Most people do not use Adblock.
Although that might be different if everyone knew about it
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.