Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Please Turn Off Your Ad Blockers


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13979 posts

Posted 20 August 2015 - 08:50 AM

I know some members here rely heavily on ad revenue to support their websites.  Ad blockers are not welcome.  This may be of interest...

 

How are you handling ad blockers on your web pages?

 

 

How Some Publishers Ask Readers to Stop Using Ad-Blockers: ‘Pretty Please?’

 

Software tools that can detect Web advertisements and then block them from users’ view have become increasingly popular as consumers fret about things like data collection or the glut of advertising slowing down Web pages.

But ad-blockers have become a major problem for publishers because most of the free content distributed online is supported by advertising revenue. One recent report suggested the issue will lead to $22 billion in lost revenue this year as one out of three Internet users now employee some software to block ads.

Recently, as ad-blocking spreads across the Internet, publishers have tried different strategies to deal with the problem, everything from completely disallowing ad-blocking users from viewing content on their sites to paying anti-ad-blocking firms to block the blockers.

Some publishers, however, have taken a softer approach: appealing directly to readers.

 

 



#2 Grumpus

Grumpus

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6492 posts

Posted 20 August 2015 - 10:31 AM

Some sites I see are using techniques as underhanded as the ad blockers themselves - things like disguising product placement and ads as related articles. Ultimately, though, the industry needs to change how it works. It has happened in other, more mature industries.

 

I suppose the very first "ad blocker" was the VCR. You could record your favorite shows and fast forward through the commercials. It didn't really take off all that well because of having to cue up the tape, rewind, and all of that didn't really save much time. Ad blockers got better, though, in the form of DVRs. The cuing and rewinding is gone, now you just have to fast forward. The TV industry (and the TV advertising industry) has changed a bit, though. Branding and brand message is critical during the first five and last five seconds of an ad. Once the ads start, it takes you a moment to get the remote and start to fast forward, so you see the first five seconds. And, since you don't want to miss any of the show, you also catch the last five seconds of the last ad. Many TV programs sneak an extra start/stop point in with that little 30 second "out-take" bit that usually runs between the D and E block. Even bigger than that, we've got product placement in shows. It's hard to watch anything nowadays without someone eating a Subway sandwich or extolling the virtues of the available on-board GPS in their new Ford Focus. TV has also realized that there's as much money to be made in the after-market as their is on the initial run. There are few "reruns" shown anymore (until the show goes into syndication on another network - the original "After Market" sale). Now you get full seasons on DVD, money from Netflix and Hulu and your cable provider's on-demand service. Online streaming and on demand offer unskippable, but limited commercials. On cable network web sites, you can't just stream their stuff unless you have a paid subscription through some cable provider (for which they get a fee). And even then, you need to site through commercials after you've paid the cable company. They figured out how to get you on both ends, there.

 

The music industry (well, except for the record companies who still seem to be 30 years behind) has changed and adapted too. The Grateful Dead figured out the "new model" long before computers and digital downloads came to be. The realized that people were making bootleg copies of their shows - horrible copies at that. So, they charged you quadruple a normal ticket price if you wanted to patch directly into their sound board. Not only did this generate a slight bounce in revenue right at the time, but it enabled QUALITY copies of the bootlegs to be out there. A quality bootleg is going to get someone to say, "Hey, I like these guys - let's go see them when they come around next time!" where a crappy one will just say, "Wow. That sucks." So, by encouraging piracy, they extended their fan base faster than if they had fought it. And by extending their fan base, they could play larger venues over a period of decades rather than small ones for a few years after their album came out.

 

Ads will always be around - on the web and on TV. But if that is your only source of revenue, you need to start to look at other means, too. Partnerships, information networks, and all sorts of things are happening. Some work. Some fail miserably - but the same thing happened to TV and Music. Some things work, some don't.

 

In the end, the web has to do the same thing as everyone else: Adapt or Die.

 

G.



#3 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5845 posts

Posted 20 August 2015 - 11:53 AM

I would like to see Google demoting some of the sites that run aggressive ads because they provide a "bad user experience".   Although that will only throttle the visitors who arrive by search, direct users should know what they are getting after a few visits.

