Support NeoGAF

[FStop7]

Why am I reminded of various newspaper editorials bemoaning the death of their medium because reasons while Nilay and his ilk were high-fiving each other over the success of Engadget or Gizmodo or whatever site they originally came from?

This is the market continuing to evolve. Except you're the dinosaur, Nilay.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

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.

Vox Media is most certainly not struggling. They may not be turning a great profit, if any, but they're far from struggling. They have over 300MM total in venture funding and recently picked up a media site with a very popular and lucrative conference (Re/Code).

Yes, money to be made via ads and ad networks is not nearly lucrative as it once was but don't act like certain content networks (Aol, Business Insider, Vox, BuzzFeed, Vice, etc) are hurting.

 

[diamount]

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.

It's ridiculous Google hasn't made a concerted effort on that front

 

[Cipherr]

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.

Im going to keep it 100 here. There are sites that have virus free, popup free and non auto play audio and I still adblock them.

I mean, do you really prune your adblock list so carefully? I install the extension, whitelist a grand total of 6 websites and everything else gets blocked and I never even think about it because I don't have to. After a while you forget its even installed. Ill bet that more people are similar to me than they are to you. Most just block them because we can.

The odd thing is Im not oblivious to the fact that sites DO need to drive profit somehow, and them needing to do so is in no way unreasonable at all. So the question arises, would I and others be willing to come out of pocket via subscription etc for these sites? Probably fucking not the way I always see articles behind paywalls posted on forums or people asking for alt links etc.

I think as a whole we as web browsers feel a little entitled and just sort of tell content providers to "deal with it". Maybe they will find some other way to monetize that works, but if they cant, I shudder to think about the outcome of that.

 

[EatinOlives]

All the bitching from the Verge about people blocking their ads, no word at all about how they would make their ads any less intrusive or otherwise annoying to put up with. Of course they have zero obligation to make their ads any easier on users, it's on us to accommodate our use experience to their whims.

The giant full-screen ads are the types of ads Verge wants, because the more intrusive they are the more money they get. They have the choice to make ads more subtle and pleasing to the eye but they don't want to.

 

[n3ss]

Vox Media is most certainly not struggling. They may not be turning a great profit, if any, but they're far from struggling. They have over 300MM total in venture funding and recently picked up a media site with a very popular and lucrative conference (Re/Code).

Yes, money to be made via ads and ad networks is not nearly lucrative as it once was but don't act like certain content networks (Aol, Business Insider, Vox, BuzzFeed, Vice, etc) are hurting.

Sorry, I should have clarified that there are exceptions, but a majority of direct ad dollars are moving to a smaller minority, like you mention above. Buzzfeed major source of revenue is sponsorships for example.

 

[aeolist]

It's ridiculous Google hasn't made a concerted effort on that front

their bottom line isn't being affected yet

 

[Mr Nash]

Isn't ad blocking just the free market at work? The majority of folks aren't okay ads, and the proliferation of blocking software reflects this. I would think the onus falls on sites to find other means of making money and / or reigning in operating costs if they want to remain financially viable, not bemoaning people who use ad blockers.

 

[Brianimaniac]

Before and after Crystal:

But what you're seeing on your screen is only part of the issue. There are other scripts running too, and that shit crashes my browser and eats my data. My data is fucking expensive, so at that point, the ad model is actually taking money out of my pocket and not just generating revenue because I saw it.

Anything that needs this to survive should die.

 

[Krappadizzle]

I use an adblocker all day. I don't mind turning it off when the adds aren't intrusive. Neogaf's adds are perfect. Usually at the top or bottom(sometimes on the sides on the front page) but they don't pop up in my face and the don't try and trick you into clicking on them. If people who run websites don't want to ensure their viewers are using an adblocker they need to follow good examples of it done right.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

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.

I bought Crystal because it was the cheapest best option for ad blocking I could find.

I then realized it didn't have whitelisting, so I broke down and spent $4 for Purify specifically so I could unfuck NeoGAF. I know I'm the extreme minority, but I feel it's the least I could do for a site I enjoy so much (and that doesn't totally bombard me with ads).

 

[KingSnake]

The adblockers were created out of the desperate need to have something to protect you from the intrusive, autorunning, autoredirecting half page noisy ads that were all over the internet at some point. And while some of that changed meanwhile. a simple browsing on your phone will show you that it's still a necessity for at least half of the websites you visit daily. So if you want to blame it on someone, blame it on your internet colleagues who lack any drop of common sense.

