
Half of Destructoid's readers block our ads. Now what? - chaostheory
http://www.destructoid.com/half-of-destructoid-s-readers-block-our-ads-now-what--247904.phtml
======
InclinedPlane
I kind of wish the majority of people would use ad blockers. Ads are a pretty
flawed business model, useful mostly because it's so easy. When you sell ads
you're basically abusing your readership, pimping out their eyeballs to
whomever happens to hand you a big wad of sweaty cash.

There are better ways to make money, ways that don't abuse users and instead
provide them with value.

Edit: so much vitriol. I intentionally left out alternatives because there is
no one size fits all model, but there are plenty of options. For example,
consider changing from a model of "advertisers pay to rent the eyeballs coming
to our site" to one where ads are a cooperative venture and most ads are
essentially recommendations. Look for ways to make the link between someone
reading your content and someone buying something a connection, instead of
merely a random, uncorrelated activity. For artistic content sites, sell swag
like t-shirts. Or consider selling byproducts and content collections such as
physical and ebooks (for blogs, for example). If you run a site that provides
a service ... consider charging money for that service. And of course look at
crowd funding models if it's possible to divide up work into big project sized
iterative chunks.

Or, hell, just offer people the ability to pay money to remove the ads. If you
just stop thinking and stop caring after you started bringing in big ad
revenue then you're doing a disservice to your readership.

~~~
fredoliveira
Perhaps you should suggest a few? I'd love to see what you have in mind. This
(monetizing online written content) isn't as trivial as you seem to imply.

~~~
revelation
Thats exactly the point, so ads are a lousy way to try and solve it.
Micropayment systems like Flattr [1] could be a solution, but they lack
adoption and walled gardens hinder integration. If you have a loyal community
and continued updates, Flattr can be worthwhile [2] (sorry, Google translate;
the important part is the graph).

1: <http://flattr.com/about> 2:
[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftim.geekheim.de%2F2012%2F05%2F01%2Fzwei-
jahre-flattr%2F&act=url)

------
dizzystar
Are you getting paid by impressions or actual clicks?

If you are getting paid by impressions, I do feel a little bad for blocking
your ads, but you have to understand that the reason I put up the adblock is a
reaction to ad-abuse. I'm sick and tired of seeing ads scrolling up and down
and across the page, interrupting your content. I'm sick and tired of pages
taking 30 seconds to load because of ad-bloat, and I'm sick and tired of the
generally bad experience that ads are bringing to me. Don't even get me
started on pop-up ads or ads with music or talking.

If you are getting paid for actual clicks, then I don't feel bad at all. I
never once, in all the years I have browsed the internet, clicked on an ad, so
you aren't gaining anything from me anyways.

As an aside: I can't name a single ad that I have seen over the past week.
Marketers thinking that ad-views are somehow equivalent in impact of
billboards or TV ads are stuck in some dinosaur age of marketing and I ought
to open up ads in pure spite.

The crux of the issue is that too many sites have abused its readership by
thumping our heads with pointless and useless ads. The day I see you respect
me is the day I'll respect you. This is no way implies that Destructoid is
abusive, but unfortunately, you have been caught in the maelstrom. However,
since I only click away the ads that irritate me, I find it odd that a site
that I have never been to is apparently completely blocked as I see no ads.
Choose your advertisers wisely and I may not even block (or notice) their ads.

~~~
clicks
The 'elephant in the room' of a question: what do you feel gives you the right
to block ads? The content-creators establish the terms, and their deal is you
get content in exchange for ad-viewership. If you're unwilling to view ads,
don't partake in the exchange -- do not visit that site.

~~~
pretzel
It's not a contract to which I've agreed though. If they want me to get
content in exchange for something, then they should make sure I do, otherwise,
they are putting things on an open server that I can easily read from. What I
tell my browser to take from it is up to me,

Would you have a problem with me reading the site in lynx?

You could enforce a contract by having a paid for membership, as he alludes
to, which gives you rights to see articles early or have post rights on a
forum or gives you some physical thing.

~~~
clicks
You bring up good points. But I'm still not sure about the 'not a contract to
which I've agreed' part. Couldn't it be argued that there exists an open
understanding by all parties that the content creation is sustained purely
through ads -- and all site visitors are softly agreeing to these general
terms upon site access?

~~~
columbo
> Couldn't it be argued that there exists an open understanding by all parties
> that the content creation is sustained purely through ads -- and all site
> visitors are softly agreeing to these general terms upon site access?

No. Absolutely not.

