Wired to Block Ad-Blocking Users, Offer Ad-Free Subscription

[spartaman64]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

 

ok as long as they dont give me ads like follow these 7 easy steps to get a big boner or something and give me actual tech ads like new motherboards or something and 30 dollars a year is a lot for a website i go to like once a month

[dalekphalm]

14 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

ok as long as they dont give me ads like follow these 7 easy steps to get a big boner or something and give me actual tech ads like new motherboards or something and 30 dollars a year is a lot for a website i go to like once a month

In a scenario like yourself, where you only visit the site once a month, obviously the Ad-Supported model works best for you. Paying a weekly subscription when you use it only every 4 weeks is of course, not good value.

 

You could, in theory, micromanage the subscription, but that's not actually practical.

 

Do you actually get ads like that on Wired.com? Boner ads and other ads that would be more suited to a Torrent Site or a porn site? I just checked myself, and I get one large ad on the right-hand side, advertising NewEgg right now (And some eBook about selling computer parts or something, before I refreshed the page). There's space where a top-banner ad would likely fit at the top (Firefox), but it doesn't seem to be loading.

 

When reloading in IE, the banner ad at the top does show up, but it's pretty small for a banner ad, and not obtrusive at all. It was advertising something called "Mozu", which appears to be a digital store of sorts.

 

Those ads, frankly, aren't a problem. They are - so far - no worse than what LTT serves, except the placement of them is somewhat more prominent, which is to be expected.

[spartaman64]

12 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

In a scenario like yourself, where you only visit the site once a month, obviously the Ad-Supported model works best for you. Paying a weekly subscription when you use it only every 4 weeks is of course, not good value.

 

You could, in theory, micromanage the subscription, but that's not actually practical.

 

Do you actually get ads like that on Wired.com? Boner ads and other ads that would be more suited to a Torrent Site or a porn site? I just checked myself, and I get one large ad on the right-hand side, advertising NewEgg right now (And some eBook about selling computer parts or something, before I refreshed the page). There's space where a top-banner ad would likely fit at the top (Firefox), but it doesn't seem to be loading.

 

When reloading in IE, the banner ad at the top does show up, but it's pretty small for a banner ad, and not obtrusive at all. It was advertising something called "Mozu", which appears to be a digital store of sorts.

 

Those ads, frankly, aren't a problem. They are - so far - no worse than what LTT serves, except the placement of them is somewhat more prominent, which is to be expected.

ok then thats fine

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

For those thinking that some ads "aren't a problem", think again.  Any ad platform can contain malware.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-readers-to-turn-off-ad-blockers-promptly-serves-malware

 

 

[corsairian]

5 hours ago, Bensemus said:

So how are they supposed to make money? it's either ads or sub. Seeing as people don't like ads they will need to sub to get the content. You can't expect a website to produce content and give it to you for free.

Im fine with ads.  The ads I dont like are the fake download buttons and the ads that wont let you leave the page, Those kinds of ads are bad. 

[Misanthrope]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

In a scenario like yourself, where you only visit the site once a month, obviously the Ad-Supported model works best for you. Paying a weekly subscription when you use it only every 4 weeks is of course, not good value.

 

You could, in theory, micromanage the subscription, but that's not actually practical.

 

Do you actually get ads like that on Wired.com? Boner ads and other ads that would be more suited to a Torrent Site or a porn site? I just checked myself, and I get one large ad on the right-hand side, advertising NewEgg right now (And some eBook about selling computer parts or something, before I refreshed the page). There's space where a top-banner ad would likely fit at the top (Firefox), but it doesn't seem to be loading.

 

When reloading in IE, the banner ad at the top does show up, but it's pretty small for a banner ad, and not obtrusive at all. It was advertising something called "Mozu", which appears to be a digital store of sorts.

 

Those ads, frankly, aren't a problem. They are - so far - no worse than what LTT serves, except the placement of them is somewhat more prominent, which is to be expected.

I'm sorry but that's always a roulette and random luck. Big sites have already had several instances of serving malware ads, and unlike smaller sites like this forums you can't easily report particularly bad ads and expect anything to be done about it. What you're offering here is completely anecdotal and henceforth irrelevant.

[silberdrachi]

I'm all for making sites that block adblockers, but it will never work if they don't substantially change the ad model in the first place. Its a temporary patch to a persistent problem. The true problem is that ads aren't generating enough revenue (either for the site or for the ad sellers) so they decide to make the ads more invasive and pervasive to compensate for the loss. That in turn drives (a portion of people) to use tools like adblockers to remove them, which starts the cycle all over again. This isnt even going into the security issues that have plagued advertisers that have exploited java, flash and now js. Or the issues that many people have with advertisers placing cookies to track users across sites.

 

I honestly think whoever created the first web ad inadvertently doomed the free web. That now that ads are out there, there will be no way to get rid of them even if we start paying for certain subscriptions.

 

We saw it with TV, first it was ad free and publicly funded, then we started seeing ads, then we got cable that promised to be ad free, then they introduced "some" ads, now 16(ish) minutes of every hour is devoted to ads plus you pay for it. And its already starting with services like Hulu and Youtube, constantly increasing the number of ads, or the length of ads over time as people "get used" to them.

