

Ask HN: an ad blocking compromise? - ErrantX
http://www.errant.me.uk/blog/2010/03/adfree-an-adblocker-compromise/

======
jacquesm
Wow, it seems to be ad-blocker day :)

Yours seems to be a pretty well reasoned idea, I think it was Patrick that
first suggested that ads in fact function as a micropayments service.

I think the whole adblocker debate is overrated, after all it's not like
everybody is using an adblocker, it's just a percentage of the users. And if
your business suddenly fails because of that percentage then you didn't have
much a business to begin with.

Starting a service on 'eyeballs' is like working with an unwritten contract
that you expect the owners of those eyeballs to honour. But they weren't party
to the negotiations, and if they disagree they can simply erase that part of
their screen, and really, not much is lost.

After all, those ad-conscious enough to use a blocker are probably not exactly
the people that would have clicked those ads to begin with. And most ads
nowadays are performance based so the loss is really not nearly as big as some
people make out.

Blaming ad blockers for failing businesses is dishonest because it will change
the bottom line only so much.

A much bigger problem is the fact that a good bit of the advertising market is
not transparent to begin with and that so much of the content out there really
is hardly worth the bits it is stored on.

Videos on news sites are a nice example of where we're headed, non-skippable
ads tightly coupled to the content.

The web equivalent is an interstitial page that you _have_ to sit through
before being allowed to view the content you came for.

Personally I have no problem with advertising, as long as it is relevant and
not 'in my face'. If I get a negative feeling with a site a few times when
visiting because of overly intrusive advertising then I simply stop going to
that site.

Salon.com is a nice example, I used to read it frequently, since they started
their overly intrusive campaigns I haven't been back. Chances are they've
reverted in the meantime but I'll never know.

As for the blocker-and-micropayment system, I don't think it will fly, people
that go for freebies are not going to be turned in to people that pay, no
matter how you dress it up. Think about it, simply _seeing_ an ad is already
too expensive sometimes.

Until they have absolutely no other alternative. And on the web there are so
many places to get your 'fix'.

~~~
ErrantX
Hey Jacques.

 _I think it was Patrick that first suggested that ads in fact function as a
micropayments service._

This was thought of independently. But if Patrick is thinking the same way I'm
even more convinced it's a good idea :D

> I don't think it will fly, people that go for freebies are not going to be
> turned in to people that pay.

The thing that sparked this thought is that a lot of people here defending the
ad blocking practice (me included to an extent) claim they would happily pay
for content they enjoy - just dont like to be intruded with ads.

I realise that it is most probably an excuse in many cases and they wouldn't
follow through. But would enough do so to make it worthwhile?

As I said: as your not monetizing those readers anyway is it not a net
positive to give them the option?

~~~
jacquesm
I think you are monetizing those readers, you just don't realize it.

People reading and talking about your content are a large part of the engine
that drives the 'buzz' around a website. If you would cut those people out and
be only left with the people that are prepared to pay in some way then
suddenly your website wouldn't be half as interesting.

I don't completely go for the 'eyeballs' theory, but I think that there is no
such thing as a user that is not worth having, even if they never pay in a $
sense. They're paying with their time, which is worth a lot more than that
click, if you can get them to be productive in some way that is 'free' to them
but worth something to you you also come out ahead.

Wikipedia is a nice example, HN is another, I use people on my site to supply
me with an endless stream of content and in return they get stuff that those
that don't have to pay for.

Shifting the game around like that makes it possible to create value without
having to take money from the pockets of all (or a large portion of) your
visitors.

I think the whole ad blocker discussion is focused way to much on ads being
the only way to 'monetize' a user, if there is any exchange at all between a
site and a user and you have a feeling that you get more from the user than
what it cost you in bandwidth you're under way to solving your problem in a
much better way than to worry about a few ad impressions being lost.

~~~
ErrantX
> People reading and talking about your content are a large part of the engine
> that drives the 'buzz' around a website.

Absolutely agreed. Indeed I think that if they notice you showing a
willingness to give them the web they want (ad free) you'll get more coming
back!

> If you would cut those people out and be only left with the people that are
> prepared to pay in some way then suddenly your website wouldn't be half as
> interesting.

I'm not suggesting that. It's not a paywall or anything - the initial/actual
experience would be just the same for a blocker as it is now. Just with the
option to pay...

 _I think the whole ad blocker discussion is focused way to much on ads being
the only way to 'monetize' a user, if there is any exchange at all between a
site and a user and you have a feeling that you get more from the user than
what it cost you in bandwidth you're under way to solving your problem in a
much better way than to worry about a few ad impressions being lost._

I cant disagree with that (I did try, actually, but I can't :)).

------
_delirium
Doesn't this have, as a huge issue in the critical path, someone solving the
holy grail of the past 15 years: actually getting a micropayments service off
the ground? It needs to work, to be not so much of a hassle for people to use
that they won't bother, to have fees low enough that they don't swallow all
the cash, and to have enough of a critical mass of people who already have
accounts so there isn't a hurdle to sign up to some new obscure service just
to donate your $0.05...

~~~
ErrantX
The way I would do it is make a really solid ad blocker for all browsers and
release it. Get a load of users (as many as possible) for 6 months or
something.

Then release the micropayments service (and approach some of the big content
publishers with the idea to get them signed up).

Obviously being open to your users that this was your long term plan :)

------
gfodor
I dunno, this whole "I'd pay for the site if only it were easier to do so"
argument reeks of the "I'd pay for music and movies if it was easy as
downloading MP3s" argument.

Nothing is stopping you ad-blockers from sending them a check in the mail.
This isn't a technology problem, it's a "why pay for what you can get for
free" problem. I don't doubt there will be folks who would pay if given a
easier option, but I'm having a hard time believing they would come in droves
to offset the lost ad revenue.

~~~
nzmsv
The success of iTunes can be seen as proof that an easy way to download legal
music can make money. And people do donate to open-source projects.

------
swolchok
Your post is the weaker for its grammar and spelling errors. You would do well
to fix them, because people notice.

~~~
ErrantX
Banged out in something of a rush before bed :) To be fair there is only 2
outright mistakes (and some clunky bits).

I copy-edited it this morning...