 

[Brianimaniac]

I bought Crystal because it was the cheapest best option for ad blocking I could find.

I then realized it didn't have whitelisting, so I broke down and spent $4 for Purify specifically so I could unfuck NeoGAF. I know I'm the extreme minority, but I feel it's the least I could do for a site I enjoy so much (and that doesn't totally bombard me with ads).

Crystal will have whitelisting in its first big update.

 

[mollipen]

Isn't ad blocking just the free market at work? The majority of folks aren't okay ads, and the proliferation of blocking software reflects this. I would think the onus falls on sites to find other means of making money and / or reigning in operating costs if they want to remain financially viable, not bemoaning people who use ad blockers.

Except, as someone who actually works on the side of content creation, "reign in operating costs" means shutting down for a lot of outlets at this point. Most people have no concept of how bare-boned a lot of sites are run these days, with cheap salaries being paid and quick content just being vomited out instead of working on good, quality stuff because there's no money to do so.

I had a lot of the ads that are going around these days—especially the god-awful ones that come up right after a page is done loading and blocks everything—but there's also a huge problem with people thinking everything should just be free for them. Where is the stuff you're wanting to read or see on a site supposed to come from on this level if there's no money to pay for it?

The "some for free, extra content through subscription" is going to have to be something tried more and more going forward, but the conversion rate for that is terrible. There aren't a lot of good options otherwise at this point. In-content sponsorship? Seriously? That works for YouTubers and podcasters—not in the professional world.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Except, as someone who actually works on the side of content creation, "reign in operating costs" means shutting down for a lot of outlets at this point. Most people have no concept of how bare-boned a lot of sites are run these days, with cheap salaries being paid and quick content just being vomited out instead of working on good, quality stuff because there's no money to do so.

I had a lot of the ads that are going around these days—especially the god-awful ones that come up right after a page is done loading and blocks everything—but there's also a huge problem with people thinking everything should just be free for them. Where is the stuff you're wanting to read or see on a site supposed to come from on this level if there's no money to pay for it?

The "some for free, extra content through subscription" is going to have to be something tried more and more going forward, but the conversion rate for that is terrible. There aren't a lot of good options otherwise at this point. In-content sponsorship? Seriously? That works for YouTubers and podcasters—not in the professional world.

So what's the downside in wanting ads that don't completely dominate your attention and bandwidth and are deliberately difficult/long to get through? Wanting less obtrusive advertising doesn't mean we want everything for free.

 

[AtomicShroom]

Except, as someone who actually works on the side of content creation, "reign in operating costs" means shutting down for a lot of outlets at this point. Most people have no concept of how bare-boned a lot of sites are run these days, with cheap salaries being paid and quick content just being vomited out instead of working on good, quality stuff because there's no money to do so.

I had a lot of the ads that are going around these days—especially the god-awful ones that come up right after a page is done loading and blocks everything—but there's also a huge problem with people thinking everything should just be free for them. Where is the stuff you're wanting to read or see on a site supposed to come from on this level if there's no money to pay for it?

The "some for free, extra content through subscription" is going to have to be something tried more and more going forward, but the conversion rate for that is terrible. There aren't a lot of good options otherwise at this point. In-content sponsorship? Seriously? That works for YouTubers and podcasters—not in the professional world.

The money should come from an advertising network that has strict guidelines forbidding (and actively enforcing it) the kinds of ads we've mentioned in this thread so far (viruses, popups, pop-unders, redirects, app store shitty application, covering the whole page, sound, obnoxious, made to look like OS, made to look like download button, deceitful, etc.) So what you're telling me is that it's impossible to have a website that generates enough money to survive without resorting to those kinds of ads? Is that what you're telling me? If so then yeah, those sites need to die and I will not give a care in the world.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

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.

I wish ads were free from bad scripts and melicious things as well. I first needed a noscript type app because of a Square Enix FFXI community site having ads that could get your account stolen. These days I don't trust many sites so I have to check if they are safe before I visit them. I wonder if there is a browser extension that shows the link rating just by hovering over it.

Other than unfamiliar sites, I don't care about ads. Some are even entertaining.

 

[iamblades]

The money should come from an advertising network that has strict guidelines forbidding (and actively enforcing it) the kinds of ads we've mentioned in this thread so far (viruses, popups, pop-unders, redirects, app store shitty application, covering the whole page, sound, obnoxious, made to look like OS, made to look like download button, deceitful, etc.) So what you're telling me is that it's impossible to have a website that generates enough money to survive without resorting to those kinds of ads? Is that what you're telling me? If so then yeah, those sites need to die and I will not give a care in the world.

