You say that your downloading the ad content of a site does nothing for the business’s bottom line “directly”. Your qualification suggests you acknowledge it does something for the business’s bottom line indirectly, so I’m not sure what point you are making. Is there some rule that you have an entitlement to the product of a business if the price they ask only benefits the business indirectly? Seems a strange idea to me
Or are you saying that downloading the ad content of a site doesn’t benefit them at all? Is there some rule that you have an entitlement to the product of a business if you don’t think the price they ask is really of benefit to the business? Is that your call to make? That seems an even stranger idea to me.
Absent a specific statutory provision, how one would actually classify the conduct in terms of criminal consequences probably depends on the site’s terms and conditions and their enforceability. Assuming the site has appropriate terms and conditions and they are legally binding, the conduct would be perhaps akin to some form of petty fraud.
The ‘adcompany’ provides add(s) to the content provider as a service - the content provider gets ‘paid’ something based on whatever terms they set.
The ‘adcompany’ is the one that makes all the money here.
This is how it works - (to the best of my knowledge, but admittedly, its been a while since I’ve delved into this side of it, but I don’t think its changed any/much)
The advertisers pay adcompany to host their ads and get them published. They generally pay based on number of ‘views’ (how many times the ad was seen).
The adcompany pays the content provider based on the number of ‘click thrus’ - so the content provider would only get paid IF the add is actually clicked on.
The adcompany tells the advetisor ‘you got x number of views, and y number of clicks’ - so the service is working - and they continue to try and figure out how to increase both views and clicks.
If I use ‘adblock’ - then the ‘adcompany’ is the one that loses money - since they can’t say they got my ‘views’ - the less the views, the more likely the advertiser moves on to other companies, etc…
Given that I have zero intention to click on the add itself - the ‘content provider’ loses nothing - since they weren’t going to get anything from my visit anyway.
If you have info that says the content provider gets paid on number of views, please let me know - this model got trashed early on by people hosting nothing but banner sites and using bots to ramp up the views - hence all the cookie tracking that now goes on as well.
I’m not going to debate the entire ‘entitlement’ part of your post - thats not the point I was attempting to make. If adcompanys would police the adds such that (a) the content is relevant (b) the content is safe (c) they aren’t providing scam adds (d) the adds themselves won’t be so intrusive as to cause disruption to what I am trying to do - I would turn adblock off on the given site - since no-one seems to meet those requirements - I don’t. That choice is thiers.
After I finsihed that post - I realized that there are a couple of other models out there as well - but they are limited to the ‘giants’ - Facebook, etc - where adcompanys will pay them to host the adds - but I would say this is the exception, not the norm.
In which case - the content providor - still gets paid wether I view the add or not.
Firstly, regardless of what you don’t want to discuss, the “entitlement” bit is key here. What you are saying in essence is that since in your view your actions don’t affect the business, you are entitled to disregard what they want as a quid pro quo for their content.
Secondly, this comment:
… is monumentally commercially naïve. What factors do you think would be relevant to the negotiation of the terms set?
I’m not discussing ‘my entitlement’ - I’m discussing the models I am familar with and why I do not feel the content provider (forbes, etc) is losing based on my use of adblock. Secondly, if I find thier content so ‘needed’ I’ll subscribe, etc - as I have done here.
Until the adproviders can secure up their end of it - I could care less if they (the adprovidors) make money at this point. Call it a boycott of thier services if that makes you feel better.
If you have some information to share as to why I’m incorrect in the model I’ve laid out - feel free to do so.
If they (the content provider) wants me to see the add’s they put on the page - then they need to find a model that is safe and secure and as least obtrusive as possible.
I assume you don’t use a DVR to avoid commercials on tv? Do you read the adds in magazines. etc? If not, then you do not have a leg to stand on in the ‘entitlement’ game.
contracts vary - as I said - how much per view, how many views min, types of sites, priority placement on sites, number of times in the rotation, click thru rate, etc - all of these things will come into account for how much the adcompany, the advertiser and the content provider will negotiate over - or atleast have ‘tiers’ of service for.
while you seem to think I am naive on the matter - you have yet to provide any clue that you have better knowledge of the business model - if anyone is naive here, it appears to be you.
But my post to which you responded was concerning entitlement. You can’t really purport to respond to my post while not dealing with what it’s about.
You either don’t see or are avoiding mentioning the elephant in the room. What other factor you are not discussing that will diminish the content provider’s negotiating power? Do you seriously not know, or do you just not want to admit it because then your position would fall apart?
