Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrkurt | Hacker News Reader

It's an unfortunate fact that the 40% of our users who block ads also block almost any kind of "advertising that doesn't annoy them". For instance, every user who saw blank content on our site when we decided to have a little fun was running EasyList for Ad Block Plus. You can see the global blocks here: https://hg.adblockplus.org/easylist/file/d4e0b55077bb/easyli...

You'll note that adsense is specifically blocked by that list. The list also catches The Deck ads. Both of these ad types are things we hear people say "we won't block ads if you run them like this"... but they block them anyway.

The title is right, though, Ad blocking isn't killing any sites. We didn't really say it was either. This whole exercise is really the result of not being able to rehire people who were laid off last year specifically because our ad inventory is being hammered by ad blockers.

View on HN

"Ad blocking isn't killing any sites. We didn't really say it was either."

Did I miss something or did Ken specifically say: "Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love" That seems to be the same thing, no?

And when you say "the result of not being able to rehire people who were laid off last year specifically because our ad inventory is being hammered by ad blockers."

You're still missing the point. You're blaming your readers who chose to use adblock rather than focusing on ways to build a better business model.

Come on, you guys know this. You've covered the RIAA/MPAA doing the same exact thing over and over again. Don't blame your users and the choices they make. Focus on providing more value.

But ignoring readers and the choices they make (and more importantly, why they make those choices) is every bit as much a part of building a better business model as "do something else you dumbasses". It turns out that the vast majority of our readers block ads without thinking about it, because they think it doesn't matter, or by mistake (seriously). The vocal ones are a vast, vast minority. We spend more time than we should addressing them, but articles like the one we ran are more an attempt to reach the casual blockers.

The difference between us and the RIAA/MPAA is that we're not justifying our lobbying efforts to reform copyright control. We're simply experimenting with technical means of keeping content bundled with ads and social means of educating users who might actually give a shit. The moment one of us goes to congress and says you need to legislate our ability to serve ads alongside our content is the moment you come gripe to me, and we laugh together because I've already quit my job.

Who said anything about ignoring your readers and the choices they make. I said the exact opposite.

And, come on, don't put up strawmen. Just because you're not lobbying to change the laws doesn't change the comparison which was apt: rather than admitting you need to fix your business model, you blamed your users for the choices they made. It's obnoxious, and you guys -- of all the sites out there -- should know that better than anyone.

> It turns out that the vast majority of our readers block ads without thinking about it, because they think it doesn't matter, or by mistake (seriously).

[citation needed]

See the first link.

> Come on, you guys know this. You've covered the RIAA/MPAA doing the same exact thing over and over again. Don't blame your users and the choices they make. Focus on providing more value.

Not really a fair comparison. The problem with the RIAA is not that they want people to pay for what they consume, it's that they make the experience for legitimate users worse than for pirates. What Ars did makes the 'pirates' experience worse, without substantially inconveniencing 'paying' users.

How about this one from Ars

Why Google keeps your data forever, tracks you with ads

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/google-keeps...

Don't listen to what people say, listen to what people do. If they're blocking ads, work out why and what you can do. You've just seen you can't stop them.

I feel for the guys who were laid off. That sucks. Life is tough. But this is not the only way to make money. I block advertising because it annoys me. I pretty much stopped buying music and deleted all the non-free mp3s on my hard disk because of the attitude of the music corps to their users.

But I give money to sites that provide value and more importantly build a relationship. That's what Techdirt understands and almost certainly has got them some donations today from people like me who appreciate reading articles by someone who can express what I'm thinking better than I can myself.

p.s. look in the linked article's comments and you'll see this (not from me incidentally):

"My comment asked Ars why there's no donation button. I've yet to receive a reply. I will not turn off my adblocking option for any site ever again. If these sites truly are dependent on ad revenues to survive, it's not my problem." - have you guys tried a donate button, and if so how were your results? I'm not a regular reader but it's a pretty big jump from reading a few articles to subscribing for 6 months.

My whole post talked about what they do. Many of our users block all ads. The only thing we can do to keep people from blocking ads is... not run ads. Most users don't make an explicit choice to do this, they run ad blockers and block lists that other people maintain.

You may be shocked to hear this, but most of our readers responded really well to Ken's post the other day. We had about 50x as many new subscribers since Friday as we've ever had over an equivalent amount of time. We also saw a noticeable increase in our ad views/pageviews ratio.

It's good that you donated to TechDirt, I love seeing people throw some money towards sites they love. We've run donation systems in the past and they haven't really been worth maintaining, but I'm sure we'll consider running them again. Selling services for a fixed price seems to work quite a bit better, even if those services are "see our site ad free, minus the guilt".

There you go. Thanks for the thoughtful reply, your responding to comments here really makes me think better of your site and I'm sure people are more likely to subscribe as a result of your engagement.

Actually I'm not too surprised that people turned off their adblockers when you asked them. That's what I'm saying - engage with people and if you get on their wavelength they'll respond positively.

I wasn't sure how you'd take my comment, but I'm encouraged by your response. Some comments by Ars in the original DOI thread were offensive ("f*ing Wladimir Palant"), your reply restores my faith.

When I surf the internet, most sites I visit I don't build up a particular relationship with. I'll just read an article here or there. I won't read through all the terms and conditions or turn off adblockers for every site I visit, life's too short. But if it turns out Ars provides a useful service in the future, I just might if you guys ask nicely like this. I still question the sustainability of this strategy, but then again I don't run a successful web site, so who am I to say.

Thanks again for the positive response, and good luck.

"our ad inventory is being hammered by ad blockers"

Why are you trying to monetize your audience through ads if they aren't interested? If you could disable all those ad blockers do you believe that same ad inventory would be of any value to an advertiser? Maybe in the very short-term it would, but in the long run it won't provide any measurable value to an advertiser.

You should move away from an ad supported model and focus on sponsored content, buying guides, case studies, etc. There are much better ways to monetize tech-centric content.

Do you not see the problem with sponsored content or (I assume) paid for case studies? We do not want our writers to be aware of ad campaigns when they're writing something. We've run relatively negative content for almost every single advertiser that's ever bought spots on Ars. Do you really want them having any level of influence over what people write?

We run buying guides quite somewhat regularly. Our audience doesn't want more buying guides, though. They basically want what we already write.

So when will site owners/managers put limits on what sort of intrusive, hopping/beeping/sliding ads they are willing to allow by their advertisers?

When I get to the point of site launch, my plan is to please the visitors - not the advertisers. The advertisers with a brain should find the former goal valuable, too. Or rather, let me say, I'd like to derive my income from advertisers who share my user-experience priorities.

Am I doomed? Well, I'm sure going to give it my best shot to offer quality over commercial glitter/abuse.

We are as aggressive as any content site I can think of with our ad restrictions. We prohibit ads that expand or play sound with a user click, for instance, while many other sites don't.

What you'll find is that ad agencies build one ad for, say, 500 sites based on a common set of guidelines (which are often less strict than ours). If you believe your site users would be happier not seeing that particular ad, your choice is to not run it.

I would love to run nothing but text ads, but the minimum we can run to pay our writers is basically "flash in standard spots with occasional premium campaigns".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com