Support NeoGAF

[iamblades]

This is the internet we're talking about. People flock to cool stuff that's free. For anything that isn't impossibly entrenched (Facebook etc.), it's an endless cycle of:

Awesome free thing ---> gets popular and increases in value based on popularity but isn't making much if any money ---> as popularity reaches critical mass, overhead increases and investor pressure to monetize begins ---> service gains baggage of monetization and becomes considerably less awesome ---> people flock to new awesome free thing that doesn't yet have that baggage simply because it's not far enough along in the cycle yet.


Snapchat just unveiled $0.99 for three snap replays microtransactions. Probably the beginning of its downward spiral.

I don't really worry about the social media or app stuff, where the primary cost is technological. Eventually bandwidth and computing power will be so prevalent that anything like that is worthwhile to enough people will be run p2p.

You can see it starting with stuff like friendica, obviously no where near mainstream yet, by it is perfectly feasible for these kinds of services to be run by the users.

The content producers may have an issue, but it seems pretty apparent to me that we have an oversupply of content on the web, which is part of the reason for the cutthroat internet ad market. Maybe we need for a certain percentage of these sites to die off so the audience can condense to a number that is financially sustainable, instead of using increasingly invasive advertising techniques to milk money out of a tiny splintered audience.

I have no problem with ads in general, and don't run ad blockers(I just completely avoid sites with annoying ads), but when sites argue that their right to advertise extends to running arbitrary code from an unknown third party on my device to spy on me, they can fuck right off.

 

[entremet]

I don't think it's about a lack of creativity.

I'm gonna say it. From my experience in the ad/marketing world, it's just that they don't give a shit about how obtrusive and invasive ads and marketing is.

That's true too. But people saying we have no option but to serve you these crappy ads do show a lack of creativity.

They're gonna have to find something because they've annoyed enough people to have major tech companies listen to their concerns.

 

[outunderthestars]

Guilt tripping people for blocking and rejecting a monetization model that is oftentimes creepy, unpopular, intrusive, and hackneyed.

I don't get it.

To be fair, if you are rejecting it, shouldn't you stop using the site in question?

 

[n3ss]

Ad block is just going to lead to more stealthy ads, which nobody wants. Our future of media publications spread out between fifteen different kinds of platforms like Facebook and Snapchat is super depressing to me.

I like the Giant Bomb model of subscriptions but I don't know how scalable it is, if at all.

It's not scalable. All the models suggested in this thread have been tried and are not scalable.

For those that pro Adblock, how will you know when a site is 100% to your liking if you always leave Adblock on?

 

[Apath]

To be fair, if you are rejecting it, shouldn't you stop using the site in question?

A lot of the time you are led to a site from a link somewhere else, not even knowing what the website is.

 

[SigSig]

There has been a net before ads were a thing and there will be a net after browsers implement blocking of 3rd party content out of the box.
It's beginning slowly but steady and I'm pretty sure Apple will at some point just say "speed is more important for our iOS users, fuck off with loading ressources from 87345 different servers" and then, finally, people who want to make money on the net will actually have to think about their business model for more than the 3 seconds it took them to come up with "tracking ad networks sourcing from unverified content providers".

 

[ersocaster]

I don't think it's about a lack of creativity.

I'm gonna say it. From my experience in the ad/marketing world, it's just that they don't give a shit about how obtrusive and invasive ads and marketing is.

I work at a major media publishing company.

We care. We care more than we should. We use Google's ad service, and sometimes obtrusive ads slip through. We have written programs specifically to find and disable them, we have contacted Google about disabling them. It is extremely difficult. Look up how an ad exchange works, how ad bidding works, etc. It is difficult to restrict certain ad types when the ad exchange is largely automated.

 

[Vicetrailia]

People blame the customer/consumer, but ads get blocked for valid reasons as well.

I don't mind banner ads, but if you browse you are bound to get viruses, have ads that take over your screen and overwhelm your browser, and all kinds of things. There is a risk for actually not using adblocker. If all you do is NeoGAF and CNN then you may not need it.

 

[a916]

People blame the customer/consumer, but ads get blocked for valid reasons as well.

I don't mind banner ads, but if you browse you are bound to get viruses, have ads that take over your screen and overwhelm your browser, and all kinds of things. There is a risk for actually not using adblocker. If all you do is NeoGAF and CNN then you may not need it.

Auto-playing a video buried somewhere down the page should be a no-no... but so many big websites do it anyways.