 

The worst ads that I encounter are on sites that I click to while prospecting Google news.  I would like to see them offer a black list of domains that they will use to not show me any news from those sites.  I also think that they could delete lots of domains that are pure crap or have nasty ads.

 

 

As a publisher, I run Adsense ads.  In my opinion, they are not too aggressive on their own if the publisher does not slap the visitors face with them.  I have two ads above the fold but they are both on the outside of the article content area.  If Google wants to assess aggressive ads, I think that I will be OK.



#4 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2591 posts

Posted 20 August 2015 - 01:02 PM

It's hard to be against the sentiments you express but on the other side I really don't want Google doing any of my thinking and taking any of my decisions for me.

 

I want to decide for myself. I don't want anything censored "for my own good". They have enough power already.

 

Apple wants to delete all ads except iAds and Google wants to do the same except adSense, each using their own monopoly part of the Internet.... all for my good.

 

I know how to click away from aggressive ads websites.



#5 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2591 posts

Posted 20 August 2015 - 01:12 PM

If I cross reference to this thread:

http://www.cre8asite...or-a-free-ride/

 

What! Do I want Google in the middle controlling what is coming across "for my own good"?

 

What's next "for my own good"? and from whom?


Edited by bobbb, 20 August 2015 - 01:13 PM.


#6 tam

tam

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2183 posts

Posted 20 August 2015 - 04:37 PM

Nope. It's a case of some sites ruining it for everyone. I'd rather surf with adblocker on rather than have to manually switch it on for each annoying site.



#7 test-ok

test-ok

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 418 posts

Posted 20 August 2015 - 06:38 PM

I record tv shows so I don't have to watch the advertisements...same with web sites, not that I record them but I'm not there to see ad's


Edited by test-ok, 21 August 2015 - 05:28 PM.


#8 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4893 posts

Posted 20 August 2015 - 08:01 PM

As tam said it is some sites ruining it for all sites. It used to be MFA  and now it is big media with more ad content than content content, with interstitials, with sites that show a blank page or no actual content until javascript is enabled, with sites with dozens of separate scripts many/most that call even more (yes, there are sites with over a hundred javascripts called for a single page).

It has become so bad that Reader Mode by whatever name is standard with all major browsers. Ad Blockers are the least of the problem.

What is particularly humourous is that big media, the folks whose existence was founded on advertising continues to get web advertising so very wrong. Who have continually dropped the ball since the early 80's; yes, from before the web. It is beyond sad, so chronically pathetic it must be mass media psychosis.

Unfortunately the collateral damage are those smaller sites, such as many here at Cre8 have developed, that rely on ad networks, i.e. AdSense, that require javascript. Whether blocked or stripped if the ads don't show they can't generate revenue.

However, much of how 'bad' the situation is is actually a matter of mindset. If you think that a visitor that somehow blocks the ads on your site is getting a free ride... what do you think about those that don't block ads but also don't click on them? Are they free loaders too? Of course not. Put in a B&M sense they are both window shoppers. And most 'shoppers' do only browse; most sites conversion rate is perhaps 2% +/-. That means that 98% are just passing by. Are they freeloaders... or are they opportunities?

And... just what have you been, are you doing to get those passersby to stop and buy or to come back and buy or to recommend family and friends to do so? Until such time as the majority of your non-ad-blocking visitors are converting those blocking are not especially important; until such time as a majority of visitors are actively blocking ads they are noncritical.

Also... if javascript requiring ad networks are at risk why are you not diversifying revenue sources? Or offering a <noscript> option? Or...

Note: asking for folks to turn javascript on (and imply that they should click the ads) is like asking for donations: it really isn't a good marketing choice for many/most sites. At the very least it shows a lack of imagination.

Note: Google is an easy habit to acquire, a hard one to moderate or quit. Many/most webdevs are Google addicts and when the fix isn't what it was the anguish is real. But Google isn't to blame.
 



