Mobile Suit Gooch
Grundle: The Awakening
How do you get caught?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Pachter talks about AdBlock
- Thread starter DarkoMaledictus
- Start date
How do you get caught?
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
I don't feel bad for content creators that force me to use adblock. If you have a popup with a person talking about lemon pledge that won't let me close the window until I type "lemon pledge" in a captcha box, you are an asshole and don't deserve to profit from me clicking on your website. If it's a website I use often that doesn't overdo it like GAF, reddit, or CAG .... I will whitelist it because they are providing a service I find valuable and they don't bash me over the head with ads.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
Its possible for sites to identify users with Adblock
Personally, I think adblock is great. I turn it off for sites I frequently visit, like gaf or reddit.
Where it really shines is if you're googling for something and you have to wade through several SEO-run sites with a billion ads before you hit one with what you're actually looking for. Those sites that are designed around me clicking on their headline vs. having actual content? I don't want them to have my view. I'll turn it off for the site that has what I'm looking for.
Where it really shines is if you're googling for something and you have to wade through several SEO-run sites with a billion ads before you hit one with what you're actually looking for. Those sites that are designed around me clicking on their headline vs. having actual content? I don't want them to have my view. I'll turn it off for the site that has what I'm looking for.
Shit, the ads on Neogaf can be hilarious.
Hale-XF11
Member
I seriously lol'd at that. Pachter is delusional. Not to mention, as long as pop-up ads, ads with malware and auto-play ads with loud audio exist, people will continue to use adblock. Be responsible for your ads or get blocked.
Prototype Viktor
Member
MVPS Hosts File and forget
michaelius
Banned
Sounds like giving gratification to clickbait articles.
EdReedFan20
Member
While I don't personally use AdBlock on GameTrailers, I do think the ads there are ridiculous, especially on The Bonus Round. You watch an ad before it starts. Then, sometimes just a few minutes in, you need to watch 3-4 ads as a "commercial break" and then you get to watch the remainder. Another problem is they're always the same ads over and over again. If the ads were a little more varied, it would be a little better.
Just_myles
Member
You know what, good job Pach. Get em! You have to pay to play!
ChieSatonaka
Banned
I understand websites, and content producers make money off ads, but I feel like things like adblock are not entirely in the wrong, because companies keep trying to find ways to shove ads down our throats even when we pay for content, and that is the kind of shit that pisses me off.
Going to the movie theater is one example that makes me really pissed off. You go there, and pay outragous amounts of money for concessions, and ever increasing ticket prices, and instead of being able to relax in peace, you are blasted with these stupid fucking ads on the screen. Look, I know companies want to get paid, but enough is enough. There needs to be a proper balance I feel, because it just feels like things exist to advertise and that's it sometimes.
Trailers for trailers, ads for ads. It's a never ending thing. That's what pisses me off. I also feel like for certain sites, I have no choice but to turn on adblock, because the shit takes up so much of the page, that I don't know where the actual content is. Neogaf fortunately has been one of those great sites with minimal ads and it doesn't really affect me.
Going to the movie theater is one example that makes me really pissed off. You go there, and pay outragous amounts of money for concessions, and ever increasing ticket prices, and instead of being able to relax in peace, you are blasted with these stupid fucking ads on the screen. Look, I know companies want to get paid, but enough is enough. There needs to be a proper balance I feel, because it just feels like things exist to advertise and that's it sometimes.
Trailers for trailers, ads for ads. It's a never ending thing. That's what pisses me off. I also feel like for certain sites, I have no choice but to turn on adblock, because the shit takes up so much of the page, that I don't know where the actual content is. Neogaf fortunately has been one of those great sites with minimal ads and it doesn't really affect me.
Hexa
Member
Not exactly. Advertisers don't pay for awareness or comprehension, they pay for possible exposure.
These numbers might be wrong since I took the class a while ago, but when they pay for this may ad views, the general expectation is that 100% the ad will be there, 56% will realize that they were being advertised to (with the others being preoccupied and not even noticing), 22% will comprehend what was being advertised to them (others will stop watching/listening/paying attention before that happens), 11% will see what is in the ad as worth noticing/remembering, and 1% will act upon the ad.
