Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love. (from 2010)

I use ad blocking to protect my computers and the other devices on my home network from hackers, viruses, worms, phishing and spam. I do however have adblock turned off on ATS to comply with the TOS (which you AGREED to when you signed up), the ads displayed here are not TOO rude, defamatory or misleading either. Most of the ads I've seem on ATS are for things like other simlar websites, and movies. It is how I found out about the movie Splice, so that's all good.

I have one particular ad which follows me wherever I go, and it's that 'reduce stomach fat now' or whatever one. It's a good job I'm tech savvy, or I'd think someone had it in for me! lolol.

But really, most online ads are misleading, ask you to enter details such as home addresses, phone numbers, names and ages etc and even BANK DETAILS, which you should never ever ever do unless it is via a trusted payment service such as paypal or your own bank, a lot of them advertise fake products and even fake pharmacutical drugs such as fake viagra. I'm also female, so I don't need my genitalia pumping either thank you!! XD

You must also be very careful when clicking ads on social networks, as this is how so many people's private data and profiles get phished & used to spread spam within the sites.

Basicaly, if websites took responsability to source advertising from safe, reputable companies, then there wouldn't be so much of an issue and less of a need for us to use ad blocking software. ATS say they make sure all ads are scanned & filtered for malware, which I also believe and trust. I don't really click on them though, unless one really catches my eye, but that's not the issue here.

ITV for instance (a UK free TV channel paid for by advertising) wouldn't be allowed to advertise fake products, products aimed at adults & the porn industry or anything deemed unfit, even post watershed, so why should websites & online advertisers be allowed to put users at risk? This is why I block ads on 99% of sites.

Those YOU'VE WON AN IPHONE or whatever ones really get to me, if I see them, 9 times out of 10 the adblocker gets turned on.

A lot of online ads do sadly lead to infected websites containing things like trojans, keygens, worms, viruses & spyware. ATS staff need to recognise the cost of repairing a machine from these things is NOT cheap.

However I don't feel the ads on ATS pose a great risk at all. ATS does seem to work to ensure only safe ads reach our screens, so I don't see what the big issue is with turning off adblock on ATS. They've also made sure to remove those ads that buzz or make noise, and I thank them greatly for that!





[edit on 25-7-2010 by The Chez]

Is this site different? I may have missed something in the read here but ad blocking doesn't hurt other site owners "pockets" . Why is this site different? Most sites, that I am aware...are paid on a per click viewing basis, and all the rest of the ads that are on the page are prepaid!

Just curious as to WHY ATS works this way. The T*C rules regarding the blocking issue seems ummmm... like a conspiracy to meeee .. *g*

Originally posted by SeekerLou
Is this site different? I may have missed something in the read here but ad blocking doesn't hurt other site owners "pockets" . Why is this site different? Most sites, that I am aware...are paid on a per click viewing basis, and all the rest of the ads that are on the page are prepaid!

Just curious as to WHY ATS works this way. The T*C rules regarding the blocking issue seems ummmm... like a conspiracy to meeee .. *g*

I thought a lot of sites used commissioned ads, where the advertiser paid the site owner an x amount to display an x amount of ads on the given site, wether they were clicked, blocked or displayed.

They cannot make us click the ads, so I don't know what difference it makes if your browser displays them or not. What about those people who have anti virus packages that block ads & popups? And those on dial up, who would find it near impossible to load ATS with the ads, as most ads are flash based, and eat bandwidth.

Now I allow the ads on ATS because I have no reason not to, I am net savvy when it comes to viruses, I don't really click on ads unless I like the look of them, if they're dangerous, my AV deals with it.

I actualy read the ATS TOS when I signed up, and I agreed not to block ads on the site when I agreed to the TOS, if I didn't like this, I would not have signed up, and should not have signed up.

However I do not agree that two members have been banned for this, that is going way, way overboard from the issue in hand. A simple warning, and a generated email concerning this issue would have surpassed this time.

