I wonder if it’s not those where we have to choose which ad we’d prefer. I’ve had so much trouble with using adblock on Hulu I can’t even use it anymore. It’s fine until about half-way through a show then it locks up as an ad blanks my screen.
I’ve seen those with no problem in the past. And the show didn’t lock up on me. I just got a screen telling me that they depended on ad revenue etc that ran for a minute in lieu of the commercial and then it went back to the show. The next commercial break ran with no problem.
Even in that case, shooing away visitors isn’t a great idea, because you lose out on word of mouth and social advertising (which would bring in visitors who do see the ads) - as well as potentially creating a community of enemies.
“Potential creating a community of enemies” is a bit over-the-top, dontcha think?
Shooing away visitors could be a good idea if they are a net financial loss to you. It totally depends on the website in question. There are exclusive sites which shoo away visitors for all sorts of reasons - it’s not always a bad idea. For many, yep - I agree it might not be the wisest choice. A website owner needs to do a decent cost/benefit analysis - is that person’s presence at a cost more valuable than their absence?
A site like Facebook, where the user is the product, that would be suicide. But it totally depends on the aims of the website - not all are about getting lots of visitors.
Though I’m struggling to think of examples right now! Maybe a small, invite-only messageboard forum? Dunno.
Sites which are just covering their costs, rather than trying to profit. They’re the main group I’m thinking of. Visitors to those sites are a disadvantage if they’re a net financial loss.
I struggled to find the right wording for that and wasn’t happy with the result - point is, sometimes, pissing off the folks on the web can turn nasty - I can’t recall any specific examples, but I’m sure I’ve seen bad PR decisions on the net end turn into monumentally bad outcomes, brought about when the news of whatever it is snowballs on blogs or social sites.
I agree - and ultimately, it’s a business decision that the site must take - sites shut out visitors for all kinds of reasons (Hulu, for example, because of licensing issues, isn’t available here in the UK).
Again, agreed - there may be sites that don’t particularly want to grow their visitor market - maybe support sites for specific business applications, for example, don’t want any and everyone strolling in, but maybe want to make enough ad revenue to cover their costs.
In general though, for sites that do wish to grow in membership, and want to be ad-funded, blocking visitors who block ads probably isn’t a good idea - for reasons I stated - it isn’t just the visitor you’re blocking, it’s all the family and friends (IRL and virtual) they might have brought along if you let them in - and all the family and friends of theirs that you may potentially turn hostile in sympathy.
How about a Real Life example?
Our city public transit system has a small, privately-owned cafe in the bus depot. The first owner decided on a policy of requiring everybody sitting in the cafe to spend at least $1. The reason, of course, was to run off the teenagers who would sit at the tables not spending money. And it worked. The non-money-spending teenagers stopped coming in … and so did their money-spending friends they were sitting with.
That owner was soon out of business.
Exactly. I’m sure there’s probably a proper business term for things that sit on the periphery and don’t appear immediately profitable, but are in fact quite essential in a roundabout, not-so-obvious way.
Some examples closer to home (that is, on the internet) of how bad PR decisions can motivate a disproportionate negative response from the online may be found here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InternetCounterattack