#9 Nny777

Nny777

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 78 posts

Posted 21 August 2015 - 07:36 AM

It's really difficult because I understand why people need to resist adblockers, but at the same time I really need one as I go on a LOT of web pages every day. Things like Trip Advisor are particularly awful - I go on one page and I get like 6 identicaly pop-ups!

 

The method that works best on me is the one where you just appeal to peoples' good nature. For the web comics I read, I have it turned off for those pages, usually because they have a little thing that says "please consider turning your adblock off so we can afford to keep running the site!". I like that they understand why I have it, and kindly explain that it's damaging to them.



#10 Ken Fisher

Ken Fisher

    Light Speed Member

  • 500 Posts Club
  • 586 posts

Posted 21 August 2015 - 09:10 AM

I record tv shows so I don't have to watch the advertisements...some with web sites

 

 

I watch two shows at the same time often. Or at least a backup to avoid the ads. 

 

Heard something not long ago about how they're speeding up reruns just to get an extra 30 second add in...And TV land...forget it. I continue to watch Gunsmoke even though I've seen it over and over again. But if they have it set for 70 minutes (extra 10 minutes of ads), forget it.

 

Related story

 

http://www.wsj.com/a...-ads-1424301320

 

It's no wonder my adsense income has tanked. I thought it had more to do with mobile.



#11 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5845 posts

Posted 21 August 2015 - 09:24 AM

I just installed Adblock Plus on one of my browsers.   I want to see what my sites look like with it running.

 

I can see why people like it and feel empowered while using it.   Lots of webpages load quickly.

 

With default settings, I see that the adsense ads are blocked on all of my sites and ads delivered through the DoubleClick ad server are blocked.   HOWEVER, if  I go to Google.com and search, the Adwords ads appear.  I guess they are in the "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" category.

 

I wish that it worked in the opposite way.... that the ads from all websites would be displayed by default, then I could turn off the bad ones to form a blacklist.



#12 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2591 posts

Posted 21 August 2015 - 10:02 AM

 

For the web comics I read, I have it turned off for those pages,

 The magic concept here is "you decided" when to block or not. If you read from the thread, some third parties (Apple, Google) will block ads for you (except theirs) whether you want or not "for your own good". When will Comcast or Bell or BT want to get into this I ask.

What seems to be missed is that someone in the middle wants to intercept/drop select traffic between the server and visitor for reasons which are deemed for your benefit or "good user experience". It's an experiment that has been tried and failed in places and ongoing in other places. The reasons were/are different. We all know where those places are.



#13 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2591 posts

Posted 21 August 2015 - 10:10 AM

 

 

It's no wonder my adsense income has tanked. I thought it had more to do with mobile.

It does have to do with mobile to some extent. Hard to get ads in on a telephone. Sometimes they just have nothing to show because of the size or the placement makes it such that it is never seen.

 

Have you noticed credits at the end of a movie (show) are also sped up. Easy to get 15 seconds out of that.

 

And to read the full story on that link you need to subscribe. :) :lol: :lol:


Edited by bobbb, 21 August 2015 - 10:16 AM.


#14 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5845 posts

Posted 21 August 2015 - 10:19 AM

On my sites, on average, without doing anything special for mobile, mobile pages had 1/3 the yield per pageview when compared to desktop pageviews. 

 

Changing to mobile ad units, it improved. Now mobile pages (with a 320x100 above the fold) yield a little less than 1/2 the yield of desktop. 



#15 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2591 posts

Posted 21 August 2015 - 11:37 AM

I found using mobile ads units (responsive ads in adsense terms) makes them select from their inventory of regular ads that would fit into the space allotted to the <div> (or other) in the page.

 

They could insert the wrong size. So if you had a 330x610 block <div> they would insert the 160x600 because it is a better performer. I got around this (their advice) by specifying horizontal which would give a 320xSomething

 

All this could have changed since I did these experiments and they may have more smaller size ads.

 

I have also experimented with backup ads for those times when they have nothing to show. You get to toot your own horn but never tried it for responsive ads.


