
Sites that block adblockers seem to be suffering - twoshedsmcginty
https://thestack.com/world/2016/04/21/sites-that-block-adblockers-seem-to-be-suffering/
======
tombrossman
Sites that detect ad-blocker usage have bigger problems to worry about, at
least here in Europe.

I haven't seen this reported in the media yet but here is a Twitter message
from privacy researcher Alexander Hanff with photos of an official letter
confirming that detecting ad-blocker usage client-side is _illegal_ in the EU.
[https://twitter.com/alexanderhanff/status/722861362607747072](https://twitter.com/alexanderhanff/status/722861362607747072)

Here's his initial message from yesterday, kicking off the thread:
[https://twitter.com/alexanderhanff/status/722506381451010048](https://twitter.com/alexanderhanff/status/722506381451010048)

I've got my popcorn ready and I'm waiting for what may be a very amusing
discussion between publishers, advertisers, and lawyers in various European
countries. Fascinating, regardless of which side of the debate you are on.

~~~
bpodgursky
European lawmaking is beholden to newspapers, based on the trouble Google has
been going through with linking and citations, so I would be truly shocked if
this came to anything.

~~~
awakeasleep
This is not a meaningful summary of the complexities of the lawmaking process
of a multinational political entity.

------
AdmiralAsshat
_In all cases the warnings presented to the user instructed them to whitelist
the site in their adblocker – or go away._

And the answer from the visitors seems to be clear: we'll go away.

~~~
sliverstorm
They may well not give a damn.

Hell, they might be happy.

If traffic numbers are down and ad revenue is stable- guess what, lower
operating costs & higher margin.

~~~
brainfire
Are scalable web hosting costs really a significant portion of the operating
costs of most news publishers with websites?

Additionally, losing visitors means losing the links they share on social
media, so ad revenue may not be stable either (assuming adblocking users'
links are visited by non-adblocking users.)

~~~
LoSboccacc
looking at some numbers people are starting to wisen up and chances of getting
viral are diminishing as the average viewer's immune system reacts to
clickbaits.

as they learn views are money and share are worthwhile, they start thinking
twice before sharing and liking. growing an audience today is already insanely
harder than compared 5 years ago and the situation looks like it's only gonna
get worse.

------
homulilly
My own response to sites adblocking adblockers has just been to stop visiting
those sites.

~~~
swasheck
yep. i dont even bother visiting links to wired articles anymore

~~~
jxramos
Me too, and I'm trying to figure now if its a matter of laziness or that the
content wasn't juicy enough for me to lower my ad blocking defenses.

~~~
zodPod
I'd guess the latter. Wired has become pretty lame the last several years. I
loved it as a kid but it's just crap now anyway. Mostly just top 500 things to
buy lists anyway.

------
ChuckMcM
The interesting question is not Alexa counts but has their revenue changed. In
particular what is their revenue per 1000 page views that are post ad-blocker.
If they stop getting traffic that wasn't going to click then its a net win for
them, they don't use the network resources serving up pages to people who will
never click on an ad.

~~~
hayksaakian
Network resources are usually the cheapest part of their operation. They'd
have to fire humans to improve their margins.

------
oarsinsync
Out of five sites profiled, only one actually shows any correlation between
blocking users using adblockers and having a decrease in traffic. The others
just continued a pre-existing trend.

~~~
blowski
It looks very much like wishful thinking on the part of the author.

~~~
lucb1e
The article itself seems to be written alright though, it's the headline that
seems in conflict with the data.

------
screwyouforbes
Forbes was essentially dead to me after they blocked their articles if it
detected an ad blocker.

~~~
sogen
Agreed, I even disabled the ad blocker but couldn't get the site to load
(still got stuck in the warning page)

~~~
faitswulff
Similarly, I added Wired to a whitelist, but they still showed me the anti-
adblocking modal - possibly due to my hosts file. Figuring out what caused it
was more trouble than it was worth, so I just don't read Wired anymore.

~~~
amelius
You can always open such content in an incognito tab, to disable the adblocker
completely.

------
imh
The argument is that traffic is down. I wonder the impact it had on revenue.

~~~
ComteDeLaFere
I don't see how it had an impact on revenue if ads weren't displaying, which
would mean that this article is missing a key point. Not sure that each of
these down-slope ranking charts are associated with an equivalent down-slope
revenue chart.

~~~
dogma1138
Because some people don't use adblockers as a binary setting. You can choose
which ads to block, for example blocking full page ads while allowing banner
ads to let be. Blocking users outright is also counter productive you piss
them off instead of giving them a reason to want to support you.

Not to mention is that loss of users impacts another important revenue source
for many sites other than just ad networks and that is sponsored content,
referrals and syndication. If I'm running a full out adblock and can't access
your content I can't read sponsored content, and I can't share your content
with others that might not be running adblock, or do and will be more inclined
to disable it, or to even pay for that content through other means.

Boycotting rarely works, and boycotting your customers is pretty much the
dumbest move any business can make.

~~~
elcapitan
With the site being not accessible for some part of the readers (maybe high-
value, high social media impact individuals), the sites could be losing
revenue because less links are created (which again would attract a lot of
non-adblocker visitors).