This is in general. Percentages differ based on where something is being advertised, and if better targeted with higher percentages towards the later stages, then they are generally paid more per 'view' and vice versa.
tl;dr: Advertisers expect most people to ignore ads, but they expect the ads to be displayed at least and that's what they pay for.
Overall, I think that Pachter is absolutely right, and that as we go forward a lot of sites with technically informed user bases are either going to die, or find new ways to make profit.
They're going have to find ways to get advertising without getting blocked, so I'm going to guess that it's going to get a lot more intrusive and obvious, as if you can't go for quantity go for quality.
Overall I like the way things are now, but oh well.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
chrominance
Member
Given the choice between ads or paid subscriptions, I'd pick the latter. That's why I pay money to Giant Bomb. I would totally pay for an ad-free NeoGAF if it was an option.
That said, most sites seem to choose either "ads only, no paid subscription" or "paywall PLUS ads" for their revenue model. Maybe that implies that trying to do without display advertising is infeasible. I dunno.
There are ways to simply attach two videos to one another such that when requested, the original content can be paired up with whatever current ad needs to be displayed. You could even handle ad rotation by simply keeping multiple copies of the same media. Or better yet, if piecing together such content is possible to do on the fly (and it probably is but I'm no expert here), you don't even need the extra storage, just more intelligent servers (i.e. higher server load).
As with everything, there would be an associated financial cost, both one-time (in setting the system up) and ongoing (servers aren't free!). But that might hint at the apparent financial loss from viewers using ad-blocking software. If more people blocked ads, we might see more invasive methods of embedding ads.
Ultimately, I think Pachter's right, though maybe not in the way he thinks he is. Doritos Pope points the way to a future where the advertising is embedded in the content itself in a way that's difficult or impossible to separate and filter out. You see this sort of thing in movies and television as well, with more elaborate product placement. 30 Rock literally points out its product placement in a way that makes it funny and winks at the audience, but also ultimately does the job the advertiser wanted. And that stuff isn't necessarily impossible to update, either. Maybe not 30 Rock's version of it, unless the cast and crew want to constantly refilm segments for new advertisers, but pro sports has figured it out with the stadium/arena spots for ads that can now be redone on the live broadcast to show whatever advertiser the station wants.
That's why I'd rather pay for it. I know that even having ads on NeoGAF unblocked means I have a larger footprint with the tracking services ad providers use--you know, the ones that know that you were looking for vibrators on Amazon.com and will take every opportunity to show you Amazon.com ads featuring the vibrator you decided not to buy. (This is a real thing, though I imagine the ad networks and Amazon are smart enough not to show certain items. I hope.) I know that if display advertising tanks (like people have predicted for years, though it hasn't happened yet) advertisers will find more invasive ways to get their message across. Paying directly for the content you want, at the end of the day, is the most honest transaction between content provider and audience. It's the one I want to support. I just don't think most people agree, so we're all likely to get screwed.
That said, most sites seem to choose either "ads only, no paid subscription" or "paywall PLUS ads" for their revenue model. Maybe that implies that trying to do without display advertising is infeasible. I dunno.
There are ways to simply attach two videos to one another such that when requested, the original content can be paired up with whatever current ad needs to be displayed. You could even handle ad rotation by simply keeping multiple copies of the same media. Or better yet, if piecing together such content is possible to do on the fly (and it probably is but I'm no expert here), you don't even need the extra storage, just more intelligent servers (i.e. higher server load).
As with everything, there would be an associated financial cost, both one-time (in setting the system up) and ongoing (servers aren't free!). But that might hint at the apparent financial loss from viewers using ad-blocking software. If more people blocked ads, we might see more invasive methods of embedding ads.
Ultimately, I think Pachter's right, though maybe not in the way he thinks he is. Doritos Pope points the way to a future where the advertising is embedded in the content itself in a way that's difficult or impossible to separate and filter out. You see this sort of thing in movies and television as well, with more elaborate product placement. 30 Rock literally points out its product placement in a way that makes it funny and winks at the audience, but also ultimately does the job the advertiser wanted. And that stuff isn't necessarily impossible to update, either. Maybe not 30 Rock's version of it, unless the cast and crew want to constantly refilm segments for new advertisers, but pro sports has figured it out with the stadium/arena spots for ads that can now be redone on the live broadcast to show whatever advertiser the station wants.