^^

If you have to fuck over the consumer to make a buck, maybe that's a sign that your business model is shit and you're on the bad side of the supply/demand curve.

I know this isn't what these writers and content producers want to hear, but ultimately you aren't owed a successful career. It there are too many people producing for the market to support, then someone is going to draw the short straw. It sucks if it's you, but that's the way it is in every business, there is no reason to expect it is any different in the content creation business.

 

[Ogodei]

Performance was my major issue. One of my old game forums (a group infamous for banned numbers) would crash my browser repeatedly because of their flash-heavy advertising structure, but even sites with less-intrusive ads, you still notice a significant performance boost with adblockers enabled.

One streaming anime site i use has a "watch mode" button that i was fine with, cut everything off the screen but the video itself, (until one of their popups started pinging my virus blocker before i could even hit the watch mode button, then they were back on the list).

My "moral" solution is that i don't have adblock on work computers, so they get their revenue when i browse during the day.

 

[Robot Pants]

Fuck ads. Find a new way.
Except for neogaf....

 

[sangreal]

When they stop redirecting me, crashing safari, popping up on top of content so I click them while I scroll, etc. Then I will stop using adblock. This shit has saved mobile browsing for me

I don't have a problem with ads, it's the implementation. Mobile ads were getting worse than pop-up ads of the 90s

 

[ItIsOkBro]

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.

My internet connection is fine. Gaf is fine to use while the ads load but those ads do transfer data for a long time.

 

[The Llama]

After thinking about it some more, it really just comes down to a supply/demand problem. There's way, way too much supply (and its super easy for anyone to create more). I wonder if eventually the problem will fix itself, or if the "price" of news will remain super low.

 

[Langdon Alger]

If a big enough percentage of people use ad blockers then the internet is fucked. Only a few sites (sites that people are willing to pay for) will exist and then we'll pretty much be back to a monoculture again. It's gonna suck.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Someone should design a new safe ad service. Trusted, screens and check any changed ad, go through one site so all you need is to whitelist it, and helps get content creators funds.

 

[MarkusRJR]

I never use ad blockers on sites I regularly go on. But for the rest of the internet, fuck yes I do. The constant clusterfuck of flash ads (that slow down the browser), loud ads that have audio, pop-ups, and the worry of potential viruses, malware, spyware, etc is enough to make anyone pissed off. It's even worse when ads cover an entire website and you have to close like 2-3 ads that take over your window (and even then they're still there as tinier versions).

 

[railGUN]

I'm always conflicted on this issue, and in the past, I've been pretty anti-ad-blocking on the various threads regarding it on this site.

I guess my biggest beef (as a content creator) is this - the ultimate ad-blocker is stop visiting the site. Boom, no highjacking ads will infect your computer. If you want to consume content, then ads are the price you pay. I do understand the frustration sites are experiencing.

But I, personally, don't want anyone to get fucked by their computer getting infected from rogue ads (or just the hit on the page performance for that matter), so I dropped Google AdSense and any other "ad network" type stuff on my site a couple years ago, and just sell basic image ads (literally an image with a link to their site, zero scripting). I don't make much either way, though, and if we didn't produce content for TV, we probably couldn't even pay our hosting fees.

It's a shitty situation all around, IMO. But I don't use any ad blockers on any of my devices (yet).

 

[Zona]

I have two browsers on my computer, one with adblock and one without. The one without is the one I normally use. However if a site regularly freezes my browser, or covers the screen with ads, or pings my virus blocker then up comes the other browser and copy/paste goes your site.

 

[IchigoSharingan]

I'm always conflicted on this issue, and in the past, I've been pretty anti-ad-blocking on the various threads regarding it on this site.

I guess my biggest beef (as a content creator) is this - the ultimate ad-blocker is stop visiting the site. Boom, no highjacking ads will infect your computer. If you want to consume content, then ads are the price you pay. I do understand the frustration sites are experiencing.

But I, personally, don't want anyone to get fucked by their computer getting infected from rogue ads (or just the hit on the page performance for that matter), so I dropped Google AdSense and any other "ad network" type stuff on my site a couple years ago, and just sell basic image ads (literally an image with a link to their site, zero scripting). I don't make much either way, though, and if we didn't produce content for TV, we probably couldn't even pay our hosting fees.