~~~
dogma1138
Yes that's why I said if I can't read it I can't link it. An interesting study
might be actually using platforms like HN I think "wired" is/was blocking
adblcokers but might be an interesting experiment of getting like 10-20 sites
and checking the amount of submissions to HN from those sites before and after
they implemented their boycott policy.

~~~
endemic
I snooped around to figure out a way to bypass Wired's block (and was
successful), but in the end I just don't care about their content. It has
definitely fallen off the radar for me.

------
make3
For those using greasemonkey and its copies on other browsers, here's an
adblock blocker bypasser that works great [https://github.com/reek/anti-
adblock-killer](https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer)

~~~
chdsbd
This is also available as a third-party filter for uBlock. No greasemonkey
necessary.

------
return0
It's OK to shame me for using adblock and asking to whitelist you, but please,
please do not thank me for doing so. It betrays you 're tracking my every step
and you re acting like a strict nanny.

------
michaelbuddy
The ad block blocker on Wired.com has been giving me trouble on my Surface
Pro, which I've done nothing to. In fact, I'm not even running a version of
the browser which has ad block. And opening an article on Wired then scrolling
down the site lectures me with a full screen overlay and copy like "Here's the
thing..." It's ridiculous. I've stopped going to the site. Instead I'm
checking slashgear and subreddits.

------
Eerie
Sites that block adblockers successfully forced me to... install a
blacklisting script blocker.

------
erikpukinskis
I suspect there is a hidden variable here: the degree to which management is
embracing "new rules". All of these declines seem to have started before ad-
blocking-blocking. All of the development effort and management energy that
went into blocking didn't go into content or marketing. A company who is
losing the content game is exactly the kind of company who would try to win
through content controls.

And in the case of the Washington Post, the reason they only "experimented" is
because Jeff Bezos is not that kind of thinker. He likes change, and doesn't
mind reorienting around new rules. If anything he sees them as opportunities.

These choices don't happen in a vacuum. They look like a proxy for cultural
issues to me.

------
zzzcpan
They are probably going to stop blocking adblockers eventually. Since their
brands weaken, fewer users are sharing links, search engine positions weaken,
etc. All of which has a long term impact on their revenue. More interesting is
how are they going to recover?

------
Overtonwindow
When I am confronted by an anti-ad block website, I go away, or I find a way
around it. Viewing ads does not bother me. Viewing obtrusive advertisements,
and those ridiculous scripts that pull you out of the site and into the App
Store, pop ups, auto play videos, audio, and every other intrusive, ridiculous
advertisement, is what I hate. Ads don't bother me, websites that act like
assholes bother me.

------
pink_dinner
Why bother having ads anymore? I would just make an entire article or video
one big advertisement for a product I am trying to sell.

This is the next logical step for ads..and all of the people that think they
have some sort of power right now, will be surprised when there is truly no
way to block it in a few years. Because popular sites need to make money to
pay for hosting and when enough of them do this, you won't really be able to
ignore it all.

Other alternatives might include major paywalls for content (if it gets bad
enough) or a tech-savvy advertisement company that gets around these ad
blockers (I actually have lots of good ideas that would work and might start a
company myself).

The same thing happened with software. Companies were tired of fighting
piracy, so they made everything in the 'cloud'.

I used to sell software and got tired of piracy. When I just ignored it, my
sales would go down to almost nothing. The issue just isn't the copying of
software. It's that these sites also start ranking higher than my own in
Google and many people will get to the counterfeit copy first. Price never
mattered. I could charge 99 cents and the piracy would stay pretty consistent.

I would also get people contacting me up trying to sue me because they
downloaded an illegal copy, thought it was mine, and they got a virus/lost
data. Of course they have no real basis for a case, but the time and effort
involved in answering the inquiries was a huge waste of time.

Now, my customers don't even get to have a copy of it. They get to rent it for
a fee every month (all hosted on our servers). It's great for me, but not for
software freedom. It's really the only way to survive these days.

The app markets are pretty dismal as well. The only apps actually making a
profit are the ones that are in the top 5. The rest are fighting for scraps.
It's much better to give away your app for free as part of a paid, monthly
service.

The price of the app alone really can't be used to sustain a business.

The sad thing is that the end result of all of this is the concentration of
wealth to fewer, large and wealthy companies. Small companies can't handle the
loss in revenue and it will mean less power for all of us.

You are actually contributing to further wealth inequality and ironically,
trying to stop it at the same time.

------
brwnll
Don't most ad blockers also block third party trackers? I know uBlock Origin
blocks Google Analytics for example.

I don't know Alexa's fallback/tracking methods, but couldn't these be an
indicator of adoption rate of ad blockers, as these charts are not precisely
an indicator of traffic, but specifically a measure of trackable traffic.

------
slackstation
This article needs more data points to be significant. There are reasons other
than ad blocking that could be causing that effect.

------
pm24601
I had problems with these sites even though I wasn't using an adblocker, I
just didn't have Flash installed.

------
fapjacks
Uh yeah, no shit.