It seems they have no way to tell who blocks ads, apart from those who are honest about it. I thought ATS was a search for the truth and promotes openess & honesty? A lot of my threads get flamed, but so what? People are allowed opinions, it is all important as a part of openness.

I don't think we should all block adds from ATS so long as they are not surved from private IP address but i realy don't think Google on the site is helping because they are the worse in the world.

Try this out.

Go to your internet options in IE, select security tab and click 'Custom Level' and then scroll down to 'Allow paste operation using script' and set it to prompt and now go to Google maps and see what happens.

That right these checky ba$tards are now posting anything you have on your clipboard up to google and that could include anything from passwords to personal data.

You don't get anything for nothing from google and they can also workout how many posts we each make.

reply to post by The Chez


We don't have any prepaid ads, very few advertisers will pay a guaranteed flat rate, it's stupid to do so if your goal is to get a good ROI on your campaign.

We get paid for "impressions" or views, not clicks. The ad server knows if the ad was served or not. If the ad is blocked by an blocker it doesn't get served and we don't get paid for that impression.

That's only fair, why should an advertiser pay us for an ad that wasn't viewed? It's also a great accounting system that makes sure we get every penny we're supposed to. It's why the internet is such an attractive market, unlike radio, television or print, you can actually count how many people saw your ad.

We haven't had to deal with "pay per click" in ages, our traffic is significant enough now we attract "per thousand impressions" (CPM) adverts.

Springer...

reply to post by SeekerLou


I have read this thread and others like it and although agree the ads can be annoying, you can't lose sight of the fact that this website is a business and like any other business, revenue comes first. And rightly so, we all need to carve out a living somehow. Get it right and good money can be made from this type of business model. The only other option is to turn ATS into a paid membership website.

I feel, that if a site is going to demand that it's member base allow ads in toto, the site should offer some method, by which it's members may escape the advertisements.

I for one, would be perfectly willing sponsor ATS via a paid membership that allows me to visit the site ad free.

Forcing members to abstain from blocking ads also comes with a certain level of responsibility on the part of the site to avoid exposing their members to malicious ad scripts (which occur from time to time, even here, regardless of what anyone says). We all know ATS is run by the "nice guys", but ATS has absolutely no direct control over what is actually served by thse third party advertisers. Leaving my online security completely in my hands. It's a stretch to ask that I take my hands off of my online security when I visit ATS. If ATS were serving all ads directly, the situation may be a little different, as they'd be a responsible party, but this is not the case. C'mon guys, look at the content of your own website. Do you really believe that us members are the kind of people who aren't paranoid about our online security and privacy?

Performance is also a consideration, and this aspect of ads served by third parties is one that has forced me away from ATS numerous times. Ever click on a thread, and have to wait 5 minutes for it to load because "ads.doubleclick.net" is unresponsive? Well I have, and as a programmer by trade, I don't appreciate the canned rebuttals about browser settings and caching...

How much money, on a yearly basis, does a single user with ad-blocking turned on actually cost the site in lost revenue? Don't know? Then there's no argument until the site does know. When you figure it out, let me know and I'll send you a check.

reply to post by Unit541


Actually if want the ads to go away, just work yourself up to Silver Contribution Level (I think) and all the ads will magically go away.

I haven't seen a single ad on ATS for ages. Except for the side banner, but that's not really an ad....



~Keeper

reply to post by Unit541


It is money dude. I have worked with online advertising for a number of years and as I say, once you got the model right, then you are on to a winner. There would probably be a big revenue drop by going to a paid membership model and there's no point in giving up the cash cow now. Would you?

reply to post by tothetenthpower


This is just not feasible for me. I don't have either the time nor the inclination to spare that is required to draft original discussions that sufficiently contribute quality content to the site, and I'm not going to go trolling for flags. This is just not the type of member that I am. I'm more of a "replier", but that doesn't make me any lesser of a member than one who's starting a new irrelevant, beat-to-death-for-2-years-already thread every 7 minutes.

