Comments on defunct: Why ad blocking is not a moral dilemma

@Sid I read the title of your post to mean "H...

2011-11-15T19:12:01.201+05:30

@Sid
I read the title of your post to mean "How come ad blocking is not a moral dilemma". That's why I thought you're blaming the user.

@Ian Thomas
A site like www.dailykos.com used to put a framed statement at the top of the page guilting visitors into turning off their ad blocker. That's another of handling ad blockers. It worked on me.

I would still say that the most effective way for site owners and ad providers to get users to look at their ads is to make good looking ads that are relevant to their interest and the site content.

"To prove it with stats you would need to fin...

2011-11-15T18:34:15.600+05:30

"To prove it with stats you would need to find out how many ads a user clicked on before and after installing an ad blocker."

Obviously if you have an ad blocker you wouldn't be seeing ads so you wouldn't be clicking on them, so it can either stay the same or go down. I don't see how that statistic would be useful.

"I'm willing to bet the number will have gone down, and therefore the site owners are being hurt."

Most forms of advertising (except notably Google AdSense) are cost-per-impression, not cost-per-click. So the number of clicks has no bearing on anything.

Your entire argument is based on the assumption th...

2011-11-15T18:25:50.377+05:30

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that if you prefer to look at a page without advertising then you will never purchase anything being advertised, that sounds like quite a leap to me. To prove it with stats you would need to find out how many ads a user clicked on before and after installing an ad blocker. I'm willing to bet the number will have gone down, and therefore the site owners are being hurt.

I don't think any visitor "wants" most advertising on the pages they are visiting, but they will glance at it as they are looking at the real content and occasionally click through.

It's not just a moral argument about the "poor site owners" though, it's also about how they will respond to maintain their revenue when a significant number of ads are blocked. This could be through charging a fee for use, or it could be through alternative forms of advertising - think product placement. What do you prefer, a 30 second TV spot or actors talking about a product totally unrelated to the plot for 30 seconds?

Amr: Sorry, your comment got marked as spam for so...

2011-11-15T12:42:35.271+05:30

Amr: Sorry, your comment got marked as spam for some reason.

No, I'm not blaming the user at all. My title claims that the user *isn't* to blame because he faces no moral dilemma.

Sid: Extensions are mainly just used by power user...

2011-11-14T21:08:22.782+05:30

Sid: Extensions are mainly just used by power users. Average users don't typically bother with them. That's why, normally, features start out as extensions but ultimately end up built-in (if they are useful enough).

Also, important features usually aren't delegated to third-parties outside of Mozilla. This is because Q&A issues are harder resolve when responsibility lays outside the main product.

jrbrusseau: I don't see the value in Firefox b...

2011-11-14T20:21:25.896+05:30

jrbrusseau: I don't see the value in Firefox bundling an ad-blocker. Adblock Plus is a Mozilla featured extension and the most popular extension on AMO already, so I don't think bundling it would make it more popular enough to offset the costs of shipping it, getting it entangled in the review process, etc.

I use Ad blockers and I'm aware that I'm n...

2011-11-14T20:08:37.869+05:30

I use Ad blockers and I'm aware that I'm not doing good to the sites that I visit. I agree that Ads build brand recognition and by not looking at them, I might be taking away revenue from those sites.
This is why I disable my Ad blocker for almost all the sites that:
1. I use regularly and like.
2. Their ads are not an assault on my eyes or doesn't offend me.

The title of your post lays the blame on the user who's blocking ads but it fails to acknowledge that the reason this whole ad blocking started because the ad providers (and indirectly the site owners) took unfair advantage of their users and threw all the crap that they could find at them (remember the good old days of pop-ups).
Ad providers are doing a terrible job in matching content with ads. You go to a website to read a serious article and find an ad that is completely different just because this user's profile indicates that they might be interested in this.
Content is subtle, but visual distraction can't be ignored. Ads give no regard to the page's colors and insert a foreign object with completely different colors. Some ads don't even care about having the correct size. Example:
http://twitpic.com/lnlw0

Instead of considering whether or not ad blocking should be a moral dilemma (which I actually can agree with you on), we should ask ourselves 'Why are users blocking ads?'.

Thanks for the great post.

If you force yourself to view a page the way the d...

2011-11-14T19:36:23.810+05:30

If you force yourself to view a page the way the designer intended (eg. with lots of ads), then get fed up and go elsewhere, that can help to send a message to the site owners, especially if you can persuade other people to do likewise.

To bad the rest of Mozilla, especially the corpora...

2011-11-14T19:12:44.968+05:30

To bad the rest of Mozilla, especially the corporation, doesn't feel this way. Otherwise Firefox might have a built-in ad-blocker by now.

Here's something for a dilemma: How the HELL ...

2011-11-14T18:06:52.569+05:30

Here's something for a dilemma:

How the HELL do companies still think that if they bother and nag and yell at their potential costumers it'll get them to buy their stuff?!

It happens on the internet, on the television, everywhere but stuff with sponsors. Internet advertising, the one we're talking about, is pure NAGWARE!

I say no to that. And I say yes to a more healthy ear of advertising, like RedBull does with all their sponsorship programs, for example. The sole reason I buy and drink RedBull is because of their money in motorsports, not because of their stupid flying nerd advertisements that keep me from watching television at all.

I block advertising whether THEY consider it immoral or not, don't give a flying damn. Just like they don't seem to give a damn that their adverts keep me from hearing my music, slow down my computer, waste my electrical supply, my screenspace, my time.

Then again, that's me, and I have a choice. I respect their choice, and I hope they respect mine. Times are still to change, and now is the time for nagware. Go go nagware.

Go adblock too!

Sure, they could only focus on users who might be ...

2011-11-14T12:01:59.062+05:30

Sure, they could only focus on users who might be interested in advertising, i.e. the ones not using ad blockers. This isn't a moral question though and is out of bounds of what I wanted to address.

Interesting and agreeable. However, is there an al...

2011-11-14T11:58:38.332+05:30

Interesting and agreeable. However, is there an alternative way that will enable the advertisers spread a word about their product without any apparent gimmicks?