France's media websites declare war on ad blockers

[tonylukac]

Every day I hear the opposite. Some are preinstalling ad blockers on computers, some are fighting them. I know you need to make money, but who makes money on the web anyway? Make simple ads that don't make the website load 5 times slower, requiring 8 gig 64 bit computers just to view a webpage, and make them not have viruses nor allow them to change your files. I thought removal of active x, thus inability to change your files, was the whole idea of firefox, but in my business even tho I instructed people to run firefox, I find hundreds of downloaded malware files within a mere month when scanning without ad block. Let's remember what we started out to do; surf the web. They really invented the web browser at the university of illinois (my alma mater) to surf porn, the worst offender of malware.

 

[treetops]

Remember pop ups? Yeah now it's our turn to take a dump on ads. Secondly I have never clicked on ad and bought an item. I have clicked on please donate and gave money. I have clicked on suggestions from the product I am currently browsing, compared and sometimes bought the suggested product.

 

[cliffordcooley]

You don't know how things work, do you?

How things work and how things should work are often two different things. Hell this very topic displays the contrast between the two. The way it should work hasn't been found. Therefor proving the way it currently works doesn't actually work.

 

[axiomatic13]

No one can stop me from blocking ad domains at the router so why even bother policing it at the browser? This focus is on the wrong target France. Networking 101 FTW!

 

[Axiarus]

How things work and how things should work are often two different things. Hell this very topic displays the contrast between the two. The way it should work hasn't been found. Therefor proving the way it currently works doesn't actually work.

Ads are fine as long as the are relevant, not full of malware and non intrusive. Sites that offer content for free cannot survive on donations alone.

 

[captaincranky]

I thought a few of the "real newspapers" were already subscription. New York Times, maybe?

Besides, a lot of the internet is plagiarized anyway. This is noticeable when you search for some specific information. You'll get search returns which amount to word for word copies, far more often that you'll get unique answers.

So, there's something to consider. Before these advertisers get themselves hit up for ad money, maybe the could take the time to check where the posts came from in the first place. Because as it stands now, you can simply buy a domain, and then start begging for money to advertise on top of stolen content.

Now if you have an actual product, things can be different. All of the broadcast stations in my area have websites, which act as an adjunct to the TV news.

"If you want to hear more about this story, go to out website". Simple, right?

 

[captaincranky]

Ads are fine as long as the are relevant, not full of malware and non intrusive. Sites that offer content for free cannot survive on donations alone.

Well that's nice but, every fool in the world thinks they're going to get rich by starting a website. Even Google no doubt has giant server farms.(*) As opposed to someone renting a domain for 5 bucks a month to begin begging for money.

(*) You know, I've never heard Google ask for donations. That's strange.

 

[captaincranky]

This just in, $150.00 worth of photo editing software for free (!!), and you don't have to disable ad blockers or make a "donation": https://www.techspot.com/community/...oftware-free-to-download.225791/#post-1533141

 

[JeromeFree]

I assume more big sites will join them as time goes by and the percentage of users who use adblockers will grow.

 

[captaincranky]

I assume more big sites will join them as time goes by and the percentage of users who use adblockers will grow.

I don't use a dedicated ad blocker. I do however, use "NoScript", as an adjunct to my AV software. It does do a really nifty job of blocking ads though..

 

[Axiarus]

Well that's nice but, every fool in the world thinks they're going to get rich by starting a website. Even Google no doubt has giant server farms.(*) As opposed to someone renting a domain for 5 bucks a month to begin begging for money.

(*) You know, I've never heard Google ask for donations. That's strange.

What does this have to do with what I said? Without a subscription model or ad revenue it is impossible for sites to consistently give content for free. Even the site we are currently on has ads. Google does not ask for donations because they sell targeted ads. You can't have a system where everyone sells targeted ads and no one buys them, that wouldn't make sense.

 

[whipnet]

I am shocked at how almost unusable the internet has become if you allow scripts to run unchecked. I've been shielded by Firefox/NoScript since Firefox 1.0

*

 

[captaincranky]

What does this have to do with what I said? Without a subscription model or ad revenue it is impossible for sites to consistently give content for free. Even the site we are currently on has ads. Google does not ask for donations because they sell targeted ads. You can't have a system where everyone sells targeted ads and no one buys them, that wouldn't make sense.

Are you suggesting the ads on this site aren't targeted? There are multiple stages and methodologies in the advertising process. Accordingly, Google has to place those ads somewhere. If an advertiser gives money directly to a website, that's really a slightly different iteration of the same process, now isn't it?

Yahoo was whimpering about "ad blockers ruining their revenue stream". To which I said something to the effect of, "people only have so much currency to spend". "Thus, when people don't get the ROI you made the outrageous claims they would, you point your finger at ad blockers, when it's the ad market itself which is saturated, or the product you're pitching is crap"..

Accordingly, some products are scam, some products break, and some other products duplicate who you already have. If I don't want, need, or like something, why should I bother to look at ads for it? Just because a product is advertised, I am under no obligation to buy it, whether I am forced to sit through the ads for it, or not. OTA TV advertisers have gotten over this ages ago. They don't expect everyone who sees a Cadillac commercial to buy one, much less but one every time they see the same ad. And yet, that "ad-co system(*)", seems to be alive and well.

So, Google is a monumental success selling targeted advertising, while Yahoo is struggling. Yet, they both have to contend with ad blockers in the marketplace. That seems more like a discussion which needs to be taken up in a thread titled, "survival of the fittest, as it pertains to internet marketing".

Since you didn't catch on right away, why not give it a second try:

Well that's nice but, every fool in the world thinks they're going to get rich by starting a website. Even Google no doubt has giant server farms.(*) As opposed to someone renting a domain for 5 bucks a month to begin begging for money.

(*) You know, I've never heard Google ask for donations. That's strange.

Just because someone starts a website doesn't guarantee them success as an internet mogul. After all, we can't let China have all the real jobs, now can we? Grow some food, frack for natural gas, deliver the mail, hell, even fix some computers, those are honest livings. These as an alternative for blaming ad blockers for one's failure. If any "place" ever needed its wheat separated from its chaff, it's the s***hole called "the modern web".

Does that answer your question?

(*) "Ad-co system", is a somewhat condescending derivation of, "eco System", just in case you didn't get that either.