That's why I'd rather pay for it. I know that even having ads on NeoGAF unblocked means I have a larger footprint with the tracking services ad providers use--you know, the ones that know that you were looking for vibrators on Amazon.com and will take every opportunity to show you Amazon.com ads featuring the vibrator you decided not to buy. (This is a real thing, though I imagine the ad networks and Amazon are smart enough not to show certain items. I hope.) I know that if display advertising tanks (like people have predicted for years, though it hasn't happened yet) advertisers will find more invasive ways to get their message across. Paying directly for the content you want, at the end of the day, is the most honest transaction between content provider and audience. It's the one I want to support. I just don't think most people agree, so we're all likely to get screwed.
He was attacking the question and not the individual. Your citation is an ambiguous edge case because people think differently. I personally put consideration into when I choose to call an argument stupid or the person who said it as such.
exactly.. there is really nothing more to say about that.. some websites don't deserve to be whitelist, regardless of how good their content is..
The Devils Mouthpiece
Banned
How, when you can easily beat that by using s private browser, a custom block list, and a VPN. Regardless, I surf GAF through mobile, the ads aren't intrusive, and some are outright funny.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Why do browsers have built-in, enabled-by-default popup blockers?
He took it too far by even mentioning that, but based on his stated principle, he'd be hypocritical if he didn't consider 30 second skip on a DVR to be the same as adblock. "Morally". The whole "expect everything for free" thing.
I still think it was a mistake on his part to lump them together. Because unlike DVR, someone correct me if I'm wrong, internet ad company metrics can tell whether an ad on a pageview was legitimately loaded or whether it was blocked completely, and choose to not pay the content creator. Cable companies don't/can't tell which part of a recorded show was fast forwarded over.
Because pop-ups are instusi... ohhhhh.
Apple of Enlightenment
Banned
I'm really quite surprised at some of the comments here that justify the use of ads and the notions of getting banned for using Adblock, etc. Do people know how socially corruptive ads are? Advertising is a form of violence that literally hurts the function of the mind (see Bernays 'Propaganda' -- Bernays was instrumental in popularising things like smoking and writing about how this is done). Obviously, the general Zeitgeist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg) comes to mind too.
"Hey, you know how ISPs are forcefully fucking you and asking for every penny? How about we forcefully make you watch these Vanilla Ice Mac and Cheese ads or some woman cleaning a set disguised as a house before you can see videogame stuff!"
If internet service was free and fair, ads wouldn't be an issue. Paying for internet access along with being subject to shit that isn't targeted correctly at an audience is a fucking joke. People that depend on the internet to survive should adapt to the changing environment. You're playing the game, not the consumer.
If internet service was free and fair, ads wouldn't be an issue. Paying for internet access along with being subject to shit that isn't targeted correctly at an audience is a fucking joke. People that depend on the internet to survive should adapt to the changing environment. You're playing the game, not the consumer.
The bait to the poor guy (cancerdancer) was shameless.
I've seen it happening at least twice.
By the way, I've used AdBlock on GAF for a few weeks after I joined (it's been almost a year now). Simply because it's not written anywhere in the ToS as far as I remember. As soon as I heard about the site policy and the fact that GAF is kept up by the revenue coming from ads I whitelisted it. Never looked back, I'm more than happy to support the sites that deserve it, especially if ads are absolutely unobtrusive like here.
I've seen it happening at least twice.
By the way, I've used AdBlock on GAF for a few weeks after I joined (it's been almost a year now). Simply because it's not written anywhere in the ToS as far as I remember. As soon as I heard about the site policy and the fact that GAF is kept up by the revenue coming from ads I whitelisted it. Never looked back, I'm more than happy to support the sites that deserve it, especially if ads are absolutely unobtrusive like here.
Here's the thing about advertising. Yes, publishers will say "Ah, don't be a jerk, don't use adblock. It's not that hard to just deal with ads so we can be paid to provide you the service." They have a point. They don't work for free, and it's wrong to assume that they should work for free.
But what is it saying when not using adblock just means that we're ignoring ads? How does that work for the advertiser? If ads are so annoying that the two choices are to either ignore them are block them, that's more a problem with advertising than it is with people using the internet.
