Wired: stop blocking our ads, pay for an ad-free version or go elsewhere

Fair to me. I don't mind turning off the ad blocker as long as the site that I'm visiting isn't being ridiculous with it's ads. Wired use to be one of the worst. Imagine getting a giant ad that literally covered your entire page AND was using Flash. Luckily that has changed and everything looks much cleaner. But it was previous tactics that led me to use an Ad Blocker and you know what? My laptop is old and stank and I can't afford what little CPU processing power I have to be used by your goddamn ads. Sorry.
 
Satish Mallya said:
How about a subscription syndicate?
Pay a fee to a subscription pool, giving you ad-free access to a bunch of sites; site owners get paid by the view.
It'll work out for sites that one occasionally reads (for me Forbes, WSJ, NYT) but wouldn't find value in excusive subscription. If any of those sites started getting rid of 'free articles' or set the threshold low enough to bother me, it'd be adios in a heartbeat.
I like my web ad free.
I'd pay a couple bucks a month for a syndicate, though, if it had enough 'occasional' sites I liked.
Click to expand...

What's next?

https://I.imgur.com/bpeqhnbl.jpg

It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch...
 
Uncle Al said:
Sounds like Wired will soon be re-titled to .... Extinct
Click to expand...
Well, if we're going to do renaming by pun, how about if we go with something more on message?

A couple of my humble suggestions: "unraveled", "disconnected", or "unplugged".

Oddly, I always thought "wired", was most often used, (in contemporary slang anyway), to indicate being high on methamphetamine. In that context, I suppose their new name might be,. "crashed out". :D
 
"McClusky believes that the portion of Wired's readership that uses ad blockers (roughly 20 percent of its readership) are likely to be receptive to a discussion about their responsibility to support the businesses they rely on for information online."

Funny. I'm here because the announcement on Wired's own site didn't have comments enabled or any other avenue for interaction within their own site. I'd be receptive to a discussion if they would actually provide a venue for one.

What the announcement page did include, however, was a pile of 10 ads for my browser to intercept. Out of curiosity I disabled the blocker and reloaded. When it (finally) loaded, at the top of the page was a large auto-play banner with audio enabled, for a product unrelated to either my interests, tech in general, or the content of the page. It was also so obtrusive that it pushed the text down; I had to scroll just to read the first sentence. Two other ads for the same irrelevant product were littered further down the page.

For a long time I made the active decision to not use blockers, so as to support the sites I browsed. Wired was one of 3 specific sites that got so abusive, I had to resort to blockers. I reacted appropriately to their poor behavior, and now they're trying to shame me for taking food off their table? I'm not sure how they think this will end well for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cliffordcooley and davislane1
I feel one of the biggest issues with ads on the internet is that you always run into a site that has really annoying ads. Wither it be because they have to many, they pop up, too blinky or just plan annoying. If you do your ads right, then people won't care as much.

I give Techspot some props though for listening to us at least when ads get too annoying.
 
Dear Wired,
Over the last decade I have read almost a half-dozen of your articles. A couple of them were really good. If I found that I was a regular user, I might consider disabling AdBlock Plus.

I would only 'consider' it if I felt that you took care with the ads that you allow. I have been presented with 5-6 malwares offered in ads from reputable sites. I now use Https Everywhere, Flash Control and AdBlock Plus in an effort to PROTECT myself.

Having been stung a couple of times, it is very unlikely that I will ever drop AdBlock or some equivalent unless my comfort level rises.
 
ET3D said:
davislane1 said:
1. It is NOT the responsibility of the customer to sustain the business. It is the responsibility of the business to provide adequate value to the customer.
Click to expand...

It it not the responsibility of the customers to sustain the business, nor the responsibility of the business to provide things for free to customers. It's good business to get rid of freeloaders. Problem is, people have become used to being freeloaders. Most people expect to get news and entertainment for free or very cheap these days. That's a problem for businesses. "Adequate value" means very little these days.
Click to expand...

Content providers like Wired need to provide content people are willing to pay for. Adequate value means everything these days because it determines whether your publication/website makes money.

Wired's problem is that its content isn't very valuable. Just look at the comments in this thread.

They can purge all the "freeloaders" they like, it will only hurt their bottom line. That's because those freeloaders will no longer be sharing links to Wired articles and the PR blunder will drive people to competitors. When online publications purge significant user bases, they lose exposure, which is everything.

They have two viable options: (1) write better content and/or (2) reduce operating costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cliffordcooley
Dear Wired.

I would have no problem turning of AdBlock to view your site if you have no problem paying for my data which your ads consume.

Kind regards.

P.S. I've never heard of your site anyway so it can't be that great, which in turn comes as no surprise to hear you're struggling to survive.
 
