Generally ads pay up to an order of magnitude more if there is some level of tracking and targeting available, and that's what most ad blockers target. Paying a bunch of money to show ads to who-knows-who who-knows-how-many-times isn't very valuable. Paying money to show ads to owners of Shitzus that make over $100,000/year is worth $12/click.
I'm pretty certain that as ad blockers grow there will be a lot more work-around (doing the work on the backend and serving up static HTML or a lot more native ads), but ad blockers aren't quite to the level that it's worth it to make those changes.
Because advertisers don't trust publishers. They need a third party agency with no immediate interest in the game that could guarantee reliable reporting. For example if the ads are served from the publisher then the advertising network has no way of identifying fake clicks/impressions made by botnets.
Idea: ad network w/ a daemon the publisher installs in their infrastructure between the users and the content. Maintains a blockchain which verifies exactly how many impressions there have been.
Counting Impressions. A different model is needed if the publishers servers have to get the ad first and then give it to the client because the ad server then needs to trust the publisher to report impressions honestly and the publisher has an incentive to inflate that number.
A: Drops 'impressions' as the metric for allocating money for ads. Use something else like clicks which take you to the advertiser's site.
I work hard to block all ads, including those. It's super helpful if you can provide an HTML class to your divs so I can more easily block them, but I will keep on working on blocking all ads by all means possible. I'm thinking of building an ad extension that doesn't show the ads but reports to js that the ad is still there, so that websites think that ad is there. It might also help for some cases to download the a…
The only reason I know that it blocks these ads is because I also run an ad blocker. We have a very strict ad policy; we manage all our ads internally, don't do any tracking, and all ads are 100% relevant to the content of the site. I have click-through rates on some ads types that are so far above the industry average you'd think I'm lying. We consider our ads just another service we provide on the site one that ben…
I don't think that's the tragedy of the commons, because there is no "commons." Your website, and your time spent creating content, are not commons in the economic sense. If you want to charge people for your content, it's relatively simple to do so. I don't think you can invoke "tragedy of the commons" when you're choosing to not charge people for your content and then getting upset that some people view your content while choosing to not view ads.
I guess one of the "benefits" of serving ads from a third party site is that you can cookie the user on the thirdparty domain, and build a profile as the user moves between participant sites. ("Re-targeting"). Serving ads from a first party domain likely loses this information since there won't be a shared cookie? Also it might complicate installation (you'd need to install some server side software that fetches ad c…
Can't you set a cookie then re-direct to the PNG/JPG back on your own server?
Aynway, I've seen some domains shifting some crucial images like a play button into ad containers/folders just to come around ad blocker. Easy to adjust within ad blockers though.
Stop browsing ad supported content then. It's a simple solution that works for everyone involved. Everyone says "i'd happily pay" but few put their money where their mouth is. For the HN downvoters why is choosing not to consume the ad supported content so bad?
You dont know if target is ad supported when you click on a link.
I'll give you that argument. Even though people continue to return to those same sites. Then complain about sites that try to implement other means of monetization like paywalls.
I work hard to block all ads, including those. It's super helpful if you can provide an HTML class to your divs so I can more easily block them, but I will keep on working on blocking all ads by all means possible. I'm thinking of building an ad extension that doesn't show the ads but reports to js that the ad is still there, so that websites think that ad is there. It might also help for some cases to download the a…
Stop browsing ad supported content then. It's a simple solution that works for everyone involved. Everyone says "i'd happily pay" but few put their money where their mouth is. For the HN downvoters why is choosing not to consume the ad supported content so bad?
How does choosing to not consume ad-supported content help the situation? There is no difference between not viewing an ad-supported web page, and viewing it with an adblocker, apart from the extremely small cost of serving the page. And if the cost of serving the page to adblocking visitors is too high, then that's an extremely obvious flaw in the web site's business model, and is in no way the fault of the adblocking visitors.