Ads are pushing away from using a CPM model. More and more advertisers are pushing towards paying out on specific actions. Branding is no longer enough. People using adblock isn't the cause of the decline of a lot of sites. People using Adblock is a symptom of ads being largely useless and annoying for all parties involved. It's a broken system and it's slowly fading away.
Let me be clear: I'm not defending adblock, and I'm not saying that any of this is good. In fact, it's quite negative, if you own or work for a game website. The market is becoming less profitable. My point is that adblock is not the cause, but one part of a greater issue.
But what is it saying when not using adblock just means that we're ignoring ads? How does that work for the advertiser? If ads are so annoying that the two choices are to either ignore them are block them, that's more a problem with advertising than it is with people using the internet.
Ads are pushing away from using a CPM model. More and more advertisers are pushing towards paying out on specific actions. Branding is no longer enough. People using adblock isn't the cause of the decline of a lot of sites. People using Adblock is a symptom of ads being largely useless and annoying for all parties involved. It's a broken system and it's slowly fading away.
Let me be clear: I'm not defending adblock, and I'm not saying that any of this is good. In fact, it's quite negative, if you own or work for a game website. The market is becoming less profitable. My point is that adblock is not the cause, but one part of a greater issue.
ChimpanzeeThat
Member
If we don't watch the ads, we make gaming journalists homeless and Pachter doesn't know what games to buy.
The world makes no sense.
The world makes no sense.
Pach's a pro-business, anti-consumer money man. I wouldn't expect him to say any differently. Will I continue to watch his show? Sure. He's entertaining and is willing to say things that others won't or can't. But he's not about to convince me that AdBlock is "bad." He may not like it, but that doesn't make it morally questionable.
chickdigger802
Banned
This is why i really only visit a few game sites frequently, and those i just get there premium sub with no ads.
And that ending lol. pachter at e3 can't wait!
And that ending lol. pachter at e3 can't wait!
flatearthpandas
Member
Man, I hate it when I can't get people to look at things against their will.
Yup.
If morals are entering this conversation, capitalism is currently immoral or apathetically moral.
Adblock wouldn't be running if ads weren't as annoying as they tend to be nowadays.
On NeoGAF, the ads are presented at a rather innocent spot that takes modest space. And I believe the admins/mods here are doing their absolute best to prevent any sound-producing ads to appear as well.
On NeoGAF, the ads are presented at a rather innocent spot that takes modest space. And I believe the admins/mods here are doing their absolute best to prevent any sound-producing ads to appear as well.
For some people Pandora and Spotify are synonymous to music.
Maintenance
Member
Watched with Adblock enabled, and even if Adblock get disabled and I need to see 30 seconds of a blank screen as he said, I will gladly do it instead of seeing ads.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
Sounds like a pretty common way to use the internet
I will be SURE to have the latest version of AdBlock enabled all the time, including IF/when I visit Gametrailers.com
I will also be certain to keep up with any & all of the best alternative ad blocking extensions/ apps / browsers / ETC., just in case GT manages to work around the current AdBlock / AdBlock Plus.
As for GT's revenue through advertisements to produce content, buy cameras & equipment and pay GT's employees , I so VERY much do not give a god damn fuck.
If GT goes out of biz I couldn't possibly care less.
Bwuahahahaha.
I will also be certain to keep up with any & all of the best alternative ad blocking extensions/ apps / browsers / ETC., just in case GT manages to work around the current AdBlock / AdBlock Plus.
As for GT's revenue through advertisements to produce content, buy cameras & equipment and pay GT's employees , I so VERY much do not give a god damn fuck.
If GT goes out of biz I couldn't possibly care less.
Bwuahahahaha.
It's morally questionable. Don't think that's up for debate. Most websites hurt by it are small. Not big corporations. Small, independently owned websites are the most affected by it.
I'd argue ads are questionable in their practicality as well.
Haunted
Member
Scumbags, the lot of them!
Highly speculative. I think you give some people far, far too much credit.
This is 100% true.
Hale-XF11
Member
Pachter is speaking of content creators though, not general consumers.
PshycoNinja
Member
"And guess what? A trailer is an ad. You scumbag."
Yes and you are putting up an additional ad before we consume what you consider an ad. How is that fair to the end user?
Yes and you are putting up an additional ad before we consume what you consider an ad. How is that fair to the end user?