What about an older browser that can't properly display javascript? What about
someone using a screenreader? What about when I use Lynx from a terminal
window?

There is no implied relationship. There is no contract. A website hands me a
block of text and I can choose which text to render.

~~~
dclowd9901
Something like 92% of browsers support javascript. Fuck off with this stupid,
trite red herring.

You want content. You are not owed content.

~~~
columbo
> You want content. You are not owed content.

Then put it behind a paywall.

It's my browser, my choice to display what I want, how I want. You don't come
into the equation, even if you are the content owner. Either charge for it, or
stop whining.

------
rjknight
> _This means that we're working twice as hard as other sites to sustain our
> company_

This must be wrong. Surely if Destructoid are seeing a 50% block rate, their
competitors must be seeing something similar too? A world with ad-blockers is
the new normal for everyone.

Ad-blockers aren't going away. The fundamental architecture of the internet
and the web makes it almost impossible to _force_ people to view ads that they
don't want to, and no advertiser is going to win the technological arms-race
against the ad-blocking software. For now, at least, I have sufficient control
over my own computer that I can dictate what appears on the screen.

I think the right conclusions are reached in this article though. Destructoid
clearly understand the marketplace they're operating in, and a membership
option of some kind is a good, non-exploitative way of earning money from
content creation. It might not work, and there might be better alternatives,
but someone is going to find a way that does work. The existence of ad
blockers is providing "evolutionary" pressure toward business models that
don't rely on spamming people with crap, and this is a good thing. (Assuming,
that is, that the new business models aren't somehow worse, at which point
we'll have to start blocking those...)

~~~
abcd_f
> _it almost impossible to force people to view ads that they don't want to_

It's trivial to do, technically. Just embed the ads with in-page (not
externally linked) JS, or proxy 3rd party ad network requests through the
hosting server, or splice them in on the server side, etc. I think we _are_
going to see this widely adopted if the adblock rates continue climbing up.

This will obviously rub the adblock users the wrong way, but if you are
generating the ad revenue from a lot of one-time visitors, it should be fine.
Then, to not alienate repeated visitors, offer a paid, ad-free subscription.
Perhaps of a freemium flavor. Done.

Now the question is why we don't see this being done at scale yet?

~~~
Tuna-Fish
That doesn't really help. A simple crowdsourced "see an ad? highlight it and
it goes away" system would work against that. Adds have content, and that
content can be used to find and block them, even if their source is the same
as the page content.

~~~
lenazegher
Yes, that _could_ happen, but it almost certainly wouldn't.

The general problem with ad blockers is that they are a set-and-forget
scorched-earth solution to the problem of annoying ads. As a web publisher, it
doesn't matter if you carefully tweak your ads to be as unobtrusive and
relevant to the user as possible, because users running ad blockers won't see
them to begin with. Asking users to whitelist your site is a non-starter.

If you use some fairly trivial tactics to prevent your ads being blocked by
the _default_ settings of the ad blocker, the vast majority of users with an
ad blocker will never bother to set up some custom filter to block your
specific ads because the default settings _are the program_ for 95% of people.

If you have some really obnoxious ads then yes, perhaps more people will go to
the bother of blocking them. But if you don't, I assert that almost no-one
will bother.

If you're facebook, the people who maintain blocklists for popular ad-blockers
will write some custom rules for your new ads. But most sites aren't facebook.

------
lancewiggs
The article was unreadable due to ridiculous ads, a dumb mobile version and a
read more.. link that reloaded the page only. So three suggestions: 1: focus
on helping readers read content. Eliminate everything that gets in the way if
that. (End user needs) 2: reduce the volume and spammiess of your ads, in all
markets. (Quality of advertising reflects quality of site) 3: do a slashdot,
and add a paid subscription that removes all advertising for a period. (Allow
people to give you money). 3a: as an alternative offer a gold/pro version with
greater benefits, not all which have to be that tangible.

------
MicahWedemeyer
Speaking as someone who runs a subscription site, there are a few key phrases
to note in this article. I think the writer needs to face reality about ads vs
paywalls.

 _I certainly wouldn't put up the sites you know today behind a paywall_ \-
Why not? Is there a law that says once free, always free? Slam it behind a
paywall and you will lose 90% or more of your audience. But! You'll make
money. That's the tradeoff.

 _My appeal read something to the effect that ad blockers primarily hurt our
writers, and if you are reading our site, we'd like your support_ \- Then ask
for support the old fashioned way, by them giving you money in exchange for
the service you provide.

 _one reader who, despite willingly denying our passive revenue, thought I was
being too bold_ \- Wrong. He's not willingly denying your passive revenue.
He's installing an ad blocker to improve his browsing experience. You happen
to be caught in that net. It's not like he got out of bed and said, "Hey, I'm
going to screw Destructoid today"

Now, I'm not saying that paywalls are a solution to every problem. But I will
say that appealing to people to disable ad blockers is not a solution to any
problem. And blaming your users like this will never turn out well.

------
angersock
I apologize for my naivety here, but it would seem that the best (in the
general sense, not simply financial one) way to make revenue would be to offer
a desirable product, and price it accordingly.

The market would seem to suggest (as evidenced by the decline of once-decent
rags like PC Gamer) that there is not a lot of demand for coverage of games if
a cost is associated with it. Perhaps this is because anyone can blog about
games and function as a journalist now, perhaps it is because demo discs are
no longer relevant when downloads are available, perhaps it's because gamers
are fickle feckless manchildren, perhaps it's a reptillian plot to take over
America--regardless of the reason, it seems that trying to make a living off
of games journalism is a Bad Idea.

I further question the decision to cheapen your site design and theming by
allowing other elements into it that aren't under your control. If you are
exercising any sort of integrity of product, it would seem obvious that
letting somebody plaster garish random content on is a poor idea.

Don't get me wrong; artists since time out of mind have done payed work for
patrons that would later become classic--but even a benevolent duke or
aristocrat would be worked in an unobtrusive way into the greater piece (any
art historians here are free to correct me) in such a fashion as to preserve
the integrity of the work.

(the perhaps best writeup I've seen of games journalism was over at Triforce:
<http://www.thetriforce.com/?p=813> )

