The Morality of Blocking Ads

Last week, I wrote in my Link by Link column that Adblock Plus – an add-on to the Firefox browser that easily eliminates almost all ads on a Web site – had the “potential for extreme menace to the online-advertising business model.”

Potential, that is, because so far the software is still a niche add-on to a niche browser and the big players – for example, Google and CNN.com – have chosen to ignore the entire phenomenon and ride things out. Well, on Sunday, the dominant political site on the Left, Daily Kos, broke the taboo and posted a note at the top of its site directly addressing users of adblocking programs: “We won’t stop you from using ad blocking software, but if you do use it we ask you to support Daily Kos another way: by purchasing a site subscription.”

On his blog, Nick Carr had commended the strategy of ignoring the phenomenon entirely.

That’s why Google’s best course – maybe it’s only course – is to avoid any mention of Adblock (which would only serve to raise people’s awareness of it) and hope that it remains a niche product. The odds would seem, at this point, to be in Google’s favor. There’s no evidence that Adblock Plus or similar products are about to go viral. In fact, there’s no evidence that the masses view online ads as a nuisance.

He added, a caveat: “Then again, you never know. Viral events are unpredictable.”

A survey of the reaction online to ad blocking showed that no one had an easy solution. On his blog, Lauren Weinstein, a long time privacy advocate, displayed the typical mix of anguish and guilt, as he advised users of ad blocking programs, as well as Web site operators who are considering blocking users of the programs, to think of the long-term effects of their actions.

Before sharpening our weapons and strapping on the armor, perhaps we should give some serious thought to the ramifications of going down the path of this particular Internet war. If we are unwilling to view Web ads, then many useful sites will undoubtedly move toward more direct ways to collect fees — or else close down operations entirely, leaving us all the poorer. If we don’t want ads, and we don’t want to pay directly for accessing most sites, there’s a serious dilemma afoot.

As it happens, the polite request at DailyKos would seem to be exactly the kind of response Mr. Weinstein was suggesting.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

I am a long-time user of adblock plus, and I have no moral qualms about it whatsoever. The reason is that internet adds are extremely annoying, and by blocking them I am sending a message that I won’t put up with it. Blocking internet adds is no different from muting the television or turning to a different station during commercial breaks. My suggestion for internet advertisers is simple: use simple, static, text-and-image based ads. These kinds of advertisements are not particularly annoying, and if you limit yourself to these I would have no desire to use a product like adblock plus. But when you have flash-based, animated ads that actively distract me from the content I’m trying to focus on, you but I’m going to block you.

Frankly, I don’t really care if website owners have a problem with me blocking ads, because I have a problem with them trying to pop new browser windows and putting on bandwidth-intensive ads that are animated. It’s my computer and my web browser, and I can choose what I will and will not accept on it.

If publishers spent some time and effort, they would see that it is actually quite easy to circumvent add-ons such as AdBlock.

AdBlock works by recognizing key elements of the URL for each ad, along with the file type, etc.

By disguising the URLs for ads, to make them look like they are sourced from the editorial content paths, ads cannot be blocked unless actually recognized.

This is a very similar problem to blocking spam in emails, etc. And it’s very difficult to do; just look at the image-based ads which cannot be OCR (read as text) examined very well today.

But, as I said: The solution is simple. Just make your ads come from the same places as your editorial content.

Blocking advertising is, in itself, a market-oriented response! I don’t think that fee collection will evolve to any appreciable level, but more sophisticated, perhaps advertorial, insertion of publicity will find its way onto web pages. Ad agencies will survive and reinvent themselves, as they always have. Successful advertising will always be the right offer to the right person at the right time. Search ad models, I believe, will continue to thrive. Advertisers will need to be more sophisticated in how they tag their sites and posts.

MATTHEW ROSE / Paris, France

Sorry, but this is an economic issue, not a moral one. Why the Times insists on confusing the two is beyond me. It strikes me as being very typical of the thinking of content providers. The string of logic should be:

A pays for B.
If you want B in the form in which it is currently provided, you must take A.

Instead, the logic that the Times (and the RIAA,and others) tortures into place is:

A pays for B.
Those who take B without taking A are wicked.

It may not be in my self-interest to not take A. But it doesn’t make me wicked.