It's a shitty situation all around, IMO. But I don't use any ad blockers on any of my devices (yet).

You must walk on burning coals to enter my shop, or else you can't enter.

 

[AtomicShroom]

I guess my biggest beef (as a content creator) is this - the ultimate ad-blocker is stop visiting the site. Boom, no highjacking ads will infect your computer. If you want to consume content, then ads are the price you pay.

Except, you know, you have absolutely ZERO way of knowing this in advance because you have to actually visit the damn thing to find out which kinds of ads it serves. And once you do, oops, too late, your computer has already been infected by the latest variant of BonziBuddy or whatever.

Like others have said: This is like going to a restaurant that offers free food, and when you're done ordering your free food, they bring it to your table and a team of mad scientists strap you up and start injecting experimental medecines in your body, some big dude hits you in the face with a punch, and you felt something crawl up your leg. But now you're free to enjoy your free food. ENJOY! And all of this is somehow perfectly legal!

And you have no say in this, because that's how the restaurant operates. Of course, you will never return. But you had to try it once to find out exactly what you were getting.

 

[flyover]

Before and after Crystal:

Those screenshots are amazing, especially considering the headline.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Oh man Bonzi Buddy, that takes me back.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Crystal will have whitelisting in its first big update.

 

[Ben Morales]

I never use ad blockers on sites I regularly go on. But for the rest of the internet, fuck yes I do. The constant clusterfuck of flash ads (that slow down the browser), loud ads that have audio, pop-ups, and the worry of potential viruses, malware, spyware, etc is enough to make anyone pissed off. It's even worse when ads cover an entire website and you have to close like 2-3 ads that take over your window (and even then they're still there as tinier versions).

The ones that broke the camel's back for me were the ones with the fake 'X'. You click the X to try and close it, and it opens a new window. And, of course, the original ad is still there on the previous page.

 

[oti]

But where will I get all my 50 Cent news or Oreo cookies reviews when the Verge dies?

WHERE?
THE WORLD NEEDS TECH JOURNALISM FOR ONLY THEY DARE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH ABOUT 50 CENT AND OREO COOKIES

 

[AtomicShroom]

Let me just ask this:

Whose behavior is the most morally reprehensible?

a) The provider which willingly feeds unscrupulous, obnoxious, deceitful, battery-draining, data-consuming, annoying, redirecting, infecting, and borderline illegal ads to its audience.

or

b) The audience that protects itself against it.


The answer should be clear.

 

[oti]

Let me just ask this:

Whose behavior is the most morally reprehensible?

a) The provider which willingly feeds unscrupulous, obnoxious, deceitful, battery-draining, data-consuming, annoying, redirecting, infecting, and borderline illegal ads to its audience.

or

b) The audience that protects itself against it.


The answer should be clear.

No man, wait. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be.

 

[Dalek]

Before and after Crystal:



But what you're seeing on your screen is only part of the issue. There are other scripts running too, and that shit crashes my browser and eats my data. My data is fucking expensive, so at that point, the ad model is actually taking money out of my pocket and not just generating revenue because I saw it.

Anything that needs this to survive should die.

This is amazing. I love the title of the article.

 

[Kotetsu534]

In-content sponsorship? Seriously? That works for YouTubers and podcasters—not in the professional world.

I've noticed a proliferation of this in the video game streaming area, and it's been my first (consistent) exposure to internet ads since... 2006, when I got virus'd and said never again. I have to say I've not had a problem with it, for the most part - it hasn't been intrusive, and usually the streamer likes the product (they are often actually using or consuming it; e.g. headphones, mouse, keyboard, soft drinks), and it hasn't meant noticeable bloat on the stream like the tens of scripts that try to run whenever I access a news website would. It's definitely influenced my purchasing decisions too.

 

[Harlock]

The funny thing is nilay trying to explain how this is bad for middle size sites but Vox Media will be fine.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Oh man Bonzi Buddy, that takes me back.

Mobile is in its bonzi buddy stage of advertising.

 

[Faenix1]

Don't have annoying ads = I won't adblock you. It's really that simple. Not sure why these sites never seem to understand that fact.

Full page ads, ads that make your page slow to load, or ones that pop up = automatic adblocked. I don't have time for that garbage.

 

[plagiarize]

I do kind of think using ad blockers to read websites with bad adverts, but good content, is bad etiquette... but as someone who doesn't use an ad blocker, bad adverts drive me right away from a website and put me right off it.