~~~
InclinedPlane
There's a tradeoff here though. On one hand you have friction, on the other
hand you have revenue assurance, and often these are direct tradeoffs. Some
types of content benefits from high revenue assurance and comparatively high
friction, some content is really only useful if it's widely accessible with
low friction though. And often the boost in total readership volume that comes
from low friction can result in higher and faster growing revenues (web comics
fall into this category, for example). However, in general I think content
creators have become a bit lazy about considering the value they are offering
to their readership.

Just because you put in a lot of effort into making something doesn't mean
that what you make is worth anything. And just because it's possible to make
money doing something doesn't mean that what you're doing is worthwhile
either.

------
AznHisoka
This might not be a popular sentiment, but if people are installing ad
blockers, doesn't that mean they would rarely buy anything or be influenced by
an ad? For me, I find some ads useful, such as Google Adsense so they're not a
real nuisance for me. But if someone found them only intrusive, and not
useful, if they didn't view the ad, that means MORE higher quality eyeballs.

So in a strange way, Destructoid is getting its FAIR share of ad revenue,
since it's ONLY being shown to the people who find ads useful, and would buy
something from an ad.

I understand it's not "fair" to be paid less for writing high quality content,
but ad revenue is not welfare, and it's not a mandatory tip jar. Ad revenue is
an exchange of value between advertisers and publishers, and if there's no
value, then you shouldn't complain about not getting enough ad revenue.

~~~
eurleif
Most ads are paid CPC, not CPM. So the advertiser doesn't pay until someone
actually clicks the ad. And while it may be true that people who block ads
would be less likely to click them, I doubt it's the case that they wouldn't
click them at all.

~~~
lucian1900
I only selectively block ads and have never clicked on an ad, except perhaps
by accident. I can't be the only one.

------
jblow
Destructoid is much more ad-heavy than other similar gaming news sites, and
they tend to implement the ads in a way that hits browsers hard performance-
wise, so that the site is just painful to navigate. I stopped going to
Destructoid a while back for exactly this reason.

It seems that such heavy ad bombardment has been chasing their regular users
to block ads. It only makes sense.

~~~
jblow
P.S. If there were an easy way for me to pay a nickel per article I read (or
however much), instead of having ads all over the internet, I would jump at
that in an instant.

~~~
mrud
flatter [1] is basically exactly that. You said an amount of money aside you
want to spend each month and can then flattr either individual
articles/postings or projects. The amount each project receives from you
depends now on your monthly account / number of flatters.

<http://flattr.com/>

------
Joeri
I was visiting this article from an ipad, a device that can't have an ad
blocker by design. I land on the page and start reading only to see the page
disappearing and slowly being replaced by a slow and clumsy "mobile friendly"
version of the site. Even so i persist in trying to read the article, except
it got cut off after the opening paragraphs by a "read more" link, even though
i had seen three ads so far. The read more link just refreshes the page, but
doesn't reveal the rest of the article. To get to the content, i had to tap on
three vertical bars hidden in the corner, and then choose the link to the
desktop version. I assume that most people would have given up long before
that.