Edited by bobbb, 21 August 2015 - 11:48 AM.


#16 Ken Fisher

Ken Fisher

    Light Speed Member

  • 500 Posts Club
  • 586 posts

Posted 22 August 2015 - 03:59 AM

And to read the full story on that link you need to subscribe

 

 

I was able to read it after finding it from search. Maybe direct links work different.

 

Try "cable tv shows squeeze more ads" in Bing.



#17 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5845 posts

Posted 22 August 2015 - 05:15 AM

 

And to read the full story on that link you need to subscribe

 

I really like the Wall Street Journal, it is one of my favorite publications.  Great articles.

 

They have decided that their content must be paid for and that's that.  A firm decision.

 

Occasional articles are open for anyone to read and you can occasionally get into other articles, depending upon your mode of entry, but at least 95% of the time, when I follow a link, the article is blocked to all but subscribers.

 

I don't have any problem paying for content.  I have multiple subscriptions, most recently the Washington Post, who, in my opinion has had a shocking increase in content quality and diversity in just the past year.  However, I just don't have the money to subscribe to everything.  There are too many great publications.

 

What I would really like to see is a cookie system that allows me to pay $xxx and then charge me a few cents per article consumed at a large number of high quality websites, where I can opt into each of them.  That would give content producers income from me, and get me into a few articles per week at the websites that I don't subscribe to because I can' afford a subscription to everything. .



#18 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2591 posts

Posted 22 August 2015 - 09:22 AM

Sorta like pay-per-view or pay-per-channel on cable :)  The rest of the krap is "free"

There will no other options with auto-reader mode and adblocker mode



#19 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4606 posts

Posted 23 August 2015 - 11:21 AM

I use ad blockers. Any websites that forces sound on ads, massive pop overs etc. gets the ad blocker treatment. I only blacklist domains, never let the ad blocker chose which sites / ads to block for me.

 

I have no idea if these ads will appear overseas, but an example of a site that goes a bit bonkers with adverts:

 

http://www.essexchro...tail/story.html

 

And today, adverts do not seem as bad as in the past!



#20 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2591 posts

Posted 24 August 2015 - 09:58 AM

There is a lot of ads on that site. It is so bad it hung the browser for a while with its javascript. FF actually put up a warning that the script was not responding and I clicked stop. The page seemed to never stop.

 

On the second time to the site it did not seem to be that bad. Guess all the javascript was already in my cache.


Edited by bobbb, 24 August 2015 - 10:06 AM.


#21 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4606 posts

Posted 24 August 2015 - 10:24 AM

Often they have huge adverts that automatically expand while you are trying to read - making it almost impossible to actually read the news. They have basically totally screwed up what was a good news service, and these days, they seem to write any old rubbish to encourage FB readers to click and share. If you get a lot of traffic and have already built a reputation, you can probably make a lot of money with those awful adverts.



#22 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4606 posts

Posted 24 August 2015 - 10:31 AM

this is the one I use: https://chrome.googl...cnamgkkbiglidom

 

I think this is the fairest one. As I said, I only block when the ads are so bad I cannot actually read the site - or, on occasions, if they run the auto-start videos while I have the page open in another tab.



#23 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5845 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:39 AM

I think this is the fairest one.

 

Thanks, I am testing it out to see how my own sites look through an ad blocker.

 

I can confidently say that the adblock program seriously degrades the performance of my browsers.  



#24 TheAlex

TheAlex

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 272 posts

Posted Today, 03:35 PM

Often they have huge adverts that automatically expand while you are trying to read - making it almost impossible to actually read the news. They have basically totally screwed up what was a good news service, and these days, they seem to write any old rubbish to encourage FB readers to click and share. If you get a lot of traffic and have already built a reputation, you can probably make a lot of money with those awful adverts.

 

The Essex Chronicle is the same template as my local newspaper. Unfortunately the local newspapers don't have much control over it.

 

As for the "any old rubbish" - the editor of my local paper left the industry for that reason: http://www.holdthefr...he-web-monster/





RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users