Josh

I will block any and all ads that include animations of any kind. I find it impossible to read anything with something so obnoxious and distracting happening right there next to the text. On those occasions when my ad blocker does not work, I invariably hit ‘back’ on my browser and skip that website altogether.

Stick to non-moving pictures and text ads and I will not block them. I might even look at them. Once in a blue moon I might even click on one.

And by the way, companies with obnoxious flash animated web ads automatically go into my ‘do not buy’ list. For example, Orbitz has so much of this annoying junk that I have had to deal with that I would never even consider visiting their website to purchase plane tickets. Even if they might be a few bucks cheaper, they have already convinced me that they are obnoxious and I want nothing to do with them.

Advertisers take heed.

A very misleading claim….consider what is the VALUE of the information on a website — if it’s worth something, then people will pay for it….it may very well be that we end up with a smaller number of sites that contain more of the information that people want. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a good thing. Editors add value – they help to weed out the stuff I don’t want while making the stuff I do want, available easily. That’s worth paying for, as it saves time (which saves money, unless your time is not worth much, in which case that’s a completely different discussion).

D
—>If we are unwilling to view Web ads, then many useful sites will undoubtedly move toward more direct ways to collect fees — or else close down operations entirely, leaving us all the poorer

I’d subscribe to a site that would allow me to surf ad free. However, an unpleasant trend is that many companies that do charge subscriptions _still_ bombard you with ads. I subscribe to NYT Select, the features of which I almost never use, in the spirit contributing to this newspaper. I subscribe to the online version of the WSJ but they still show me ads. Most annoying is my ISP who I used to use for dial-up but now use solely because I’m unwilling to give up the email address. It was their website that drove me to install Adblock in the first place.

In fact, the only place I subscribe that offers ad-free surfing in exchange for a fee is Gamespot, a site for video game news.

I’d wholly support a model that allowed me to pay a premium to opt out of ads. But as long as companies insist on double-dipping, I’ll use Adblock.

I work writing copy for an ad-supported Internet service, and I’m an avid user of Adblock Plus. Hypocritical? Not at all. Like the previous poster, I think the use of Adblock Plus is the clearest protest I can mount against advertisements that are more bandwidth-hungry and CPU-intensive than the site that I am actually visiting. Google crushed Overture because Google ads were so much more respective of the user experience on every level–not animated, not growing over and obscuring content, not popping things up, over, or under–as well as not cramming the page with sponsored results and making the user scroll to find the “organic” search results. And now Google, by doing less, completely dominates the online ad world that it radically redefined. It’s the advertisers, not the site creators and owners, who will have to change their behavior. Finally, so what if some segment of the populace tunes out the ads. As others have pointed out, there have always been people who hit the mute button, use TiVO, who flip past the full-page magazine ads without even having the common decency to read the headline. I’m confident that the Internet service I work for is going to deliver such compelling value for its ads that our users–a good, profitable chunk of them–will put up with the inconvenience of the ads. But any advertisers or marketers who expect to reach 100% of their ad’s potential audience need to take the day off and schedule an appointment with a psychiatrist to discuss their delusions.

Seems to me the Ad-Block software is more a response to annoying animated ads than advertisements in general.

How can a site visitor concentrate on the content while a widget wiggles back and forth seeking our attention? The subsequent attention the widget gets is undeserved: the “eyeballs” focus on the animation while the suddenly annoyed viewer loses focus on the content.

What is it the website wants to promote, anyway? Content or advertising?

Advertising can be entertaining and interesting and attention-getting without being annoying. The issue is truly economic—not moral—and the content-providers need to heed the message: we’ll visit and support your websites by clicking through on ads, but we won’t put up with garbage.

If you want to make me nauseous by putting a moving or flashing image an inch away from what I am trying to read, I do not give a fig about your business model. I will not read anything on your site or block it anyway I can.

Two cents. Inline text and pictures (see Google’s AdWords) are not a nuisance. Big annoying pop-ups that feature extremely annoying 64-color flashing nonsense are asking to be blocked.

If the market decides to settle on content-based, non-annoying ads, I’ve no problem with that.

And besides, sometimes, when ads are announcing things, like new movies, etc, I even want to see them.