 

[n3ss]

There has been a net before ads were a thing and there will be a net after browsers implement blocking of 3rd party content out of the box.
It's beginning slowly but steady and I'm pretty sure Apple will at some point just say "speed is more important for our iOS users, fuck off with loading ressources from 87345 different servers" and then, finally, people who want to make money on the net will actually have to think about their business model for more than the 3 seconds it took them to come up with "tracking ad networks sourcing from unverified content providers".

You act like no one has tried... And running a successful site that only monetizes through ads isn't easy either.

 

[Myggen]

I personally don't use adblock because I've never seen a need for it, but I understand the people who do and why they do it. I think it's a bit naive to just blame the consumer. I like what the guy in my avatar said about this when asked how he as a "content creator" at Giant Bomb felt about adblock:

I think between Flash security issues, the rise of ad exchanges that don’t always properly vet the ads they’re placing onto various websites, and increasingly invasive ad placements appearing on sites, one could make a pretty strong case for blocking ads these days. As much as I wish we got a billion ad impressions and made a ton of money off of ads that we could use to reinvest in the business by hiring people, those days are over. Display advertising is kind of dead.

The ads you see these days are flying out of an exploding, shambling corpse that refuses to go down without a fight. In some ways, that shambling thing can still be really lucrative. But it won’t last forever. As it explodes, the on-site experience for many sites will get worse, inspiring more people to block ads, and so on down the line.

We’re lucky to have a growing number of people who are willing to pay us to directly support what we do. If we were simply attempting to be another ad-supported video game site we wouldn’t be here, largely because of the high rate of ad blockers we see. But I’d never blame those people for, like, denying us some chunk of money or whatever. Business changes. Either you keep up with it and find a way to make it work or you don’t.

 

[flyover]

For those that pro Adblock, how will you know when a site is 100% to your liking if you always leave Adblock on?

I understand what you're getting at with this question, and it's something to consider. But if you rephrase it, it sounds almost like "Why use Adblock, considering that one day you might not need it (and you have no way of knowing when)?"

 

[borghe]

I don't think it's about a lack of creativity.

I'm gonna say it. From my experience in the ad/marketing world, it's just that they don't give a shit about how obtrusive and invasive ads and marketing is.

this is exactly it 1000 times over.

the problem is, no (major) advertiser is held accountable. If an advertiser tries to be obtrusive or obnoxious on TV, they'll have their spot pulled and lose money. if they do it on the web..... ? Nothing.

Because the advertisers lack ANY sort of accountability (because web publishers are fine making a deal with the devil "yes we need money. no we don't care what it takes"), it has created a landscape where advertisers can do literally whatever they want (within regulatory bounds I would guess... FCC, FTC, etc)

IMHO THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT makes ad blockers necessary... for now. The public will speak and say "We are sick of the way you are treating us." This is important and a HUGE distinction from "we don't want any ads. We want it all free.", because in no way do I BELIEVE that's what readers feel/want. Look at how much they are paying, PAYING, to not be annoyed. Yes, they are PAYING MONEY to read YOUR content.. Think about that. Apple users as of yesterday are PAYING MONEY so they can go to YOUR site. The problem being that they aren't paying it to you... This whole paragraph should be a massive fucking wake up call to the editorial web.

I get it. You need to get money in to pay the bills. I like your site and want to support that through and through.. But I don't want my experience degraded to the point of frustration, or anger, to offer up that support.

So there it is editorial web publishers. The ball is in your court. Walled gardens? Targeted unobtrusive ads? Referral networks/programs? A better way to present ads? Figure it out.

Fortunately you are not alone... Because in all of this... the advertisers lose also. Fewer impressions means less exposure. Less exposure means fewer sales and lower brand power. It is actually in the advertisers' best interests to fix this. It is actually in Google's best interest to fix this. Less money in is less money throughout the industry, and nobody, not even we the consumers, wants that. However at the same time we don't want an experience where it takes us 1 minute and 10MB of data simply to consume 20 seconds and 100KB worth of content.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Such hubris.

The Internet will be just fine. It will just transform so that the outlets and people who don't rely on intrusive advertisements rise to the top and survive (or even thrive).

 

[Dio]

A conjoinment of Adblock and NoScript are important depending on what parts of the internet you trawl through. Seeing as sometimes I'm in the Chinese side of the internet, it's almost necessary.

For some people, both of those services are like extra antivirus software, rather than not wanting to see ads.

 

[Bleepey]

I have maybe two sites I adblock because I actively don't wanna support them. I avoid adblockers because I think you should support the sites you visit and get content from.

Spoiler

I do realise the irony of what I said. But those sites I adblock pissed me off.