 

The whole system is shit.

[PerfectTemplar]

6 hours ago, LinusTech said:

 

Nothing to do with seeing the writing on the wall. Patreon revenue won't TOUCH what can be done with corporate sponsorship - especially if we were willing to sneakily inject it like a lot of creators do.

 

It's just a better fit for the tone and style of that channel to have it community driven. It'll help us shape the content to appeal to its fans and hopefully bring in new ones in a way that drinking a sponsored sports beverage in between medieval jousting matches wouldn't.

 

Online ads aren't going away. They just need to be smarter. That's why we put ours out of the way (at the end of the video) and try to entice the viewer to watch by making them entertaining rather than just obnoxious.

 

I wish WIRED the best of luck in this endeavor, but honestly, I don't know if it'll work.

Advertisements that are curated such as the ones you have in your videos from sponsorships are perfectly fine and I don't mind them. I hate ads that ruin an otherwise clean web page though. Having ads that consist of malware and phishing links are disgusting and I'd just rather not see them. The next worst thing is video ads or fullscreen ads that automatically pop up and play. That shit is unacceptable. Whilst it isn't an issue on Youtube and other trusted websites, people should consider disabling adblockers on that. It is certainly a problem on websites like Wired where you do see a lot of bullshit ads. News and journalist websites are often like this.

[AlTech]

8 hours ago, LinusTech said:

 

Nothing to do with seeing the writing on the wall. Patreon revenue won't TOUCH what can be done with corporate sponsorship - especially if we were willing to sneakily inject it like a lot of creators do.

 

It's just a better fit for the tone and style of that channel to have it community driven. It'll help us shape the content to appeal to its fans and hopefully bring in new ones in a way that drinking a sponsored sports beverage in between medieval jousting matches wouldn't.

 

Online ads aren't going away. They just need to be smarter. That's why we put ours out of the way (at the end of the video) and try to entice the viewer to watch by making them entertaining rather than just obnoxious.

 

I wish WIRED the best of luck in this endeavor, but honestly, I don't know if it'll work.

It's not going to work. People use adblock because they hate ads and aren't willing to pay money for the service.

 

I may have seen wired once or twice but i'm not willing to pay anything for any website. If they offer products on their website then I might look at their product and decide. But asking people to pay money for this is just stupid. It means I would never visit those websites again. Advertisers absolutely hate consumers because consumers try to avoid advertisements and if they can't then they don't do anything after it is over.

 

I stopped using vessel when my free trial ended. Cos it's a terrible service and they are sellouts. If I pay for a product it should not have ads in it. Otherwise I won't pay for it.   

[Bensemus]

3 hours ago, corsairian said:

Im fine with ads.  The ads I dont like are the fake download buttons and the ads that wont let you leave the page, Those kinds of ads are bad.

Agreed but I feel like WIRED isn't running those ads. Google is going after those malicious ads. This is about a site blocking users who seem to want to read the sites content for free. 

[PerfectTemplar]

53 minutes ago, Bensemus said:

Agreed but I feel like WIRED isn't running those ads. Google is going after those malicious ads. This is about a site blocking users who seem to want to read the sites content for free. 

Wired has some pretty terrible ads, most news websites generally do.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Castdeath97 said:

Who seriously reads from wired? Their content is utter garbage no wonder they pull things like this.

haha

[ionbasa]

Its things like this that made me drop both Wired and Popular Science from my subscriptions. Yes I was an paying customer for years! PopSci for 10+ years and Wired for 5+.

To be honest, their journalism really started to go downhill about two years ago.

 

I will say this: If they want to charge extra on their existing paying subscribers, then they're crazy. Why get taxed twice, makes no sense. 

[givegomezthegun]

I'm very new to using adblock, having for the first time started about 2 weeks ago.  It was not something I really cared to do, and the decision didn't come lightly.  But advertising is getting completely out of control these days.  I won't be bothered to whitelist or turn it on and off depending what sites I'm visiting, it's going to stay on, all the time, and any site that blocks it does not need my traffic.

 

But when I HAVE to watch a 40 second commercial for maxi pads or something, that I cannot skip, to watch a 12 second video clip, or when my web browser has to step in, and ask me if I want it to prevent a page from opening more windows or message boxes, or when I'm trying to play guess the right download link where 6 out of 7 options lead me to malware so horrible my only option is to reformat, or where I have to scroll through 3 pages of ads to finish reading an article, or when I have to play guess which browser tab is now talking, then find where the actual hidden ad is playing on that page to pause it.. It's gone too god damn far.

[theanimun]

There is a threshold where ads are just out right obnoxious, when the top section of the webpage you visit is roughly 90% ads, or has those "pop-under" ads and/or has a video ad at the bottom of the page, you start to piss people off, because ads increase load time, and even more so when its a video ad that you have to search for or an exit button that nearly blends in with the ad itself, those kind of websites are ones i try to avoid, and if i do need to go to those sites i do use ad block on them specifically

[Tofuman89]

Forbes did the same. I seem to miss any backlash against Forbes. They offers user who whitelisted their site to only display light advertisement for 30 days trial. 

