Report claims ad blocking is costing an estimated $21.8 billion in 2015

[Crowes]

The way I see it is that if you're giving me tailored ads that are unobtrusive, and that advertise stuff like television adverts to for kids - then hey, I won't block 'em. If they're up in my face, covering a website, or supporting someone I really don't think deserves what they're giving him, the page is being blocked so I can mildly be annoyed by his content in peace without being offered a new toaster over on sale or hot mothers in my location.

 

Pfft.

[Arty]

THIS is an example of a good youtube  ad.

@jaggysnake57

 

[lightningterror]

I think LMG has done a pretty good job of distributing the ads in a reasonable fashion.  I'm not sure why anyone here would block them.

 

If other sites did the same like linus then i would disable adblock. I just can't stand some websites that have some flash playing ads , background ad music , and whenever you want to click on something you are redirected to some other site the same way like you clicked an ad.

 

Not to mention when you want to download something you're bombarded with ad download links like in the pic.

 

[TheUzu]

In my opinion it is not much fairer. I believe I should have the right to choose where my money goes to and if you call that "self-entitlement", you're wrong. It is like saying that if you get approached by a marketing agency while walking down the street you are forced to give them your full attention, they can take all the information you've given them and sell it somewhere else making money out of you twice (without you seeing a dyme for it).

Ah, and you may be stabbed.

So yeah, I will continue to block everything by default until such a time where ads are regulated and not full page buy now loud sounds and flashy malware installing imagery. We have Donald Trump for that.

Where your money goes? What are you talking about they are just selling what websites you browse, it is nothing like being approached in the street, and in terms of you not seeing any of the money they make off your information you do its in the form of the website you visited.

The whitelist is the middle ground, however whenever you get something for a site you haven't whitlisted just because you don't regularly use it you are harming them.

[mr moose]

If other sites did the same like linus then i would disable adblock. I just can't stand some websites that have some flash playing ads , background ad music , and whenever you want to click on something you are redirected to some other site the same way like you clicked an ad.

 

Not to mention when you want to download something you're bombarded with ad download links like in the pic.

 

 

Like this one, I just searched for ccleaner and clicked the cnet link:

 

[Chicken]

Not sure what your point was beacuse of your lack of proper grammar, but i think you meant that adblockers are worse than the companies trying to force ads on us? I think you should have a little peek at that link in your signature

Ad blockers result in more intrusive ads, just like how piracy results in more bullshit DRM for paying users.

[Derangel]

Ad blockers result in more intrusive ads, just like how piracy results in more bullshit DRM for paying users.

 

Bullshit. It's a convenient scapegoat for companies to pull whatever shit they want. Just like how the words "terrorist" and "for the children" are used by various governments and agencies to get things passed.

[mr moose]

Bullshit. It's a convenient scapegoat for companies to pull whatever shit they want. Just like how the words "terrorist" and "for the children" are used by various governments and agencies to get things passed.

I agree with the terrorist and children thing however:

 

Watch the video posted on the previous page.

[Derangel]

I agree with the terrorist and children thing however:

 

Watch the video posted on the previous page.

 

There isn't one on the previous page. If you mean the Jimquisition ep posted on page 5 I saw it when it was first released. If companies really truly gave a damn about stopping people from using adblock they would actually take the time to figure out why some people do and take steps to solve it. Instead it's all about paying off Adblock or trying to find ways around it or just making more intrusive ads to fuck over the people that don't use it only serving to drive more of them to do so.

[SSL]

Good. A major consequence of ad blocking should be to send the message that it is an unsustainable business model.

 

"Content creators" whining that people should support them are missing the point. First, no one is entitled to success, financial or otherwise. Second, serving ads is ultimately treating the consumer as the product; at that point the notion of the content being "free, with ads" is thoroughly risible.

 

Ad blockers result in more intrusive ads, just like how piracy results in more bullshit DRM for paying users.

 

I fail to see the logic in this statement. An ad that I have blocked does not become less blocked by being more obnoxious.

 

The REAL cause of increasingly intrusive ads is the fact that they don't work even when they are not blocked; people have learned to ignore them, prompting advertisers to use ever more annoying methods to gain attention.

[mr moose]

There isn't one on the previous page. If you mean the Jimquisition ep posted on page 5 I saw it when it was first released. If companies really truly gave a damn about stopping people from using adblock they would actually take the time to figure out why some people do and take steps to solve it. Instead it's all about paying off Adblock or trying to find ways around it or just making more intrusive ads to fuck over the people that don't use it only serving to drive more of them to do so.