After all, look at my current "contribution level".

It tells you that I'm not much of a contributor to the site. However, read my posts, count my stars and staff applause, and you get a much different story.

reply to post by LarryLove


There's no giving up what you don't have. If someone's blocking your ads, you're not making any money from them. If that same person that's blocking your ads pays to cash money to get you to quit riding them about blocking the ads, elementary math puts you ahead of where you were.

I'm no stranger to online advertising either, this is how my clients make their living. My point is that no matter how many times you list it as an infraction in the TOC, or require members to "agree" when they sign up, it's simply not enforceable without denying access to the site. If people can surf the site with ad-blockers on, they are going to whether they admit to it or not.

It's a given that the membership here at ATS doesn't exactly represent the mainstream of society. Therefore it's a given that a mainstream advertising model probably isn't the most effective or profitable model. Although it seems to be working fairly well, I can't believe that there isn't a better model. One that would more thoroughly satisfy both the website and it's members.

reply to post by Unit541


I agree and for the record I believe there is a better model out there, but serving ads is by far the easiest and most profitable. I come from a world where terms and conditions mean everything (telecommunications) and often find them distasteful, yet necessary to retain the profit you are used to.

However, I believe a paid membership system would deliver better content and attract a less troll-like audience. News syndication is another thing to look into. I guess it all comes down to the primary motivators behind the site - make money or foster a smaller, but more conspiratorial member base.

In a way it's too bad you can't preselect what sort of ads you'd be interested in. I know advertisers would love that, but if I could get tech news or whatever, I'd be a lot more interested than "You're fat!" or "Your teeth aren't the correct hue!". Even gaming ads...I forget when some come out and a reminder wouldn't hurt.

My computer is slow, but I want to support ATS. Here is the solution:

Simply disable flash from your ATS browser, the ads will still be served as static images.

There is a Firefox entension called "Flashblock" which block Flash except for a white listed sites. That is the best solution for my situation and ATS.

Why not promoting the use of those tools for people who have problems with flash ads, instead of menacing to ban? I think it would generate a more positive response from the members and is viable an alternative to adblock. Win for me, win fot ATS.

Enjoy!

[edit on 25-7-2010 by gagol]

reply to post by gagol


Whether we like it or not, ads will always be a part of ATS. But here's an interesting angle. We are ATS employees, charged with making threads and posting replies to increase the number of pages indexable by Google. We work for the man and this man is ATS. It is however a free choice and one I am happy to make, but will always view myself as an ATS employee, albeit unpaid!

Do you do anything more than 'hope' that advertisers have clean ads?

Like even do occasionally sampling of them?

'Hoping' that bankers & congress do the 'right' thing hasn't worked too well.

And since we know at least 10s of billions are used in all sorts of nefarious 'national security' [code for unconstitutional criminality] purposes,
can you give us any fact based confirmation that it is minimal to non existent here at this, of all sites?

For me at Yahoo news & Huffington post, since i am on dialup, if i don't block java script those sites become virtually unusable to me.

Do you try to have ads that won't choke the CPU with an overload of graphics processing?
Some ads make huge use of the CPU, because when they are 'in window' everything runs slower, then when i scroll them 'out of window' my machine performs normally.

I will try to leave java script on here,
but in turn i hope you will monitor for 'clean' advertising,
as well as advertising that at least attempts not to be a CPU hog.

Yes?

[edit on 25-7-2010 by slank]

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by The Chez

 

We don't have any prepaid ads, very few advertisers will pay a guaranteed flat rate, it's stupid to do so if your goal is to get a good ROI on your campaign.

We get paid for "impressions" or views, not clicks. The ad server knows if the ad was served or not. If the ad is blocked by an blocker it doesn't get served and we don't get paid for that impression.

That's only fair, why should an advertiser pay us for an ad that wasn't viewed? It's also a great accounting system that makes sure we get every penny we're supposed to. It's why the internet is such an attractive market, unlike radio, television or print, you can actually count how many people saw your ad.