Take dreadcentral.com

I used to do their video game coverage and am still very friendly with their staff. But I don't read the site any more because it is an absolute train wreck of adverts and social media plug in things.

I don't read the Verge much at all either. Some of their articles are good. Polygon is horrendous. I'm not a fan of the way their site is laid out.

When you want to make a plea to people not to use ad block if they like the content... knock yourself out.

When you say 'the internet is dying because of ad blockers' then you're insulting me and you've obviously got your head right up your own ass. So shut up Verge. You want more revenue. The end. You could do it with less intrusive shitty adverts.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Before and after Crystal:



But what you're seeing on your screen is only part of the issue. There are other scripts running too, and that shit crashes my browser and eats my data. My data is fucking expensive, so at that point, the ad model is actually taking money out of my pocket and not just generating revenue because I saw it.

Anything that needs this to survive should die.

This is insane. Can't believe this is how it looks like when ,you open up an Article (no scrolling just the top page of it):

 

[n3ss]

The money should come from an advertising network that has strict guidelines forbidding (and actively enforcing it) the kinds of ads we've mentioned in this thread so far (viruses, popups, pop-unders, redirects, app store shitty application, covering the whole page, sound, obnoxious, made to look like OS, made to look like download button, deceitful, etc.) So what you're telling me is that it's impossible to have a website that generates enough money to survive without resorting to those kinds of ads? Is that what you're telling me? If so then yeah, those sites need to die and I will not give a care in the world.

So you want only a handful of sites to exist?

Look. There are ton of ad networks out there, Google being the most strict, but not everyone uses them (or uses them in combination with others). People here are blocking everyone on the net because they clicked on a few native ads or frequently visit poorly ran sites.

They only way it would work like you describe above is having a single (and very regulated) ad network. I don't see that working either.

 

[NullPointer]

When you say 'the internet is dying because of ad blockers' then you're insulting me and you've obviously got your head right up your own ass.

Yep.

And my paycheck comes from internet folks paying for things that they could otherwise get for free, so I'm not looking down my nose on these sites or anything. 'Adapt or Die' is a rule I have to live by every bit as much if not more.

 

[oti]

For me to buy a subscription for a tech site like The Verge they'd need to step up their content game significantly. I don't care about news, I can get them pretty much everywhere and they're recycled press releases, just like in the gaming world. Reviews are cool but I don't buy a new laptop or phone every two months to be invested in that stuff and youtubers have been eating their lunch with more specialised views. For instance I can't relate to a reviewer that tells me they finally feel great holding a Samsung whatever phone because it isn't made out of plastic anymore. Also their strong Apple bias made me question every review, but that seems to be a bigger problem in that field.

So, what else could they do? Longer articles? Premium podcasts? I don't really know to be honest. You can only do so much with gadgets and some Apps. To me they're lacking relatable personalities that add more to the experience in a way that would make me want to watch all of their reviews, even if I didn't particularly care much about the reviewed pieces of tech. Again though, I don't think the Verge is the only outlet with those problems.

 

[Zing]

I'd argue that the vast majority of "content" on the web isn't worth even the most trivial amount of money if it had to be paid for directly.

I'm interested to see what the next shift is in terms of monetizing things that aren't worth money.

True. I would love to see how the signal to noise ratio decreases if users had to directly pay for all content.

The quoted article text doesn't mention that the content blockers allowed by Apple (they do not create their own nor supply any) are intended to stop the CPU and network intensive scripts that websites have been exploiting on mobile, not explicitly to block ads. The ads revenue model just happens to rely on these hidden tracking scripts to maximize data collection (which is the real commodity sold by ad networks).

 

[Blastoise]

Content creators will go to self hosted ads or integrated articles. It's very easy to bypass Adblock filters.

The problem is that it's still not a great solution. Especially if the ads are still obnoxious.

I've turned every one I know to adblocking software. It's one of the easiest ways I can protect them online.

 

[UFO]

Before and after Crystal:



But what you're seeing on your screen is only part of the issue. There are other scripts running too, and that shit crashes my browser and eats my data. My data is fucking expensive, so at that point, the ad model is actually taking money out of my pocket and not just generating revenue because I saw it.

Anything that needs this to survive should die.

This needs to be posted everywhere. I have zero empathy for ad providers when I see shit like this. I pay out the ass for internet at home and on my phone, they should be respecting my rights, not whining about theirs.