 

It's always about money, money talks and BS walks. 

 

Some ads are intrusive, some are not, but in the end they pay for the content you consume and thus the more people who use adblock the worse the ads will get. 

[SSL]

It's always about money, money talks and BS walks. 

 

Some ads are intrusive, some are not, but in the end they pay for the content you consume and thus the more people who use adblock the worse the ads will get. 

 

So? Following this logic to completion, ads will be infinitely annoying, yet 100% of people will be blocking them. Seems like a workable solution to me.

 

The notion that ads are paying for content is besides the point. The ad-driven business model is not about selling the content, but the consumer. Whether a content creator is consciously aware of it, their "content" is just a tool for bringing in more of the real product.

[Derangel]

It's always about money, money talks and BS walks. 

 

Some ads are intrusive, some are not, but in the end they pay for the content you consume and thus the more people who use adblock the worse the ads will get. 

 

I'll whitelist sites that I visit regularly as long their ads are not intrusive or annoying. I used to have all of Youtube whitelisted, back before their ads got worse and more annoying. The banner ad based revenue model was never going to be viable forever and as companies drive more and more people to wanting to get rid of ads new ways of supporting content will need to be thought up. Personally, I actually like sponsorship deals like Linus and others do to promote products they feel fit their communities.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

I think enough has been said about why people (like myself) actively use Adblock; security, privacy, bandwidth, and clean browsing experience.

For those claiming that the advertising was only intrusive as a result of ad blocking, do any of you remember AOL?

[niofalpha]

On Sites I visit constantly I have add-block disabled, but if I'm browsing sketchy/ sites which are probably scams I have it on.

 

I wish I could filter adds blocked by channel. Their are some people who are just general money- whores who I don't want to help in any way at all, but channels I enjoy which I want to support.

[mr moose]

So? Following this logic to completion, ads will be infinitely annoying, yet 100% of people will be blocking them. Seems like a workable solution to me.

 

The notion that ads are paying for content is besides the point. The ad-driven business model is not about selling the content, but the consumer. Whether a content creator is consciously aware of it, their "content" is just a tool for bringing in more of the real product.

 

It doesn't matter what you call it, it's the same thing.  Content creators are selling the consumer, the consumer is using ads to buy the content, they are both true.  The point is the consumer is choosing to consume that content and the ads pay for it.

 

I think enough has been said about why people (like myself) actively use Adblock; security, privacy, bandwidth, and clean browsing experience.

For those claiming that the advertising was only intrusive as a result of ad blocking, do any of you remember AOL?

 

I don't think anyone is claiming they are only intrusive because of ad block but that they are becoming more in your face as a result of it.  Business 101, if something hampers your revenue stream you either work a way around it (sell more, sell harder, change your product) or you find away to remove that something.

[SSL]

It doesn't matter what you call it, it's the same thing.  Content creators are selling the consumer, the consumer is using ads to buy the content, they are both true.  The point is the consumer is choosing to consume that content and the ads pay for it.

 

It isn't the same thing.

 

You can't buy something if you don't pay for it. As there is no obligation to view ads, or to even download them, you cannot argue that ad-driven content is in any way a purchase. To support this conclusion, consider that most ad-driven content on the web is claimed to be "free" and that the web is supposedly "open".

 

Let me know if that still doesn't make sense to you. The point is clearly not that the consumer chooses to consume content which the ads pay for, since ad blockers, non-visual browsers, and disabled scripts/plugins can all successfully undermine this business model.

[mr moose]

 since ad blockers, non-visual browsers, and disabled scripts/plugins can all successfully undermine this business model.

 

Exactly, they undermine the business model, what is the business model?  ad revenue pays for the service, it pays for the content, it pays for the server space.  If you undermine that then there are only two options left,  find revenue elsewhere to pay for the server space and content or stop the service.    Ad revenue pays for the service (this is buying) but it can only do that if the viewer watches the ad.  Ergo the viewer either decides to allow the ad revenue to pay for the content they choose to consume or they install a blocker consume the content and deny the creator and web host revenue. 

 

It is the same thing, you can call it selling the viewers to the ad makers or you can call it using ad revenue to buy the content, they are both accurate descriptions of what is happening.

[Chicken]

Bullshit. It's a convenient scapegoat for companies to pull whatever shit they want. Just like how the words "terrorist" and "for the children" are used by various governments and agencies to get things passed.