Well, I was responding to ‘costs’ and why my visit (adblocked or not) wasn’t really going to contribute to the bottom line for the content provider.
I then explained my overall reasoning for that, you have yet to counter that with anything of substance.
You seem to think you have a ‘gotcha’ prepared - how about just telling us what you are thinking instead of playing this game.
You may be thinking about the ‘brand’ of the site that is having adds placed on it - thier overall number of ‘subscribers’ etc - to which I made the specific point in post 64 about ‘other models’ where ad providors seek them out directly and pay them to allow them to put adds on the site as a service - to which I also said ‘my use of adblock has no affect on that’ - since its my overall visit to the site that drives that negotiation, not whether or not I actually see the add.
So - you think I’ve missed something - point it out already or correct me where i’m incorrect - if you’re right, I’ll admit it - but this ‘gotcha’ game is boring.
IANAL, but I think the sticking point here will be whether such terms could be regarded as reasonable and binding. What if the terms stipulated that visitors to the site are obligated to click on one ad from each page they visit? What if the stipuation was that the visitor must click through and buy something? Absurd extension of the concept, I know, but obviously there has to be a point where terms and conditions are just wishful nonsense.
What if you’re using a text-only browser because of sight impairment? Are you automatically consigned to a life of crime?, Stealing your text from websites without downloading the ad images that you wouldn’t be able to see anyway?
I think there’s also a fairly strong argument that web standards are and have always been intended to be agnostic of the process that will render them - HTML tags are suggestions, not rigidly-enforced prescriptions; by participating in these standards, web publishers have already accepted some terms.
It tends to be people commenting on an event, or sharing a headline which interests me enough to go and find more. In saying that I do follow the Guardian on Facebook so tend to see that news source (but I don’t block their ads).
Nitpick: that’s not necessarily how it works (not that this changes my position that ad blocking is OK)
Advertisers may pay a small amount on the number of views; a slightly larger amount on the number of clicks, and a significant amount on the number of ‘conversions’ (where someone actually bought something after clicking through, or did something else specific that the ad target site wants)
In some cases, views are worth more if you happen to be good at getting clicks and conversions; and in some cases, the number of views makes clicks and conversions more valuable. Views do actually count.
But I’m in the ‘magazine supplement’ camp here. as a web content publisher, it’s absurd to expect people to view something, if your method of delivery includes a choice not to.
If you cunningly weave your ads into your content in such a way that the recipient doesn’t get that choice, or if you find a way to prevent your visitors from accessing content until they have viewed the ad, then… OK, but you also have to live with the reality that these strategies might drive people away. (in theory though, why should they drive people away more than a contract that says ‘you have to view the ads on my pages’)
Because the content I read (native, sponsored) often comes with the requirement to help tell or enhance the asvertiser’s brand story - which means the content is often biased. Id rather have that delineation between content and advertising rather than have to wonder.
Even without knowing the details of why, I’m confident that you’re wrong because - whatever you think - this OP wouldn’t exist otherwise. Why the heck would the sites to which the OP refers be blocking those who use adblockers if there is no cost to them? Could it be that they just like preventing people from seeing their content just for the sheer fun of pissing people off? No. They have to be losing something somehow or they wouldn’t do it.
But you are missing a few things. Firstly views are worth something, as **Mangetout **outlines. Whether or not you are using an adblocker is detectable , so in the case you mention at #68, it is not just your overall visit that affects negotiations; it is the number of visitors that visit without using an adblocker that will underlie negotiations.
Secondly, a point that is often misunderstood in this context (and I respectfully suggest you make the same mistake, Mangetout) is that the advertising game is all about chances. Almost everyone thinks that advertisements have no effect on them, and that they’d never buy based on one etc. But the numbers say that distributing a magazine supplement will result in sales for advertisers, and that’s why advertisers pay to have an ad in them. You say you won’t read it, I say I won’t read it, but in the end people do and the advertisers pay because they know that a certain percentage will. The fewer people have the chance of seeing an ad, the less an advertiser will pay. If an advertiser learned that 50% of the time the supplement to one newspaper never even made it to the customer, but another newspaper didn’t have that problem, advertisements in the supplement to the latter paper’s supplement would be worth far more.
That’s why adblockers are not like magazine supplements; if it’s apparent that a part of a content provider’s potential audience have no chance at all of seeing ads on their site, that will hurt their bottom line.
Mangetout, this is a slippery slope argument and you know better than to try one of those. Hell, all T&C’s should be banned because they could require you to become a paedophile; won’t someone think of the children!