 

[n3ss]

Such hubris.

The Internet will be just fine. It will just transform so that the outlets and people who don't rely on intrusive advertisements rise to the top and survive (or even thrive).

They'll just be replaced with new ad placements, like native ads, which are not affected by adblocks.

 

[borghe]

They'll just be replaced with new ad placements, like native ads, which are not affected by adblocks.

it will always be a give and take... are ads annoying enough to spend the time to develop a way to work around them?

it goes back to what I've been saying.. they need to monetize in a way that readers are "ok enough" with that it's not worth the time to work around them.

 

[ShowDog]

"The Internet" is getting a taste of what it dished out over the last decade.

Think about this in perspective. It was less than 10 years ago that online editorial annihilated the traditional print media business.The "new media" expanded due to increased reach and a lack of overhead; there were no subscriptions or upfront costs. They were completely funded by advertisement and often run by amateurs.

This was great for consumers in the short run. Content was free so no one was complaining if it wasn't exactly up to par. In many cases, it offered a refreshing alternative to what made it through the print media gatekeepers. Most importantly, it had the lowest barrier to entry.

With increased competition, new media realized that their best approximation of traditional journalism was expensive to produce even when 20-somethings with no experience were doing the work. The best way to get noticed was content-aggregation and catchy headlines. The modern day Verge was born, among others. A guy like Nilay Patel can now call himself EIC of a major media outlet.

This wasn't a change without casualties. I was one, a 2009 graduate of a "top journalism school" for whom there were no promising career prospects. The new media didn't value degrees or editorial experience (you could say it was always overrated, this 1993 critique is as relevant as ever). Needless to say I abandoned the field for greener pastures before I really got started. Thousands of career journalists weren't so lucky.

But the new media is a monster slowly eating itself. Over the years the ads have become more intrusive, the content less valuable than ever. And the world is moving on. Ad blockers are readily available and paint a scary picture of the future. Remember barrier to entry? Consumers will do the easiest thing (block ads), just as they stopped paying for subscriptions and cover prices back in the day. Nilay may act like the sky is falling, but new media has had a pretty short run of 10 years or so compared to the centuries-long reign of the print industry.

Nilay and other conquerors of print media keep asking, "well what should we do if you block ads? How can we monetize in the future to stay in business?" If you don't have the answers, some upstart will. There wasn't any mercy when the old print empires fell, mostly snark. Don't expect any now. Someone else will find a way.

 

[IchigoSharingan]

To be fair, if you are rejecting it, shouldn't you stop using the site in question?

Ayup. And I naturally do. I don't visit sites anymore that have huge obtrusive page-wrecking ads.

 

[n3ss]

I understand what you're getting at with this question, and it's something to consider. But if you rephrase it, it sounds almost like "Why use Adblock, considering that one day you might not need it (and you have no way of knowing when)?"

I see your point. But Adblock hurts the site more than you taking an extra few seconds to scroll or click, and if that's to much, don't consume their content at all.

 

[fuzzyset]

I'm sure I'm vastly over-estimating the number of people willing to do this, but I'm surprised small micro-donations or something similar hasn't been a thing (has it?). Basically, if you "like" or "share" a page on social media, you give a nickel or something to the content creator. I'm very pro paying for what I enjoy. I don't consume a ton of text internet outside of GAF and Giantbomb, so it's definitely something I'd be willing to do.

Overall, I think the internet is dying a slow death because of ads in general. I really believe that ads are overhyped and probably way over-valued. There's going to be a crash at some point. I've been watching a lot of Hulu Plus and YouTube on my Roku recently (aka, no ad blocking) and I honestly couldn't tell you a single brand that's been advertised on there even though they play all the time. I'm just so num to ads that they fall flat on me. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

edit: Related to the death of the ad internet, the real money has been shifting to data analytics, "big data", and all those buzz words. I was at a conference recently where the CEO of a billion-dollar valued big data company was discussing their "amazing" work. His big case study was helping Verizon (or some other telecom) raise retention rates. Basically, analyzing customer behavior to prevent subs from leaving Verizon to ATT. Even small increases in the retention % saves Verizon millions and millions of dollars, so it's highly valuable. I use sneer quotes because as a grad student I want to believe I'm helping the world become a better place, meanwhile a lot of research is poured into efforts like this. Which is a bummer.

 

[Dio]

I'm sure I'm vastly over-estimating the number of people willing to do this, but I'm surprised small micro-donations or something similar hasn't been a thing (has it?). Basically, if you "like" or "share" a page on social media, you give a nickel or something to the content creator. I'm very pro paying for what I enjoy. I don't consume a ton of text internet outside of GAF and Giantbomb, so it's definitely something I'd be willing to do.