Morality? I don’t think so. The lede suggests a horse v. cart problem. I do not have a moral problem discarding flashing ads – or cardbord pages and smells in magazines, louder ads on radio and TV, or other other insult to my taste.

Stephen de las Heras September 10, 2007 · 9:39 am

On the times website I have just experienced two pages where the PBS war documentary ad blows up to block the first paragraph of the article. Clicking off it didn’t work. There was no close button. And I had to eventually reload the page.

If advertisers can stop themselves from making their ads so intrusive. Then less people will feel compelled to try and block them.

For the record I did eventually focus on the War ad to see what it was about. But I made my usual mental note to actively avoid that “product” as my tiny protest vote against the ad.

I am more than happy to pay for access to ad-free content sources, everything from Slashdot to XM to Air America podcasts. Are you listening, New York Times?

I rather doubt adblock plus will be a real issue. How many computer users go to the trouble of incorporating add-ons into Firefox?

Why not use the NYT and Salon model? Run the ad in front of the content, and then go to the content?

Incidentally, I find the noscript and flashblock add-ons much more useful than adblock plus. They block the really aggravating flash animation ads and those pesky scripts altogether. IMO those kinds of ads are much worse than google-type static ads.

I don’t watch much TV, but as I understand that market model if one watches free TV one is subjected to ads in order to pay for content. If one watches a cable channel one is not (at least I would hope) subjected to ads. The philosophy is similar to spam faxes and cold calls to cell phones having been outlawed. Ads should not be delivered at the expense of the recipient.

I pay $56 a month to access the internet. I don’t really care how that money is distributed, but if sites want to subject me to ads, they should pay for the internet infrastructure and people’s access much like broadcast TV pays for their own broadcast hardware. Otherwise, by consuming my bandwidth they are making me pay to receive their ads.

The internet was started as a tool to exchange information. Now it is like billboards and neon signs. The golden age of the internet ended a decade ago.

Tony

I block all pop-ups, but don’t object to a site that runs in-line ads. At that level they have to decide whether they want to be a content provider or an ad server.

When I open a magazine and find a “special advertising supplement” inside, I rip it out and discard it. It IS an intrusion to my using the media that I’m paying for.

On-line browsing requires MY computer, MY ISP that I’m paying for, and MY attention. These advertisers are actually stealing my computer speed and placing cookies on my computer so spy on me. They should be paying ME.

No, I don’t feel the least bit guilty.

I do not understand the thinking of the company being advertised. Take Verizon for example: their annoying ads that appear on the NYTimes site make me LESS likely to purchase the product. Moreover, out of spite, I actually click on the ad multiple times (immediately shutting the new window) so that Verizon actually has to pay more for disturbing me in the way that they did. They may get someone else, but not me. Your company shoves it down my throat, I’ll react… and not in the way that you’d probably like.

I’ll echo others’ comments about intrusive ads.

I actually don’t have a problem with paying for ad-free access. I subscribe to salon.com, for example. However, many sites sell subscriptions at a rate that is a) higher than the value of the content, and b) much higher than the amount of money they’re getting from the ads I ignore.

I don’t use adblock because I don’t find many of the ads I see distracting. That, of course, is incentive for ad companies to find ways of getting my attention, which, in turn, would prompt me to install adblock, but what are you gonna do?

Can a Web site’s publisher tell if users have AdBlock plus?

For those whining about paying for subscriptions but still getting “hit” with ads:

Have you ever bought or subscribed to a newspaper?
Did you happen to notice that there were advertisements?

#7 said-
“A very misleading claim….consider what is the VALUE of the information on a website — if it’s worth something, then people will pay for it….”

No, we had a site of wonderful value, with 2,000 visitors per day, but could not charge a low enough fee given the credit card etc payment systems. Our fee was too low for people to dig out their cards. Under that payment system, we would have broken even on our investment in 72 years.

Advertising has given us hope of actually paying for the wonderful content we provide. Now we will break even in 3-4 years.

For example, our 360° pano virtual tours —

Explore the Taj Mahal , online virtual tour //www.taj-mahal.net

London Sunday Times says “5-Stars! … Exotic … Thrilling … Sumptuous … Ravishing”

Try providing that kind of virtual tour with paid entry: Can’t be done.