Ask HN: an ad blocking compromise?
errant.me.uk
errant.me.uk
Yours seems to be a pretty well reasoned idea, I think it was Patrick that first suggested that ads in fact function as a micropayments service.
I think the whole adblocker debate is overrated, after all it's not like everybody is using an adblocker, it's just a percentage of the users. And if your business suddenly fails because of that percentage then you didn't have much a business to begin with.
Starting a service on 'eyeballs' is like working with an unwritten contract that you expect the owners of those eyeballs to honour. But they weren't party to the negotiations, and if they disagree they can simply erase that part of their screen, and really, not much is lost.
After all, those ad-conscious enough to use a blocker are probably not exactly the people that would have clicked those ads to begin with. And most ads nowadays are performance based so the loss is really not nearly as big as some people make out.
Blaming ad blockers for failing businesses is dishonest because it will change the bottom line only so much.
A much bigger problem is the fact that a good bit of the advertising market is not transparent to begin with and that so much of the content out there really is hardly worth the bits it is stored on.
Videos on news sites are a nice example of where we're headed, non-skippable ads tightly coupled to the content.
The web equivalent is an interstitial page that you have to sit through before being allowed to view the content you came for.
Personally I have no problem with advertising, as long as it is relevant and not 'in my face'. If I get a negative feeling with a site a few times when visiting because of overly intrusive advertising then I simply stop going to that site.
Salon.com is a nice example, I used to read it frequently, since they started their overly intrusive campaigns I haven't been back. Chances are they've reverted in the meantime but I'll never know.
As for the blocker-and-micropayment system, I don't think it will fly, people that go for freebies are not going to be turned in to people that pay, no matter how you dress it up. Think about it, simply seeing an ad is already too expensive sometimes.
Until they have absolutely no other alternative. And on the web there are so many places to get your 'fix'.
I think it was Patrick that first suggested that ads in fact function as a micropayments service.
This was thought of independently. But if Patrick is thinking the same way I'm even more convinced it's a good idea :D
> I don't think it will fly, people that go for freebies are not going to be turned in to people that pay.
The thing that sparked this thought is that a lot of people here defending the ad blocking practice (me included to an extent) claim they would happily pay for content they enjoy - just dont like to be intruded with ads.
I realise that it is most probably an excuse in many cases and they wouldn't follow through. But would enough do so to make it worthwhile?
As I said: as your not monetizing those readers anyway is it not a net positive to give them the option?
People reading and talking about your content are a large part of the engine that drives the 'buzz' around a website. If you would cut those people out and be only left with the people that are prepared to pay in some way then suddenly your website wouldn't be half as interesting.
I don't completely go for the 'eyeballs' theory, but I think that there is no such thing as a user that is not worth having, even if they never pay in a $ sense. They're paying with their time, which is worth a lot more than that click, if you can get them to be productive in some way that is 'free' to them but worth something to you you also come out ahead.
Wikipedia is a nice example, HN is another, I use people on my site to supply me with an endless stream of content and in return they get stuff that those that don't have to pay for.
Shifting the game around like that makes it possible to create value without having to take money from the pockets of all (or a large portion of) your visitors.
I think the whole ad blocker discussion is focused way to much on ads being the only way to 'monetize' a user, if there is any exchange at all between a site and a user and you have a feeling that you get more from the user than what it cost you in bandwidth you're under way to solving your problem in a much better way than to worry about a few ad impressions being lost.
Absolutely agreed. Indeed I think that if they notice you showing a willingness to give them the web they want (ad free) you'll get more coming back!
> If you would cut those people out and be only left with the people that are prepared to pay in some way then suddenly your website wouldn't be half as interesting.
I'm not suggesting that. It's not a paywall or anything - the initial/actual experience would be just the same for a blocker as it is now. Just with the option to pay...
I think the whole ad blocker discussion is focused way to much on ads being the only way to 'monetize' a user, if there is any exchange at all between a site and a user and you have a feeling that you get more from the user than what it cost you in bandwidth you're under way to solving your problem in a much better way than to worry about a few ad impressions being lost.
I cant disagree with that (I did try, actually, but I can't :)).
Then release the micropayments service (and approach some of the big content publishers with the idea to get them signed up).
Obviously being open to your users that this was your long term plan :)
Nothing is stopping you ad-blockers from sending them a check in the mail. This isn't a technology problem, it's a "why pay for what you can get for free" problem. I don't doubt there will be folks who would pay if given a easier option, but I'm having a hard time believing they would come in droves to offset the lost ad revenue.
I copy-edited it this morning...