We haven't had to deal with "pay per click" in ages, our traffic is significant enough now we attract "per thousand impressions" (CPM) adverts.

Springer...

Thanks for clearing that up, I wondered how you knew which ads were blocked and which were not. You still don't know the individual users who are using adblock though do you.

I'm not being rude, confrontational or off the mark here, but is this thread being used to encourage those who do block ads to come out & own up, and then get banned? It could look that way.

I enjoy ATS, and I am willing to allow ads to be displayed, as I agreed to when I signed up, and if it helps you keep the site open, then so be it.

Originally posted by soficrow
Will you help me out here please?

It's a conundrum:

a. If we don't support the site and accept 3rd party ads / pop-ups, then sites like ATS will go out of business; but

b. You say, if we don't use ad-blockers, we're vulnerable to viruses and trojans and the like.

...Seems to me there must be a third option.

I do NOT want ATS to be unsupported.

What do you recommend, as a techie? ...How do we protect ourselves AND support ATS at the same time?

Without having to cough up cash we don't have for "subscriptions" to everything that interests us? ...which is what the mainstream is trying to force us into...

I recommend a donations button with donation tracking so members can see who donated what and when. (Oops that exists, funny its not really apparent to me that it does...maybe thats a probem).
Contributors could be given a nice title and icon. (If it happens already, i dont see it, i do see contributor icons on avatars but im not sure if they donated money or content...)

Ad's are not the only solution available to high traffic web sites. Its the lazy man's "lets make some quick money" logic.
If you think a bit outside of the box, you could have some interesting business ideas that can drive revenue which relates to ATS more, so it doesn't seem like an ad, and seems more like information thats relative to the site your on. Also, when it looks like your asking for money its a turn off for people.

Do i turn on ad-blocker technology? No. I turn off the site if the ad's are intrusive and i run anti-virus etc... to deter any attacks i may recieve.

I understand the need for revenue and i understand the user's need to not feel intruded on with information they did not request, its a very tough balancing act but it can be done in a good way for both sides.

One last thing, someone said the amount of pages is not the problem its the amount of traffic. I argue the two are actually the same thing. More pages means more traffic. If you only had an INDEX page and maybe 3 links i doubt you would get as many hits as if you had 1 INDEX page and 50 links...

EDIT: One last thing, i am sure there is a way with _javascript to check if a user is ad blocking. Ads are URLS....URLS can be pinged with Javascript to see if their is a response, all sites send a response code...see where im going with this? If you want to cut the users legs off when their ads are blocked, technically you can do that.

It solves your problems without having to tell people to do it. I prefer to use code to tell people that you have something turned on i dont like and for that your recieving far less then an average visitor. If more sites treated ad blockers like this they would quickly die off, but thats another topic...


[edit on 25-7-2010 by EspyderMan]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


you probably gave this some consideration before, but hey, let me try:

why not running a mixed strategy:

free version of the site? fine, here are the ads (and than you could even force people to stop blocking them)

wanna get rid of moronic manipulation called ads? fine, here's the annual subscription fee. I would be willing to pay a fair amount of money, say 50 dollars/year for access (what's the CPM theses days? What's the click-tru rate? Or do you use a CPC model?)

Now that I'm at it, in case you and the staff are interested in hearing them, I have some (not to badly informed) suggestions that can improve the overall quality even more.
And one of them is pretty serious in my regard: I tried to get HTTPS, pages didn't load. I care for privacy so I would feel better to know that messages are being uploaded using encrypted connections.

So, if you're interested, gimme an u2u and we'll figure it out from there

last sentence for now: thanks guys and gals for this wonderful place!

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Then again, you won't see many people declaring they use AddBlocker as it's one of the ways to have yourself shown the door here, and for good reason.

wow...didnt know it has come to that.. I was responding to SO post in the other thread...on this very subject.

I can always decide to drop out of this site all together.

If this is the official site policy...