Is it Wrong to Block Web Site Ads?
As you may have noticed, much of the content you devour is free -- Including this site you're reading right now. But while no one is asking you to buy this article or pay a subscription fee for the site, you are paying for the content in another way by looking at advertisements.
A debate has been building slowly in the far corners of the Internet over a little plug-in for the popular Firefox browser. The extension in question is Adblock Plus, a bit of code that filters out most advertisements on Web sites so the user can browse without being bombarded with product pitches. The debate is really starting to heat up as Firefox's popularity with Web surfers continues to grow (along with the popularity of Adblock Plus).
The question at hand is whether or not it is moral to block ads on sites that rely on advertisements to stay alive. Noam Cohen of the New York Times rightfully points out that if Firefox and Adblock became popular with the masses, they would pose a great threat to the online advertising business model. Other folks have questioned the legality of the extension -- though from a rather feeble copyright infringement angle. The argument is that by displaying a page without ads, Firefox is creating an unauthorized derivative of the original work. Like we said, it's a pretty weak case. The more convincing argument comes from the economic side. If users start blocking advertisements, then how will many smaller Web sites that rely on ad revenue continue to remain in business? Some of the more vocal champions of this side of the debate have actually begun blocking FireFox users from accessing their sites at all -- AdBlock or no AdBlock.
While there are several strong arguments against using Adblock Plus from an economic perspective, they are premature. Adblock is only used by a portion of FireFox users, and Firefox is still only used by a minority of Internet users (roughly 15 percent). These users tend to be very tech and Internet savvy -- not the kind that is likely to click on advertising, anyway (which is how many advertising networks utilized by the smaller sites are monetized).
These tactics to avoid advertising are little different than fast forwarding through commercials, or just walking out of the room during the advertising breaks on television. However, there is potential for problems. If Internet surfers block ads, then companies will stop buying advertising space. Less demand for ads will drive down the costs of Web advertising, which means less revenue. Less revenue means there will eventually be fewer places in business, and therefore fewer places to visit online.
In the end, perhaps many advertisers can take a cue from Google. Adblock Plus is born out of frustration with pop-ups, noisy seizure-inducing flash banners, and full-page ads that delay access to Web sites. However, few people complain about Google's minimally-invasive AdSense text ads. In fact, even the creator of Adblock Plus, Wladimir Palant, told the New York Times that he found Google's ads 'useful and unobtrusive.' The simple text boxes have almost singlehandedly built Google's unfathomably deep war chest. If text-only boxes have made Google richer than most third world countries, then why do we need those screeching Smack the Monkey banners? Surfers and advertisers will have to come to some kind of truce, or we'll just have to get used to a different, less-appealing business model: paying to visit sites.
Further Reading:
Related Links:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
dee said 12:37PM on 9-13-2007
I don't have any problem with REASONABLE ads...it's no different than reading the newspaper. However, it's almost impossible to focus on the content when there is an obnoxious, jarring, flashing ad at the top or side.
I also get migraines, and the flashing tends make me want to throw up.
When I encounter one of those the first thing I do is drag the window so the ad is off the screen.
If the advertising were self regulated and not so obnoxious there would be far less interest in blocking ads entirely.
Reply
roxster said 12:50PM on 9-13-2007
While some ads are inane and downright annoying, there are others that have helped me find exactly what I have been searching for. All it takes, usually, is a click of the mouse to close out the ad. AOL also has a pop-up blocker. While we're at it, isn't there a version of TiVo that allows the viewer to block out the commercials? Isn't that the same thing as what Firefox and Adblock Plus are doing?
Reply
come clean said 5:58PM on 9-14-2007
I personally don't mind most of the ads. But, I also don't click on most of them either.
I'd say I do click on the Google ads more than I do any of the picture ads.
The only ones that really bothered me were the pop-ups. But, I have a blocker for that.
Reply
Frank Lazar said 11:34AM on 9-16-2007
The advertisers did it to themselves, the in your face, maddenlingly distracting ads finally went too far for too long and the inevitable backlash happened. Declaring war on Firefox was an even more stupid alternative. What happens when something like AdBlock comes out as an IE plug-in? Do you block Internet Explorer uesers as well? Do you kick out Mac users just because they're not letting ActiveX trounce all over thier systems?
What goes around comes around, Being nasty to your users is a lousy way to drum up market share.
