You're an outlier. Most people don't mind ads.
Ads are inherently disruptive, most people DO mind them under many circumstances. And sometimes, even people who wouldn't mind them still have their experience disrupted by their presence. The other day I was trying to read an article, and some programming glitch caused a nearby ad to expand over the article text and I wasn't able to get rid of it without reloading the entire page. It's true there is some threshold of advertising under which people genuinely appreciate and show interest in the content. That threshold is certainly lower than you think.
Most people hate ads, they're merely willing to put up with them in exchange for the content. The question isn't whether someone who minds ads is an "outlier" or not, the question is how many "outliers" are there. My guess: you don't actually know the answer to that.
"The prevalence of adblock suggests otherwise."
What is it... less than 1% use adblock? hmm
FWIW I've been earning a living from online advertising for 10 years. I've run community websites that run adverts, and fielded feedback from users.
From what I heard it's sub-10% or even 5%. If 5% is considered good, doesn't that say something about advertisements, that is, that 95% of the people _didn't_ follow through, and probably ignored it. This to me screams that there should be a better way to advertise.
MySpace had surprise obnoxious audio ads, MySpace had "punch the monkey and win" flash ads, MySpace had header banners inserted above all of the content you wanted to see.
Facebook doesn't do any of that. Their redesigns have all allocated slightly more screen real estate to ads, but it's nowhere close to facebook levels of insanity. Facebook ads conform standards and are specifically unobtrusive, except for newsfeed spam, and plenty of tools are provided to manage that.
> What is it... less than 1% use adblock? hmm
1%-2% of people using adblock does not mean 1%-2% of people hate ads. It means that's how many of the people who hate ads have the knowledge, means, and will to do something about it. Given that, 2% is a lot.
MySpace failed because a better competitor came along. It had a history of predators, spammers, and viruses, and was hard to use well. (Did you see the pages people made?). Ads were one cause among many, and it's doubtful how much they contributed. For comparison, Facebook has ads, but people aren't flocking in droves to G+, and I haven't heard the lack of ads cited as the reason for any of those that are.
Radio stations certainly have ads, and those that claim "x songs without commercials!" usually put self-advertisements in instead, which they count separately. It's still advertising, just a different sort. Overall the whole process is pretty duplicitous (imho).
AdBlock has minimal market share [1], so the prevalence of AdBlock isn't an argument in your favour.
You may be correct that people hate ads, but the evidence you've given does not support your conclusion.
[1] first hit guesstimates 2%: http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-percentage-of-Internet-user...
A big reason facebook was better is that it wasn't crudded up with horrible advertising. And yes, I saw the pages people made. That alone is not why MySpace failed. People just like to bash gaudy, haphazard pages because it makes them feel superior. But yes, it could have been easier to use.
Modern facebook advertising is a great example of how to manage ads well. It's possible wikipedia could try and follow facebook's advertising principles but I'm not sure how well it would work for them. Facebook has been developing it slowly for years. Wikis that include advertising tend not to be nearly as slick as facebook.
> AdBlock has minimal market share [1], so the prevalence of AdBlock isn't an argument in your favour.
Number of people using adblock does not mean that many people hate ads. It means that's how many of the people who hate ads have the knowledge, means, and will to do something about it.
> Radio stations certainly have ads, and those that claim "x songs without commercials!" usually put self-advertisements in instead, which they count separately. It's still advertising, just a different sort. Overall the whole process is pretty duplicitous (imho).
In my experience, that's just a technicality. Yeah, there's maybe one or two ads in the ad-free hour-- compared to 15 minutes or so of ads normally. So I wouldn't call it duplicitous at all. And regardless, even if it was that wouldn't change the point, since they are appealing to people's desire for ad-free programming. Whether they actually deliver on the promise is incidental.
I agree. Growing up in a country (Denmark) that had two primary television stations, one sponsored without ads (Denmarks Radio - called DR, channel 1) the other with ads (TV2, channel 2) I can tell you that there was quite a difference between how the two were perceived. Both were good stations, but TV2 was more of an "entertainment" channel, while DR had more "60 Minutes" style programming.