You are describing Patreon kinda, which a lot of content creators use now instead of putting ads on videos and the like to get money

 

[aeolist]

new tweet stream from anil dash: https://twitter.com/anildash/status/644560336369119232

personally i grant that writers especially have a hard time online, but berating people about ad blockers just isn't ever going to work. this entire conversation is pointless because he's not appealing to anyone who will ever be able to actually make things better.

you have to change the structural issues that have given rise to this entire dilemma, asking people to turn off adblock is a pathetically ineffective band-aid.

 

[IchigoSharingan]

I work at a major media publishing company.

We care. We care more than we should. We use Google's ad service, and sometimes obtrusive ads slip through. We have written programs specifically to find and disable them, we have contacted Google about disabling them. It is extremely difficult. Look up how an ad exchange works, how ad bidding works, etc. It is difficult to restrict certain ad types when the ad exchange is largely automated.

Your company uses Google? No wonder it's swimming upstream to disable shitty ads. Google's cringe worthy but their reach is what pulls so many in.

 

[Maximus.]

Several websites come to a grinding halt with ad-block disabled. Neogaf is just bearable, often taking 10+ seconds to load and that's just a tiny ad on the top and bottom. Believe me, the internet would have died way sooner if ad-block wasn't a thing.

What kind of shit internet connection do you have that Gaf of all sites loads like shit with ads? I only have problem with gif heavy threads.

This argument is interesting. People want shit for free and want it instantly. I agree some ads are so annoying, but it is unfair to most these sites to block ads and stop their revenue.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

They'll just be replaced with new ad placements, like native ads, which are not affected by adblocks.

And people will find another method to block them if they are intrusive. Or, they simply won't use the applications due to the experience being frustrating.

Either way, it's on the outlet/person posting content to find a way to make the ads work for consumers who have so many other options available to them.

What kind of shit internet connection do you have that Gaf of all sites loads like shit with ads? I only have problem with gif heavy threads.

This argument is interesting. People want shit for free and want it instantly. I agree some ads are so annoying, but it is unfair to most these sites to block ads and stop their revenue.

I have a pretty damn good Internet connection, but I definitely run into situations where GAF won't load because it's waiting on the ad content. Refreshing the page usually fixes it. I put up with ads here because I want to support the site and, currently, there is no other way to contribute monetarily.

 

[Karsticles]

If they make ads 100% virus free, not annoying popups that block out part or the screen or autoplay audio, then I would never use adblock again.

What more needs to be said?

 

[Enco]

If they make ads 100% virus free, not annoying popups that block out part or the screen or autoplay audio, then I would never use adblock again.

This.

It's hard to be upset when ads are so shitty. They make the internet a bad experience.

If you want people to put up with your ads, don't make them insufferable.

 

[KdylanR92]

To be fair, if you are rejecting it, shouldn't you stop using the site in question?

But why would you when you have the solution to the problem, and that solution is free and fairly easy to get.


If I can have my cake and eat it too why would I pass that up.

 

[fuzzyset]

What more needs to be said?

I would add performance onto that. I have a very nice computer and 300Mb internet at home, but certain sites load extremely slow because of all the ad-related BS that happens in the background.

 

[LosDaddie]

Expected. Shit, there are many on GAF who will argue piracy isn't a problem for industries like gaming, film and music.

Nobody wants to pay for content, and will block ads. Websites have been hurting for a while, and it's only going to get worse.

But people still want media/news. So it won't go away. How content creators generate revenue is going to be interesting.

 

[Scrooged]

Viruses and other malware make their way in through ads, even on legitimate sites. I don't blame people who block them.

 

[Jazz573]

I imagine Polygon has the same issue with ads, since it's the same company, right?

 

[btrboyev]

Boohoo? I didn't know the Internet was created for ads.

 

[aeolist]

Expected. Shit, there are many on GAF who will argue piracy isn't a problem for industries like gaming, film and music.

Nobody wants to pay for content, and will block ads. Websites have been hurting for a while, and it's only going to get worse.

But people still want media/news. So it won't go away. How content creators generate revenue is going to be interesting.

i don't think anyone would argue that piracy isn't a problem, just that it won't kill the entertainment industries.

i do think that both piracy and adblocking are essentially symptoms of market failures. companies are making desirable products wrapped in more bullshit than people are willing to tolerate. the rise of good download and streaming services in the music and video spaces clearly show that people are willing to pay for good products, online publishers need to take the fucking hint.