Obviously there could be T&C’s so offensive as to be unenforceable, but that doesn’t mean there couldn’t be T&C’s that are well short of that and thus potentially enforceable.
I honestly think a lot of advertisers are relying on most people just not knowing how/not being bothered to install them.
We’re a pretty tech literate bunch here, but from what my friends in adland tell me, the use of adblockers isn’t nearly as widespread as some of the industry stories might suggest - particularly on mobile, which is a particularly attractive platform for advertisers.
I have my own system of ethics, Princhester. And you’re free to argue that my system is wrong, or your system is better, just as you are doing.
I think one big issue is that the ethical situation is different on every single site. Some factors:
• Whether my having the ads viewable or not will actually hurt the site.
• Whether the ads contain malware, crash the browser, make the site unusable, etc.
• Whether the site itself is ethical. I.e., is it peddling a scam, is it full of clickbait articles, etc.
• Whether I use the site a lot or I happened upon it to view one article. E.g., I should probably subscribe to Slate.com. I get a lot of value out of their site, I read it regularly, etc.
My feeling about 3rd-party ad servers is that they are fundamentally unethical. If you don’t know what the content of the ads is, if you don’t know whether the ads are ethical or not, if you don’t know whether the ads are going to hurt people’s computers, then you are being an irresponsible business and you are complicit in any bad things that happen.
Magazines wouldn’t just run any ad that was thrown at them, so why should websites? Because they are being lazy and irresponsible sacks of shit.
No, I am not arguing a slippery slope and this is not a slippery slope argument. It is (or was meant to be, taken together with the graped paragraph that you didn’t quote) Reductio ad absurdum - I think we all agree there is a line to be drawn about what terms and conditions would be reasonable; we just disagree on where to draw it.
Here’s a case that’s interesting because, in my view, what you’re doing is legal but still unethical: music streaming via Spotify, etc.
I’ve been doing a lot of streaming lately, listening to the whole catalogs of artists with a friend and reviewing all the songs. I even listen to the ads! In fact, I did a post on how they bothered me so little that I wasn’t motivated to use their “Premium” service:
But artists make almost zero money from streaming. Their record companies make the contracts with the streaming service (and often are part owners of the service), and the artist has no say and makes jack shit.
The experience of streaming is just like doing illegal downloading except it’s totally legal and more convenient. It’s also like illegal downloading in that the artists and even the record companies make jack shit from your listening to infinite amounts of music and taking in an ad or two.
And I’m not joking or saying this just to make a point: it really does feel unethical to me.
So sometimes you do as you’re told, and it still isn’t right.
You’re possibly correct, but I do not think the ‘content providor’ is going to get much, if anything, from sheer ‘views’ - the adCompany certainly will, as agreements to the advertisor will likely include a ‘minumum views required’ .
This is simply due to the changes that I am aware of (years ago) - to prevent bots and things - basically, they may get something on ‘unique views’.
But even if that is the case - I am not in the business of worrying about the content provider’s business model - if my not viewing the adds is a problem for them, then they should take steps to make the adds more tenable.
<bolding mine>
So, you’ve got your opinion, but nothing to back that up.
They don;t want the adds blocked - maybe because at that point there is no chance for click-thru - maybe theres no chance to spread malware or other fishing stuff - adprovidors collect more data than just add stuff - maybe the agreement with the adcompany is a ‘default payment’ based on x number of views - i don’t have the agreements, and neither do you.
In the end, as I said above - I owe nothing to the content providors bottom line - and I am not under the impression that my use of adblock ‘takes’ anything from them as a general rule.
As said above, if/when they create adds that are acceptable - maybe then I can turn it off - but until then, adblock is part of my overall security plan, and it makes browsing better.
I thought you said I left out an elephant - guess not - when come back, bring elephant.
Plus, if someone does link an article, you can just use Google’s cached version. In fact, I only link the cached version, now.
Forbes particularly bothers me because they lied about creating an “ads light” version of their site, and then put more ads on it.
I have noticed that certain sites have been finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in ad lists, now. Those definitely will never get it turned off. I just defeat the exploit and hit the page a few times to offset the 0.6 cents they got from that one visit.
You see, I will turn off adblock for some sites, if the ads aren’t annoying. But not if you try to force the issue, or try to use manipulative tactics like guilt.
I also will not shut off adblock if I have to use a script to modify your page to make it work properly. If you can’t be assed to make a page that works, I’m not going to monetarily support you.
EDIT: I haven’t run into any problems on wired.com. Though I never go there directly–just from links. I don’t see the point in going to any single website for tech content, when there are so many.