Both channels had news and entertainment, but the station without ads I think was generally seen as a bit cleaner and more informative. Despite the fact that TV2 had ads, they made it nice by only showing ads in between programs. So when you settled in with the family for a movie, you knew you weren't going to be interrupted by all kinds of annoying ads.
Then there was TV3, a private Swedish channel, which broadcast throughout Scandinavia but offered subtitled programs (primarily British & American) in the local language. They showed ads during programs as well as in between. You also had to pay to get TV3 in your home.
I guess my point is that, in a smaller country, people are willing to agree communally that they'll pay taxes to support something so they don't have to deal with crap advertising on broadcast television.
Whenever I view the net through a different browser or computer, I'm pretty shocked how much ads are actually there.
And no, I'm afraid they're not actually "sometimes useful", to me. Most of the time I'm on the net I'm not looking to buy something.
Though come to think of it, the few times I am, I don't mind clicking an ad or two. Except when I do, and it appeals to me, I usually run a query through a search engine to find the same page, so I can see what the other 9 top results are.
I mean, how can I know I'm getting a good deal by just clicking one ad, right?
As I say, you're an outlier ;)
Loads of Reddit/HN posts are adverts. We all click on adverts all the time, all over the internet. We just don't necessarily realize they're adverts.
Yes, shock horror, adblock only blocks the most obvious advertising.
- Video/audio advertisements that start playing by themselves = I'll probably add you to my mental black list of people and companies I don't want to do business with (yes, I have one, 'voting by my dollars'. Actually, Groupon is on it, mostly because of annoying ads that were just everywhere I looked.).
- Pop-ups and anything that touches the area with content (all those floating or expanding windows), distracting me in an offensive way = I'll most likely remember you as a company not to do business with you as well. Also, I'll start hating the website soon for allowing this type of advertisements.
- Simple banners and ads of products that in my belief actually introduce some value - like development tools - I don't really mind them; I might click on then to see what's about with this new product, out of pure curiosity.
- AdWords - I don't mind them, they're not intrusive. I might even consider clicking at them if they happen to show something interesting.
Also, I can't even express how annoyed I am about the new batch of YouTube adverts - the ones that play before the movie I requested, often stealing half a minute of my time and making me lose interest in the video itself.
So yes, AdBlock is fine. It blocks most of the crap.
You're just using different semantics for "advertisement." When people talk about advertising they mean something more direct; where an advertiser pays a content-provider to insert arbitrary content. In terms of a user experience, that kind of advertising is more adverse than what you're talking about. The point isn't "shock horror I might get tricked into visiting some site where someone is sellign something", the point is that advertising is distracting, disruptive and negatively impacts the value of the core product.
Dozens of blogs exist primarily for marketing reasons, to get linked from reddit and hacker news and such. That doesn't make them "advertising" in the same sense that a picture of a hot teenage girl hawking a dating site in the corner of my facebook profile is "advertising."
Although that might be different if everyone knew about it
Most people buy things based on ads.
I'm inclined to think that this means most people find advertising useful, so I'm skeptical that people would want to block advertising if they could.
Also it's kind of an antisocial thing to do, depriving free websites of income.
If anything it's antisocial for websites to promise me valuable content, only to resell my attention to advertisers.
Never met one.
> Also it's kind of an antisocial thing to do, depriving free websites of income.
Personally, it saddens me that we have to put up with all this electricity-wasting advertising crap in order to have free websites. It seems that one of the most useful tools of humanity needs to look ugly just in order to stay alive. I'd be very happy if we ever find a better solution.
Personally, I find advertising useful, and pleasant. I'm certainly not alone.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I believe it's an 'outlier' opinion.
Yes. I read the magazine for the content, not for the ads. I don't mind an ad here and there, but the amount of advertising in magazines now is ridiculously high. Sometimes I'm not sure if just less than 50% of the magazine has some content in it.