You would be a terrible business man..... EXAMPLE:  let's say its 2007, and I'm the owner of youtube, I started implementing ads on the side, so each person has to look at 1 ad, some people start using adblock, I'm losing ad counts, so I'll add another ad, on top, now its 2 ads per person(that's not using adblock) Now more people are using adblock, ok fine, I'll add ads right into the video, whoever gets the video ad pays me more, now I have 1 person watching 3 annoying ads instead of 1 small one. More lost ad views result in more ads implemented, and the cycle continues, pirates and adblockers make it worse. That's all there is to it.

 

 

If you owned a service supported by ads, and you're losing view counts because of adblock, would you do nothing? A business move would be to add more ads onto a single page, so viewcount can go up with less people watching them.

[LAwLz]

You would be a terrible business man..... EXAMPLE:  let's say its 2007, and I'm the owner of youtube, I started implementing ads on the side, so each person has to look at 1 ad, some people start using adblock, I'm losing ad counts, so I'll add another ad, on top, now its 2 ads per person(that's not using adblock) Now more people are using adblock, ok fine, I'll add ads right into the video, whoever gets the video ad pays me more, now I have 1 person watching 3 annoying ads instead of 1 small one. More lost ad views result in more ads implemented, and the cycle continues, pirates and adblockers make it worse. That's all there is to it.

 

 

If you owned a service supported by ads, and you're losing view counts because of adblock, would you do nothing? A business move would be to add more ads onto a single page, so viewcount can go up with less people watching them.

That just creates a cycle that will end with you as the owner of YouTube won't have any viewers without adblock.

The problem is that you think of AdBlocks as the issue rather than the solution to a problem you have created. Your reaction to people using AdBlock shouldn't be "damn now I have to push more ads", it should be "how can I make the ads I already have less obnoxious so more people are okay with them".

[mr moose]

That just creates a cycle that will end with you as the owner of YouTube won't have any viewers without adblock.

The problem is that you think of AdBlocks as the issue rather than the solution to a problem you have created. Your reaction to people using AdBlock shouldn't be "damn now I have to push more ads", it should be "how can I make the ads I already have less obnoxious so more people are okay with them".

 

I think of adblock as a solution and a problem.   I think if it's use becomes more common then eventually all web services/content will end up behind a paid subscriptions (something I don;t want to see because not everyone can afford that).  Whether this the fault of aggressive ads causing more people to flock to ad block or ad block causing website to add more ads is anyone's guess.  Personally I believe its 50/50.

[Chicken]

That just creates a cycle that will end with you as the owner of YouTube won't have any viewers without adblock.

The problem is that you think of AdBlocks as the issue rather than the solution to a problem you have created. Your reaction to people using AdBlock shouldn't be "damn now I have to push more ads", it should be "how can I make the ads I already have less obnoxious so more people are okay with them".

I don't believe in people enough to think they'll stop using adblock if I make them less intrusive. The smarter decision would be to push more ads to non adblockers, or the other option is to make it a paid subscription service and get rid of ads completley, but then people will complain about that to. In the end, adblockers are the problem.

[LAwLz]

I don't believe in people enough to think they'll stop using adblock if I make them less intrusive. The smarter decision would be to push more ads to non adblockers, or the other option is to make it a paid subscription service and get rid of ads completley, but then people will complain about that to. In the end, adblockers are the problem.

No... Pushing more ads is the dumb decision because it will push even more people over to the AdBlock side.

 

Think of it this way.

LinusMediaGroup needs to do 100 hours of work every day. Right now they got 10 people so that's 10 hour workdays for each person. One person is not okay with 10 hour workdays and want 8 hour ones. So now Linus has the choice between 1) employing more people, or 2) kick Luke from the company and give the 9 remaining people 11 hour workdays.

What you're suggesting is solution 2, because it puts more work on the people still on the site. I think it is far more logical to go with solution 1 and fix the issue causing people to leave in the first place, which is to make the work easier and give less of it to the 10 employees. That way you minimize the risk of more people leaving and the people still in the company becomes happier too.

[Orblivion]

The real tragedy here is that clearly more than 21.8 billion dollars is spent every year on advertising. 

[SteveGrabowski0]

What adblockers don't or even refuse to understand is that these more annoying and more obtrusive ads are a near direct result of your actions, because fewer people are viewing ads, ads have to get bigger to outweigh it. Because you are blocking ads, users who don't are affected and content creators are affected. In the long wrong, adblockers are a bigger, more annoying problem than the companies publishing ads in the first place.

I'd show more respect to adblockers if they didn't already appear to have a lack of for everybody else.

 

The video ads are a result of everyone having broadband access now. There is nothing more annoying than opening five tabs and hearing five different videos with sound popping up, so I just block everything unless it's a site whose video content I want.