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:
It's long been held that Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) browser was far and away the least secure browser available. Anyone who thought otherwise only had to look at the long and constant IE security bulletins to see what could be perceived as a glaring hole in the thing. But it seems as though maybe those updates are at least partially due only to commonality, as the increasing popularity of Firefox and Safari is putting those browsers under fire.