 

Well now the sponsored content is upon us. THE ADS ARE GETTING SMARTER!

[jaggysnake57]

15 hours ago, Bensemus said:

So how are they supposed to make money? it's either ads or sub. Seeing as people don't like ads they will need to sub to get the content. You can't expect a website to produce content and give it to you for free.

not my problem im afraid. i have had enough of ads so find another model that works. as harsh as that may sound, its my choice

15 hours ago, LinusTech said:

Online ads aren't going away. They just need to be smarter. That's why we put ours out of the way (at the end of the video) and try to entice the viewer to watch by making them entertaining rather than just obnoxious.

 

I wish WIRED the best of luck in this endeavor, but honestly, I don't know if it'll work.

honestly, LTT is the only site i whitelist. and its because the ads are small and out the way. you tube is awefull with ads, seriously why are you showing me an ad for shampoo when im watchin a video on a graphics card? then why do you keep showing the same ad 50 times? short, varied and on point, is that so hard google?

[linuxfan66]

10 hours ago, Captain Chaos said:

For those thinking that some ads "aren't a problem", think again.  Any ad platform can contain malware.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-readers-to-turn-off-ad-blockers-promptly-serves-malware

 

 

agreed this nonsense doesn't fly. If a site wants ads on, i'd suggest they server their own internal ads that have been properly vetted first and not grabbed from external networks that aren't picky at all. and dont fill/weight more than the page content...

[RuffRuffmcgruff]

Fair dues but ads, as Linus clearly pointed out, need to be smarter. Like the almighty Gaben's philosophy on piracy, offer a better service than the pirates or in this case the ad blockers.

[SirRoderick]

9 hours ago, givegomezthegun said:

I'm very new to using adblock, having for the first time started about 2 weeks ago.  It was not something I really cared to do, and the decision didn't come lightly.  But advertising is getting completely out of control these days.  I won't be bothered to whitelist or turn it on and off depending what sites I'm visiting, it's going to stay on, all the time, and any site that blocks it does not need my traffic.

See the bolded part? Your traffic is literally worthless to the site if you adblock them. I don't quite see why people feel entitled to consume a website's products and articles for free. You have the choice to stop visiting their website or to whitelist them, I don't see the problem there. Both are entirely fine and that is your choice as a consumer.

 

Personally I keep my adblock on, but I have whitelisted everything that is important enough for me to bookmark. And that list does not include anything with obnoxious ads or dangerous ads, those sites will just not get any visits from me. So provided the ads remain reasonable (and they are right now), this should work just fine.

[Bensemus]

5 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

not my problem im afraid. i have had enough of ads so find another model that works. as harsh as that may sound, its my choice

It's your choice to block ads but it's also their choice to block you. While you might not use WIRED, if a site you do use a lot decides to block adblock users you will either have to whitelist them and see ads or sub to them. You could always use a script to get a round that but then you are just wanting stuff for free. Everyone is allowed to make money for their work.

[lightningterror]

If every website does this then a good alternative to block ads would be using a custom dns server that blocks ads. Maybe even add the adblock filter list in a router to block the ads as well.

[GeekJump]

I understand why Wired is doing this (they pretty much explain the reasoning in OP's quote) but $52/year is a tad much. Isn't the majority of the content monthly anyway (they are a magazine company still right)? Or do they just posts a couple articles a week?

 

I visit there site, at most, 2-4 times a month. Yeah...I'll just go to the dozen other FREE sources that post more content.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, GeekJump said:

I understand why Wired is doing this (they pretty much explain the reasoning in OP's quote) but $52/year is a tad much. Isn't the majority of the content monthly anyway (they are a magazine company still right)? Or do they just posts a couple articles a week?

 

I visit there site, at most, 2-4 times a month. Yeah...I'll just go to the dozen other FREE sources that post more content.

 

 

I would suggest an alteration to their subscription model:

1. If you sub for the physical magazine, you should - for no additional cost, get an ad-free subscription to the site - you're a baller, still buying physical magazines after all

2. Change the subscription fee model to: $1 per week still, but $30 (or $25 or potentially even less) a year - you should get a hefty discount for subscribing for a year.

 

Eg: I can get a years worth of unlimited VPN bandwidth for like $30 a year - and that is mostly spent Streaming video - Wired should need to charge less per user.

[GeekJump]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I would suggest an alteration to their subscription model:

1. If you sub for the physical magazine, you should - for no additional cost, get an ad-free subscription to the site - you're a baller, still buying physical magazines after all

2. Change the subscription fee model to: $1 per week still, but $30 (or $25 or potentially even less) a year - you should get a hefty discount for subscribing for a year.

 

Eg: I can get a years worth of unlimited VPN bandwidth for like $30 a year - and that is mostly spent Streaming video - Wired should need to charge less per user.

Yeah, idk where that $1/week came from. Their physical magazine is $5/6 issues. If it's like a standard magazine then its $10 year. Usually magazine companies tag on the digital access or charge less for it...not $40 more lol