> Personally, I find advertising useful, and pleasant. I'm certainly not alone.
I respect your opinion. While you're definitely not alone in your stance, I do also think that there are much more ad-haters than you believe. Might be a selection bias on my part, but I've never ever seen a person enjoying web ads.
The line between the two is very blurred. For example, a review of a new video card, is really just an advert.
Fair enough. However, I feel that this type of ad gives me some concrete, useful and verifiable information to base my choice on (like technical parameters, and problems with use relative to other video cards reviewed in this issue), and not just shiny pictures.
This discussion clarified my understanding of ads at least a bit, so next time I'll be more precise in what I mean. There is a subtype of ads, those click-based advertising that clutter websites providing no value whatsoever to the visitor and distracting from enjoying the content. Those I dislike, though I understand that they're somewhat necessary. I value every site which figures out how to stay free without cluttering itself with ads.
This depends on the editorial clarity of the review. A review can be an advertisement -- such is the case where the reviewer simply regurgitates the press release, or the author otherwise abandons objectivity.
A review can also be an objective evaluation, not intended to sway the buyer in one direction or the other, but instead providing a clear, reasoned outline of the facts, and the context necessary to understand them.
The latter content has more value to the consumer. In eschewing any attempt to induce behavior on the part of the reader, it is not an advertisement.
Hard to say because I stopped buying both kinds long ago exactly because they had more ads than the actual content.
Well, in the times of Louis XIV, there was emulation between kings ane they would host, invite, fund or protect great artists of their times.
Maybe Zuckerberg should compete with Brin an give money or protection to some great open community project, like Diaspora. Er...
Most people will not admit to being influenced by advertising and they'll rarely admit to clicking on them.
If you look at the real population though, they love advertising. Kids watch advertising on TV to find out what toys they want to buy. Teenagers look at adverts to see what fashion to wear. etc etc.
I really do think it's a case of not looking outside the bubble. HN and the techie crowd are pretty anti-consumerism, anti-mainstream, anti-advertising. But the general population isn't.
Do you have any actual numbers to contribute, or just your personal intuition?
You are absolutely right that people consume advertising and react to it.
I think you are wrong to conclude that this means they love advertising. Perhaps it is just my bubble, but I can't imagine many people saying something like "I love advertising, I wish commercial breaks were longer".
IMO the difference with the techie internet crowd is that we are aware of what is an advert online and we also know that there are ways to avoid it.
Online and print advertising doesn't prevent consumption of content, or stop the user going about his business for 5 minutes.
Still disagree. I'm tech 'savvy', but I don't put myself in the HN crowd. I'm a consumer. I love advertising. I love buying stuff. I'm what I consider to be in the 'mainstream'. I can avoid ads, but I choose not to.
According to this article from 2009 reporting about some consultant study that divided people into "heavy clickers, moderate clickers, light clickers and non-clickers" of ads, between 2007 and 2009, the non-clickers grew from "68 to 84% percent of the entire Internet population."
http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/4720-16-of-users-click-on-ba...
The study also claimed that the more savvy people became about the internet, the less likely they clicked on ads. The population as a whole is becoming more savvy about the internet.
You need to talk to people outside your circle of friends then.
> The population as a whole is becoming more savvy about the internet.
Is this why googles ad revenue is growing at such an astounding rate?
Google's ad revenue has nothing do with what the majority of anybody does. Google is doing ads well, better than they had been done before, and ads have gradually become more relevant and less seedy; I could see those two things countering the slide of clicks, at least in their case, but maybe in all cases. I don't have a problem with ads, and I would start clicking on them if the odds that it wouldn't be a waste of my time got better.
I do have a problem with bald-assed assertions instead of arguments, defended by insults that assume that you know anything about anyone else's circle of friends but your own.
Anecdotally, I tried using adblock, and quickly found it irritating. I was seeing a censored internet. I like my internet uncensored. I like rewarding websites with my visits that don't piss me off, and punishing websites that do piss me off, by not returning.