Reply
Carl S. said 9:46AM on 10-07-2007
The secret of bypassing adblock is to not use images in your ad.
As a consumer, my issue is not with ads on the net, but jpg and gif ads.
how many time have you been delayed forever waiting on a gif from doubleclick.net before you could view a page?
it doesn't load, and you wait, and wait.
you refresh the page, and wait.
finally, out of frustration, you block the ad and get to the page you wanted.
what about people who don't have broadband as an option? those ads can make viewing pages an exercise in futility.
take the cue from Google and make your ads text only.
We'll read it if it isn't in our face.
Reply
thomasrelee said 9:01PM on 10-07-2007
Big coporations that come up with ways to make money without actually having to labor for the cash like most Americans will always get vocal when their easy cash plan gets holes poked all in them. Why do you think GOOGLE is a rich as they are today? The bigger websites pay real cash for people clicking on these ads and "clicking-through" to their sites. Why should be continue to make money for these corporations? They will reply "How do you think the Internet remains free???" I'm sorry, but the last time that I checked, I was paying a handsome fee for Internet service.
Now, about this plugin that makes it easy to block these ads. Do a little research on "Windows Host File" and you will understand that you can do this regardless of what browser you use, and do not even need a plugin. The most vocal coporations are stated to have blocked Firefox browser users all together. Have they stopped to think that the end users of the internet have a right to access any page on the Internet that isn't password protected? This is the basic underlying purpose of the Internet. And these Coporations want to act like a child because they can not charge or possibly make money hand over fist. Check out websites that offer HOST FILE MODIFICATIONS. These modifications make it to where your computer can not communicate with the sites that serve these advertisments--regardless if you are browsing the internet at the time or not. In addition, they block access to websites that are known security threats. Most Coporations are willing to be lax on their security and allow their websites to maliciously install virii and spyware on your computer. Why do you want these companies to have this type of power? Once infected with VIRII and SPYWARE, regardless of if you are surfing the internet, if you are on an always on connection like cable or dsl, your computer is constantly talking -- it is just a part of networking. These modifications make it to where even if you were infected with a security threat, chances are that it can not phone home.
Coporations were slow to take on the Internet in the early days, as they NEVER WANT TO SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY to do anything. I remember many companies in the begining making a fuss out of not giving them any regard as to how access would be controlled, and most importantly, the price involved with accessing information. I'm sorry, I for one jumped on board because there was a sense of "SHARING INFORMATION WORLD WIDE." Never was it stated that there would be a charge other than connection fees to do so.
Why does everything in America have to cost an arm and a leg? Why is it that the American Dream consists more and more of how a Coporation can rip someone off?
Priorities need to be checked. In my humble opinion, the Internet has caused America more trouble that it is worth. You can't turn your computer on anymore and connect to the internet without having to worry about security threats and other vunerabilities. It has long been known that these Ad sites have been found to be serving up all kinds of trouble, other than their intended purposes. Lets not forget morals. Let is also not forget that many Coporations never had any morals to begin with. This point can be proven by reports of TERMINATING someone via E-mail. Where's their balls? Why can't they take the time and time honored tradition of doing business FACE to FACE in situations like that? I know it is off point, but other battles that the Internet have brought in file sharing, advertising, telephone services... there were even corporations that had a temper tantrum over e-mail being free. Free being what the Internet was intended to be. Corporations think they should make money in everything they participate.
Well, I for one think that America should go back to it's roots. Corporate laws should be abolished, and they should be forced to earn a dollar just like hard working class Americans. They should not be allowed to set back and think that technology and automation is going to make it for them as they have poured money into these ideas thinking the entire time about making money.
If I want to be subjected to advertising, I would gladly accept it when I want to, ie. when buying a car. When you research Ford or Mitsubishi on the Internet via their websites, this should be advertisment enough, as I am tired of having to see these ads in news papers, magazines, TV, and as if they haven't driven these ads in our heads, attack us while we are on the internet? I do not do business with companies that spend Billions in Advertising, as they are doing this for what? A Tax Write-Off?
Reply
Teoh Han Hui said 11:22AM on 5-10-2008
Come to think of it, who would visit pay-per-view or subscription sites when there are free and open alternatives available?
If these websites/businesses don't change their mindset, they will just get out of business in this world that is getting increasingly free.
It's the user's right to view or not to view ads. What right has the website to force it upon the user? Inability to cater to the consumers' wishes WILL get you out of business.
Reply