Read ads, pay cash or say goodby?

bye.

other better sites will take you place

the internet is meant to be an open forum for the free sharing of information . I, for one, plan to stick to that concept . set up a paywall and you slam the door in your own face .
 
People still read wired?...why? It's like reading cnet for independent reviews or the NY times tech section (if its apple its fantastic, google or MS it sucks!)
 
Satish Mallya said:
How about a subscription syndicate?
Pay a fee to a subscription pool, giving you ad-free access to a bunch of sites; site owners get paid by the view.
It'll work out for sites that one occasionally reads (for me Forbes, WSJ, NYT) but wouldn't find value in excusive subscription. If any of those sites started getting rid of 'free articles' or set the threshold low enough to bother me, it'd be adios in a heartbeat.
I like my web ad free.
I'd pay a couple bucks a month for a syndicate, though, if it had enough 'occasional' sites I liked.
Click to expand...
Sound like porn sites they do the same thing already (although most are all owned by one company), damn porn sites are just way ahead of the times on everything.
 
davislane1 said:
Several things wrong here that will result in Wired not solving its revenue problem.

1. It is NOT the responsibility of the customer to sustain the business. It is the responsibility of the business to provide adequate value to the customer.

2. A fundamental misunderstanding about how information works today. People don't rely on Wired–they can go elsewhere, easily.

3. This is utterly tone-deaf. "Money or GTFO" is not a viable strategy in the current market. It's terrible PR.
Click to expand...
1. Funny thing is if you don't think their product is valuable then there's no reason to go there in the first place.
2. Funny thing is if you don't think their product is valuable then there's no reason to go there in the first place.
3. Yeah, it's not like every site selling things or every brick and mortar shop in "the current market" uses exactly the "Money or GTFO" model. I guess they never sell anything but just say, "hey. take whatever you want and leave a tip in the jar if you like".

All that Wired is doing is saying they produce a product and expect to be paid what they think it's worth. If $1/week is more than the public thinks their content is worth, they'll lose. If it isn't, they'll win. Just like any other store selling a product.
 
Mike Galos said:
1. Funny thing is if you don't think their product is valuable then there's no reason to go there in the first place.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why their revenue is doing so poorly.


Mike Galos said:
2. Funny thing is if you don't think their product is valuable then there's no reason to go there in the first place.
Click to expand...

Marco Rubio, is that you?

Mike Galos said:
3. Yeah, it's not like every site selling things or every brick and mortar shop in "the current market" uses exactly the "Money or GTFO" model. I guess they never sell anything but just say, "hey. take whatever you want and leave a tip in the jar if you like".
Click to expand...

Reading a web article without viewing an ad or paying a fee is just like shoplifting. Ad Block users are shoplifters.
 
Sorry Wired, I like you. But until you and the rest of the web realize that it is YOUR JOB to police the advertisement feeds that you use. So far that track record isn't good for anyone using the ad feeds. I run my own business out of my house and I don't have time to do your job for you of policing your ad feeds. If that means I have to forgo reading Wired. So be it. It's as they say "ON YOU" any way you look at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davislane1
LiveResistance said:
"...or turn to a different source for technology news."

Funny, I thought everyone had already done that. At one time I was receiving their magazine for free but called them and asked not to receive anymore. It was pure crap.
Click to expand...

I received a print subscription as a gift a few years ago. I basically started trashing the issue upon arrival after a few. I couldn't tell where the ads stopped and where the content began. Pure garbage. I looked at the website once I think, also quickly deciding there was nothing there I couldn't find elsewhere with a better user experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LiveResistance
Meh. Feel free to go the way of the dinosaur Wired. You're not that special, or unique. Join the fray or lose it. Your desire to be a news source isn't a reason for everyone else to have to suffer through crappy bandwidth and malicious content. Heck, if the ads weren't so pervasive and aggressive, this wouldn't likely have happened. So, there you go.
 
davislane1 said:
Several things wrong here that will result in Wired not solving its revenue problem.

1. It is NOT the responsibility of the customer to sustain the business. It is the responsibility of the business to provide adequate value to the customer.

2. A fundamental misunderstanding about how information works today. People don't rely on Wired–they can go elsewhere, easily.

3. This is utterly tone-deaf. "Money or GTFO" is not a viable strategy in the current market. It's terrible PR.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davislane1
  • Like
Reactions: davislane1
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

midian182
Amazon removes Dolby Vision and Atmos from Prime Video unless you pay to go ad-free
2
Replies
31
Views
684
TempleOrion
TempleOrion
Daniel Sims
YouTube begins fighting ad blockers by slowing down load times
2
Replies
29
Views
838
ZedRM
ZedRM
midian182
YouTube escalates battle against ad blockers, rolls out site slowdown (update)
2
Replies
47
Views
747
Benny26
Benny26

Latest posts

Back