Whatever these ad reinsertion methods that work for Chrome but not Firefox are, they're encouraging me to keep using Firefox :)
Is it worth supporting Firefox?
151–160 of 224 posts
Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
It works for some, there is no doubt. I would believe that industry publications (transportation, forestry, etc.), and popular blogs, still make decent coin on selling print ads or sponsorships on the web. It's different to the original post's comments. They are looking at a public audience with ad blockers. Podcasts are a different affair altogether. I would love to see the numbers for those as I'm never in front of…
I would love to see the numbers for those as I'm never in front of my computer when I listen to a podcast and I don't remember the ads long enough to followup even when I'm interested in the product. It's not always about direct action, it's often about brand awareness. If you listen to a lot of podcasts, you'll know the first company you think about when you are in the market for: - Mattresses - Eyeglasses - Creatin…
> Since the same sponsors keep buying ads on podcast and most of them have coupon codes to tell them where their customers came from, they have metrics that tell them the return on investment.
This is a good point and I would love to see the value of advertising on podcasts on the direct (custom links) and indirect (awareness) outcome.
Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Google and Facebooks of the world sell the idea that they can personalize ads better than content producers and so everyone relies on their trackers and javascripts to build content business online. Publishers should know their audience better than ad servers. Part of the problem is that Google and Facebook actually can know the audience better than the content creator. A content creator only knows that the reader i…
Why do you think this increases as value? Back before targeted advertising, if I saw an ad for a kitchen gizmo on a reputable publication, I would know that the maker of the gizmo was serious and cared about the publication. Now the the ads are targeted, all I know is that the maker paid a shady ad network a couple bucks and I got caught up in their profile.
Value hasn't really increased here; in fact, I'd say that ads now are a lot worse in quality than they used to be.
The difference with targeted ads is only that users are more likely to click on them. It's driven the cost per click down, and made advertising dirt cheap.
In the old model of advertising, the gizmo maker put out an ad in a reputable publication, spending quite a bit of money to do so, and got a small number of high-quality leads. With targeted advertising, the gizmo maker blasts their ad out everywhere, and, for a small amount of money, gets a large number of medium-quality leads. Overall, I'd expect they'd get more sales with the targeted advertising, simply due to casting a wider net.
Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?
#154How hard is it to sell a fixed tag or any block of text within an article? Sell it as "this content will stay there for as long as the page is published". The problem is that every major publisher has bought into centralized ad brokers. Google and Facebooks of the world sell the idea that they can personalize ads better than content producers and so everyone relies on their trackers and javascripts to build content b…
> How hard is it to sell a fixed tag or any block of text within an article?
Ad blockers will block that as well. Ad blockers will even block regular old HTML text on the page if it looks like an ad.
Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?
#155> Ad reinsertion solutions exist for Chrome, but they also dont support Firefox. "Ad reinsertion". You're trying to bypass the user's self-determination on the web. Good luck, bozo. > They are even going to approach google and ask them to introduce new API's that allow us to determine if browser really chrome or just chromium, so that we block chromium. And now we see the real question: "Is there some way to lock our…
By "Ad reinsertion", they mean the paid advertisement inclusion programmes of Adblock and Adblock Plus, which is opt-out and pretty shady in the first place. They think that Adblock and Adblock Plus don't exist on Firefox, and that people who use uBlock Origin on Firefox will not use uBlock Origin on Chrome too if they were somehow forced to use Chrome.
No, they are talking about services such as Instart. Javascript that runs on the page, detects the advertisements are being blocked, does a redirect through Instart's proxy to insert hard coded advertisements, and redirects back. Instart only works on Chrome.
Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?
#156How hard is it to sell a fixed tag or any block of text within an article? Sell it as "this content will stay there for as long as the page is published". The problem is that every major publisher has bought into centralized ad brokers. Google and Facebooks of the world sell the idea that they can personalize ads better than content producers and so everyone relies on their trackers and javascripts to build content b…
This only holds true for publications with a very specific audience though and even then, it's not going to be optimal.
Of course if you have a purely tech oriented blog, or even better, one focused on a specific technology, then surely you can get decent results by partnering with one specific advertiser specific to that niche, but as soon as your audience gets more diverse, like the audience of your average run of the mill newspaper would be, you will be loosing out on a ton of ad revenue if you don't try to target your ads.
So while this is a cute idea, I doubt it is practical for any publication of noteworthy size.
Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bit of an exaggeration. The average show is roughly 22-24 minutes per half hour with the rest going to advertisments.
Try to watch Portuguese TV on prime time, specially when soap operas or loved series are reaching their last episodes.
Quantity can be excessive, but a TV commercial break still guarantees N minutes of harmless unimportant content you can ignore. It only wastes time, and not always.
Instead, a computer ad costs you money for bandwidth, can be intrinsically annoying (e.g. playing sounds or manipulating the browser), and poses a direct risk of serious harm (malware, subscriptions, snooping/tracking, etc.).
Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?
#158> I work for a major publisher. Ad-blockers are starting to hurt our revenue big time. No. What's hurting your edit:employer's revenue is years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs. That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing. > We're doing a redesign now. Manager says that we should just discourage the users of…
> That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing. So you are on board with Google's acceptable ads initiative then? What I find frustrating is that people (in aggregate, not individually) keep moving goalposts. First, it's about annoying ads and how they will accept good ads. When presented with good ads, it becomes about tracking and how they will pay for th…
Companies shave costs and they're seen as shrewd, individuals do the same and they're seen as "cheap".
Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?
#159How hard is it to sell a fixed tag or any block of text within an article? Sell it as "this content will stay there for as long as the page is published". The problem is that every major publisher has bought into centralized ad brokers. Google and Facebooks of the world sell the idea that they can personalize ads better than content producers and so everyone relies on their trackers and javascripts to build content b…
> How hard is it to sell a fixed tag or any block of text within an article? Ad blockers will block that as well. Ad blockers will even block regular old HTML text on the page if it looks like an ad.
How does an ad look like?
Re: Is it worth supporting Firefox?
#160> I work for a major publisher. Ad-blockers are starting to hurt our revenue big time. No. What's hurting your edit:employer's revenue is years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs. That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing. > We're doing a redesign now. Manager says that we should just discourage the users of…
> That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing. So you are on board with Google's acceptable ads initiative then? What I find frustrating is that people (in aggregate, not individually) keep moving goalposts. First, it's about annoying ads and how they will accept good ads. When presented with good ads, it becomes about tracking and how they will pay for th…
it’s not just about as cheap as possible. ads are free.