Someone should mske an ad blocker that downloads the ads but doesn't actually display them. Everybody wins!
Poll: Do you use an Adblocker?
41–50 of 74 posts
Re: Poll: Do you use an Adblocker?
#42I'm a strange person. I don't use an ad blocker because I despise browser extensions on an ideological basis, but I also hate ads, so I avoid sites where I can see them. When I used Opera, I used to use the built-in ad blocker though.
I have to ask: what is your ideological objection to browser extensions?
Re: Poll: Do you use an Adblocker?
#43I block ads, load plugins (Flash) only on click and replace the YouTube player with direct embeds of the video stream (no ads/UI/overlays/other nonsense). Then there's User CSS for a few sites and Greasemonkey to force autocomplete=on because you're not allowed to disable useful things in my browser for no good reason. A select few sites also get their HTML edited on the fly (using GlimmerBlocker).
That's what it takes these days to make the Web not annoy me. Mind you, it's not really the fact that there is advertising that bothers me, I'm just offended by how dumb most of it is. Plus, it makes sites a lot easier to look at.
Re: Poll: Do you use an Adblocker?
#44Wow, I'm really amazed that so many people are using an Adblocker given that this community is supposed to be about web startups. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
Re: Poll: Do you use an Adblocker?
#45Not a specific ad blocker, but: • I do most browsing in Firefox, with no Flash plug-in installed, and NoScript (with gradual whitelisting of individual sites as needed). • For a few sites, or Flash, I switch to Chrome with its sandboxed and rapidly-patched Flash plug-in, and even there Flash is set 'click to enable' on all but a few sites (eg: YouTube). So lots of ads don't appear. I do this for security and performa…
I voted Yes because I do about the same. Using NoScript basically blocks the ads although my intent is to control the scripts that get run and to reduce the extent to which I'm tracked across the web.
If someone wants to show a static image or text ad on from their domain without too much tracking I will see it.
I also switch to Chrome when Flash is required for exactly the same reason. Chrome also gets used for sites I really don't trust and especially don't want tracking me across the web, particularly LinkedIn and Facebook.
Re: Poll: Do you use an Adblocker?
#46The strong "Yes" vote here is another indicator as to why the media is jumping on the 'native ad' bandwagon: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisperry/2012/10/04/advertisin... (sometimes called 'content marketing', but it's not exactly the same) Instead of slapping ads around the side of your page that can be blocked, you bust some holes in the Chinese wall and let advertising become involved in the narrative. There are…
Can you point to any current examples online? I'm not quite sure what this would look like. I know in the UK it's obligatory for an advertisement to be identified as such.
The issue is it can be hard to tell if it's happening and in cases where it's not disclosed, I could be committing libel by suggesting it is. However, keep a particular eye open for where companies "partner" with publications to write articles or "sponsor" entire columns. The identification can be quite subtle and totally avoided in the main content.
Picking on Monocle in the print world again though, the New York Times had a great analysis of the way Monocle applies the idea: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/business/media/24carr.html... .. the model (and attitude) explained in this article is something I expect to see become very prevalent online.
I'm not UK media trained but to the best of my knowledge, the Advertising Standards Authority has no power to force publishers to meet its demands. What can happen, though, is publishers can be sued under the Unfair Trading Regulations Act for "misleading omissions" (an act that applies to all business activities and can be very broadly interpreted) specifically when a commercial practice "fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context".
Context is tricky though. If a publication is particularly vocal about its practices, I suspect it would be hard to get to court. Another related context is when newspapers are paid to give away freebies that are not marked as advertising but the context is clearly of an advertising nature.
Sorry for the disjointed bundle of ideas here but I've just seen how much time I've spent so far. I think this is a fascinating area though and one I much enjoy observing mostly (but not entirely) as an outsider.
..
Update: I did some more digging into this because I know it happens and I know it's not always disclosed.. and think I have found the loophole - http://www.out-law.com/page-4853
Specifically, the ASA code states:
"Advertisement features, announcements or promotions, sometimes referred to as 'advertorials', that are disseminated in exchange for a payment or other reciprocal arrangement should comply with the Code if their content is controlled by the marketers rather than the publishers."
So content produced by a publisher on behalf of an advertiser for pay may still be an advertorial but seem to have some sort of exemption under UK standards. This would explain a lot of magazines I know do this stuff.
Re: Poll: Do you use an Adblocker?
#47I block ads, even for sites that I like. For sites that I like which choose to give me the opportunity, I'm happy to pay a monthly or yearly fee in exchange for the ability to disable ads- for sites that don't offer that option (or where I don't feel that I derive enough value from the site to justify the minimum cost) then I assume the organization running the site has evaluated the costs and potential revenue and decided that subsidizing users who choose to not to view ads with the revenue generated by ad-viewers is preferable to setting up a system to allow me to pay for ad-free content. If I'm unable to view a site without ads, then I will simply not view that site.
I apply this philosophy to all parts of my life. I'm happy to pay for a television show on Amazon, or subscribe to netflix, because I am able to watch the shows without commercials. For shows that were not available this way, I used to use hulu because adblock plus would block the advertisements. Recently adblock plus no longer blocks the ads on hulu (this is probably a filter list mis-configuration on my part) so I stopped watching those shows altogether.
There is a great deal of content that I enjoy, and I like to see content creators get reimbursed for what they produce, but there's no content IMHO that is worth subjecting myself to the psychological manipulation of ads.
Re: Poll: Do you use an Adblocker?
#48The strong "Yes" vote here is another indicator as to why the media is jumping on the 'native ad' bandwagon: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisperry/2012/10/04/advertisin... (sometimes called 'content marketing', but it's not exactly the same) Instead of slapping ads around the side of your page that can be blocked, you bust some holes in the Chinese wall and let advertising become involved in the narrative. There are…
Can you point to any current examples online? I'm not quite sure what this would look like. I know in the UK it's obligatory for an advertisement to be identified as such.
I think an example would be this: http://tweepi.com/blog/2011/10/top-10-twitter-utilities/
Tweepi's Top 10 list of Twitter utilities includes Tweepi itself. Lot's of other companies are doing this too, that was just the quickest example I could find. They generate content that could have value, but also insert self-promotional stuff in there.
Re: Poll: Do you use an Adblocker?
#49The strong "Yes" vote here is another indicator as to why the media is jumping on the 'native ad' bandwagon: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisperry/2012/10/04/advertisin... (sometimes called 'content marketing', but it's not exactly the same) Instead of slapping ads around the side of your page that can be blocked, you bust some holes in the Chinese wall and let advertising become involved in the narrative. There are…
Can you point to any current examples online? I'm not quite sure what this would look like. I know in the UK it's obligatory for an advertisement to be identified as such.
The example that comes to mind is content that IS advertisement. For that you can look into just about any US magazine (not sure about UK, but I suspect they are very similar there), for example this article in GQ http://www.gq.com/food-travel/restaurants-and-bars/201211/fo.... In this instance, they are making recommendations to you from a position of authority, even though it comes from a position of selling ad space and delivering the ads as content. If you go to slide 3, you will see peppermint bark stuff "for the chocolate connoisseur", which is about as far as away from a chocolate connoisseur as I can think of, conveniently with a price right there.
Another good example is celebrity magazines that just happen to drop the name of a designer that a particular celebrity is wearing.
Keep in mind, I use adblock (edit: and noscript and ghostery) and these adverts still come up.
Re: Poll: Do you use an Adblocker?
#50Someone should mske an ad blocker that downloads the ads but doesn't actually display them. Everybody wins!
> Everybody wins!
Except the advertisers.