 

[n3ss]

This.

It's hard to be upset when ads are so shitty. They make the internet a bad experience.

If you want people to put up with your ads, don't make them insufferable.

It's already been said, but you want perfect system. Great, we all do, it won't exist, there's always going to some kind of flaw.

 

[aeolist]

It's already been said, but you want perfect system. Great, we all do, it won't exist, there's always going to some kind of flaw.

this is a false dichotomy. the choice isn't between perfection and the status quo.

 

[Hoo-doo]

If the internet hasn't learned to do sensible advertising by now, then it deserves the slow death.

Full-screen fold-out banner ads? With sound? No fuck you. I'm never giving you ad money ever again. I'm not opposed to ads in the slightest but that shit pisses me off.

 

[Nozem]

(Can't blame you for trying to make a living.)

What can I say, working for the devil is lucrative business.

 

[n3ss]

I imagine Polygon has the same issue with ads, since it's the same company, right?

Most companies are struggling, ads isn't as easy to monetize as everyone thinks. Media buys are shrinking as dollars are been spent elsewhere and with a select few.

 

[LyleLanley]

It's already been said, but you want perfect system. Great, we all do, it won't exist, there's always going to some kind of flaw.

He wasn't asking for perfection just something better than insufferable.

 

[Backlogger]

I think this is something to watch closely, but a far way off. A majority of my company's revenue comes from managing internet ads for hundreds of clients. Its a HUGE business and is not going to go away over night.

This is purely conjecture, but you also have to look at the user base of your site. It wouldn't surprise me if a larger than normal percentage of site visitors to The Verge use Ad Blocking add-ons. Most of their visitors are techies or interested in tech and are knowledgeable enough to use an ad-blocker.

This is also purely opinion, but I had to stop reading the Verge over a year ago, I really don't like their slant on certain topics and I can't be the only one...

 

[IchigoSharingan]

Most companies are struggling, ads isn't as easy to monetize as everyone thinks. Media buys are shrinking as dollars are been spent elsewhere and with a select few.

Alright, now you're pushing some weird fucking narrative. Citation needed.

 

[Amentallica]

Some ads are outright intrusive, diminish performance, and overall hinder an experience. I don't mind them so long as they don't eat my memory, block my view of articles, play videos that are seemingly impossible to close or require the termination of my internet browser, or any other number of fucking things that they annoyingly do.

 

[Sesuadra]

If they make ads 100% virus free, not annoying popups that block out part or the screen or autoplay audio, then I would never use adblock again.

Nothing more to say

 

[empo]

Nilay and other conquerors of print media keep asking, "well what should we do if you block ads? How can we monetize in the future to stay in business?" If you don't have the answers, some upstart will. There wasn't any mercy when the old print empires fell, mostly snark. Don't expect any now. Someone else will find a way.

Agree with everything you said. Them supposedly being tech-savvy makes it extra fun because most of them would probably laugh at the Luddites.

 

[NullPointer]

They'll just be replaced with new ad placements, like native ads, which are not affected by adblocks.

Which, again, would happen anyway, because those techniques still represent an avenue for revenue growth.

 

[Yeoman]

For me personally desktop adverts aren't really that much of an issue anymore. Most of them are pretty unobtrusive. The real killer nowadays are mobile ads. Especially those awful ones that redirect you to the Play Store/App Store every time you click a link or scroll down.

 

[BlastProcessing]

My first impression upon loading up iOS9 on my Air 2 was that the News app is really slick, but all the content is hosted by Apple and the websites providing the content aren't monetized at all. Great for consumers in the short term, but what happens when the content providers' revenue declines and they can no longer viably produce the content?

Then, with easy adblocking integration for Safari, again, awesome for user experience, but terrible for the outlook of free ad-driven websites. What's the alternative business model? Paywalls or begging for donations? Hell, people are reluctant to even pay the $3 for an adblocker with whitelisting functionality.

Apple wins in both cases. User experience on iOS improves. But content providers are increasingly fucked, and that'll affect consumers too in the long term. As the Verge article states, this is both an attack on Google's fundamental business strategy (ad serving) and an attack on every free ad-driven website that relies on ads like Google's to survive and produce content for everyone to consume.

Consumer interest vs producer interest has historically always been a back and forth dance. The market will find a new equilibrium just like it always has. For the last decade web producers have been able to run virtually unchecked. The amount of scripts really has become absurd. A correction was always due.

We all lived through the great Popup Ad war and somehow made it to the other side.