So, here's my advice to destructoid: if you want ad impressions, try
delivering your content on ipad in a way that's fast and readable, because on
an ipad people don't block ads.

~~~
AdrianRossouw
They can't block ads on the ipad, you mean. It's one of the reasons I don't
like browsing on the ipad.

I thought of something, might the growth of mobile ad revenue be offset by the
lack of ad blockers on the platforms?

------
xenophanes
> This means that we're working twice as hard as other sites to sustain our
> company

No it doesn't, they have to deal with ad block too.

> Read more at [http://www.destructoid.com/half-of-destructoid-s-readers-
> blo...](http://www.destructoid.com/half-of-destructoid-s-readers-block-our-
> ads-now-what--247904.phtml#Zr7x0KgtISOOWOIz.99)

Maybe if you want your community to like you, don't use evil.js

> At first, it was about 10%, then 20-something. When I dared to blink it just
> increased faster. Over a few days it never got better, averaging at an
> ominous 42-46% block rate.

Why did it go up so fast? Maybe you used bad judgment and put up an ad that
annoyed people?

You need to respect your users and treat them better before you get to
complain.

I run ad block but i never tried to block the ads on Daring Fireball for
example. Don't be one of the shady sites with crappy ads and evil.js

------
glesica
The reason I block ads has more to do with the latency of the ad networks than
with the annoyance the ads cause me, which is minimal. I just got sick of some
ad network hanging the page. I don't have that problem any more since I
started blocking the ad networks in /etc/hosts.

------
chaostheory
I like Penny Arcade a lot: <http://www.penny-arcade.com/>

They weren't doing annoying ads even before they did their crowdsource
campaign to eliminate them for a year. I don't understand what overhead
Destructoid has that requires them to have annoying ads.

------
dspeyer
I observe that their ads are all flash. I don't block ads, but I do block
flash. I suspect there are a lot of others like me in this.

------
misnome
From the article writer, replying to someone with a perfectly good point:

> May I ask why you use an ad-blocker on Destructoid?

This (not understanding what an adblocker is or how it works), and the
apparent surprise at finding that 50% of (presumably technically literate)
readers of their site block ads, seem to come across as incredibly naive. I
agree that it can be a problem for these sites, but things like this make it
sound like they inhabit another world from their apparent target readers.

<Ironically, I removed some linkspam that appeared when I copied that
sentence>

------
ufmace
Seems that monetizing content on the Internet is going to be an ongoing
problem that doesn't have a really good solution.

I did click on the link, and whatever ads were on it were blocked by my
adblocker. I think the writer may not understand that neither I nor anybody
else specifically decided to block ads on Destructoid, a site that I had never
heard of before today. We block all ads everywhere by default.

Most websurfers will regularly click to articles on sites they've never been
to before, many of which are loaded with huge, bandwidth-sucking ads, often
with loads of flash, javascript, pop-ups, pop-overs, etc, and sometimes even
auto-downloading malware. I want to block all ads everywhere by default
because I don't have the time to pay attention to the ad type and policy of
every site that I'm only going to visit once, and I'd rather have the problem
solved once and for all.

Paid subscriptions may be nice in a way, but they also seem to tear at the
fabric of the internet. If all sites used them for most of their content, then
most people would only read stuff posted at the 3-4 sites that they visited
regularly and actually paid for, instead of surfing all over the place. How do
you get new readers in that model?

It might help if there was some way to do micropayments per read - possibly
with Bitcoin or something like that. Maybe some sort of big subscription
network - like readers pay a subscription fee, and writers in the network get
paid a small amount when a subscriber reads their article. I'm not sure what
the long-term solution is, but I hope that it's one without ads.

------
nwh
Presumably they could take advantage of Adblock's Acceptable Ads policy[0].

[0]: <http://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads>

~~~
jmz
I don't read Destructoid, but this sounded interesting. Upon entering the
site, the whole browser window was overtaken by some ad selling me malware
scanning. I can totally relate to the people blocking sites which don't police
their advertisers.

~~~
nwh
Mine was taken over by a movie trailer that bogged down FireFox and couldn't
be closed.

------
gcb0
it's sad to see him take so much trouble with his ads when some other sites
may be the reason.

you are just a side victim. no matter how polite your ads are, if someone else
has lousy video/peel/survey ads, they will force users to block ads. and the
ads will be blocked when those users visit your page.

most people have no idea they can whitelist sites. when they don't see an ad,
they don't even know they are missing something.

heck, my way of blocking ads (etc/hosts file from someonewhocares.org) does
even allow me to whiteliste stes. even if i wanted.

