hamper the asthetics of the site. But in a lot of cases, ads are what keeps the site going! I personally don't like the ads, but I don't block them.

Magazines have tons of ads, too. Everyone has the option of ignoring them. People can do the same on the net.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by amykhar
A lot of people use ad blocking software now to strip banner ads off of web sites. My question is this: Is is fair to use free services that are supported by ads with the ads turned off? The ads make the content and entertainment that you crave possible. Isn't turning the ads off somewhat similar to stealing cable television?

Amy

Nope -- I think it's more like watching network tv, and when the commercials come on, hitting the mute button, surfing around the channels, carrying on a conversation, reading a book, or getting up to get a snack. I certainly don't feel morally obligated to watch the commercials just because the network is showing me programs for free.