~~~
pjscott
I opened up the article without ad blocking to see how polite the ads really
were. I saw two of them, both in the sidebar (which is a good place for them).
The first one was just a static image; I can live with that. The second had a
big red blinking button on it, which naturally draws my eye away from the body
text and drives me nuts.

These guys aren't as bad as some, but it looks like they're not just side
victims.

------
neogodless
I just want to say that while I don't personally block ads, I have used
Flashblock, and I might consider blocking ads. The reason for this is not that
they are "annoying" or get in the way of reading. For me, it's because I know
that advertisements wear on you over time. They are whispers of culture and
what you need to do to be happy and gain status. Because of how I feel about
ads, I would consider paying for content. However, I think the real pain point
here is that we have a hard time knowing whether the content we get is worth
paying for, or whether we would have an easier time getting comparable content
elsewhere for less. And, of course, how big is the market for people that say
"I don't want to see ads because I want to save money on stuff I don't need...
but I do want to spend money on certain content"?

So the author is trying very hard to please his audience, but he's also trying
very hard to appeal to them and make money. Well, no kidding, we do need to
make money to do what we're doing. But you have to make it clear that you are
focused on making things better for your audience. You're demonstrably
providing clear value of some sort to them. In this case, somehow reviewing
games in a way that you enable your audience to make better decisions about
where to spend their hard-earned dollars. (I can't speak to the magic that
makes one game review site better than another.)

So ask your readers - have they used your content to make decisions? Have they
saved money by not plopping down $59.99 on a game that they, individually,
would not like? Do they agree with your reviews regularly? And is that because
they try the same games that you review, and come to the same conclusions, or
because they base all their conclusions on the reviews? If they are saving
time and money and getting to do that which they value most (or a lot, at
least, more than other things, in this case, playing particularly good video
games), then you have clearly enriched their lives. They should let you know,
and try to enrich your life, too. But I don't think that viewing ads enriches
their lives or yours, or rather, it's a pretty indirect, watered down way to
enrich your life.

------
hipsters_unite
The biggest problem with online ads is it's yet another sphere of influence
which advertising is taking over and colonising with its discursive values (he
said, idealistically). If I can click a magic button and have ONE place in my
life with no ads, then why not make that the internet?

FWIW, I'm a semi-pro music journalist (try making money doing that these
days), and I think online publishing is crying out for a non-intrusive way of
monetizing that doesn't involve advertising.

------
mike-cardwell
Like most sites with ads, the moment you land on them, they sell you to one or
more of their advertising partners. They don't ask your permission, or give
you an option. The only way to deal with this is to use an ad blocker.

So the guy wants to make money selling ads? I want to make money watching the
TV. I'm not going to write a blog post complaining that I can't make money by
watching TV. I'm going to find something that people are happy to pay me for,
and do that instead.

------
jccalhoun
The problem is that bad sites with horrible popups, popunders, page takeovers,
random words highlighted to look like links but are really ads and all sorts
of other crap drive people to adblockers.

So people just install it and forget it so that sites that aren't horrible and
don't totally ruin the consumer experience with ads suffer.

And if a site is "nice" and doesn't put that crap on their site today, who is
to say they won't tomorrow? So users never bother to turn off their ad
blockers.

------
felix
I read all these complaints and they boils down to "I want to read this
content but those ads really slow me down/annoy me." "The content publisher
really picked some bad advertisers!" "They should try something that provides
me with value."

The value the content publisher provides you is _content_. If you block ads on
an ad driven site - what value do you provide the content publisher? But
running a site, maintaining it, getting new content, building new features
that all costs money. When you block ads you're simply not paying for what
you're using.

If the ads on a site outweigh your tolerance - Don't go to the site. But if
the content is there and you want to read it - well the cost of entry for most
"free" sites is a few ad impressions. Ubiquitous ads was the most
transformative thing to happen to the web. The bills need to get paid and ads
do that without requiring everyone to put in their credit card.

------
ratherbefuddled
Do unclicked ads really still pay?

I don't really feel guilt for blocking ads because if I ever clicked on one it
would be by accident.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Yes, there are still ads that pay per 'impression' aka page view. However they
usually drop a cookie and pay on impressions with that cookie which prevents
paying out on page views to scripts.

~~~
greenyoda
That would also prevent paying out with readers who set their browsers to
block third-party cookies, which is probably much more common than installing
an ad blocker.

------
gcb0
There's only one way to solve this: leave the loss to the advertiser.

your agreement with the advertiser is: A) you have X page views, B) you will
stamp those page views with references to the ad.

you did 100% of your part. You delivered the page to the user, and you stamped
those pages with the ad reference. Done!

if the user browser/system choose not to follow that reference, that shouldn't
impact your revenue. at all. what the user does with the page you delivered is
out of your control. it's out of the contract reach.

you delivered what you promised, you should get paid.

but of course, this will only make the earlier adopters of such position go
broke while advertisers flock to other suckers. this will only work if the
whole industry shifts fast.

this will make good content survive, and will make ads get better (as it will
finally be it's own interest to do so) and lead to less user felling compelled
to install ad blockers.

~~~
greenyoda
That's actually how ads on TV work. If a broadcaster shows an ad on TV, they
can't guarantee to the advertiser that the intended viewer actually saw the
ad: they may have muted it to make a phone call, fast-forwarded over it on
their DVR, gotten up to grab a snack or go to the bathroom, or even changed
the channel.

~~~
gcb0
but on the TV you can't measure snack runs. on the web you pretty much can.

and even if you can't, you can always pay a 3rd party company that says they
can and then you can bail out the payment to the publisher because that 3rd
party metrics said so.

------
whatever_dude
Disabled ad block, visited the site.

Interstitial before content.

Lots of banners, some of those misplaced around the layout.

Huge bottom ad over content without a close button. Had to roll over it; it
shows a popup over content. Then you can close the popup, and another click to
close the bottom ad.

It loads scripts from 23 third-party websites.

Yeaaaaaah... I suppose I understand why people are blocking ads in this
particular website. Most gaming news websites I go to have around 3 or 4
third-party scripts, and most respectable websites 1 or 2 (mostly for
analytics). But 23? Really?

There's an obvious disconnect from what the writer of that piece thinks most
people is seeing, to my actual experience. In all honesty if it wasn't for
adblock I wouldn't even had read that article; the experience would have been
unbearable.

------
piyush_soni
I run an Android app which is ad supported, and couple of webpages which are
ad supported as well. I STILL block ads on my machines. And I expect a lot of
my users will be doing the same. Get over it. Earn money from those who don't
(like you said those 96% IE users), and sell content if you think your content
will be worth paying for. Business models change with time. At one point of
time web ads had become the main source of web income. They went overboard,
and users started getting frustrated. Right now mobile ads are on their peak.
They'll subside too with time (adblockers are already there). You will have to
keep rethinking ways to earn money, and reinventing yourself. That's life.

------
Aardwolf
You know, if ads like the ones with smiley faces adware, or any colorful
animation, wouldn't exist, I may actually surf the web without adblocker.
Alas, the admakers themselves are forcing me to use one.

------
lucian1900
On a website that is pretty much unusable on an iPad, I can understand why
people would block ads. No one owes someone else ad views; if you aren't
making enough money, charge.

------
nullsocket
I don't block ads as a way to rid sites of revenue. I block because of cookie
abuse and internet tracking. Secondary is just play annoying ad abuse. I
cringe when I see users surfing unfiltered with IE and ads are everywhere. The
internet isn't here for you to make an easy buck off us, it's to share and
spread information, plain and simple. Don't try to make me feel bad for your
poor business model.

------
gcr
I don't use adblock, but Destructoid automatically redirects me to the mobile
version of their site because apparently webkit nightly isn't a good enough
browser for them.

Ironically, I like this, since it's more lightweight and easier to read than
the normal version of their site. Further, there are no ads on the mobile
site.

What percentage of their readership do they do that to?

------
Udo
Display a banner and ask them to change their Adblock settings. I always give
that a try when I encounter this as a user. However, if the ads are
obnoxious... well.

------
tomjen3
Simple. Have a 3 buck for a month button to make the ads go away.

Don't complain that not everybody would click it, that is way more than you
make normally.

------
jQueryIsAwesome
Just block the site completely to everyone using ad-blockers, just do it; let
them cry without regret for they are killing your way of sustain. If they want
to enjoy the site, they have to take the full package. And perhaps ad-free
paid version for anyone who really want those gone.

But don't use Flash ads; those can have sound and can slow down the PC and
don't work on many devices, making it a very high price to pay for visiting
your site.

