This might sound like a naive question, but hear me out.
This operates on the (perhaps inaccurate, though anecdotally appealing) assumption that people who use adblock are unlikely to ever click on an advertisement, even if they did not have adblock available. So, no direct revenue loss.
Their views still count towards your statistics though, so you have more eyeballs and potential shares - great!
Most interestingly though, you get to skip serving ads to those who never would have clicked in the first place (or only accidentally), which translates to an increased clickthrough ratio (and increased conversion). So the ad space is worth more.
So tell me, HN, why do companies invest so much time and effort into policing adblockers, when it seems that the best strategy would be to simply ignore them?
Is it that adblock usage is actually such a large percentage of users in 2015 that it necessitates dissuasive measures? The last time I worked in a company that relied almost exclusively on advertising (2010), it was relatively small and static. We decided that, due to the above reasoning, it wasn't worth pursuing.
Are there people/companies out there who've seen a measurable uptick in conversions or revenue as a result of countering adblock?
And yes - growth rates have jumped and in just 2015 it has doubled. Some sites are experiencing 50% ad block rates (in more gaming and technical verticals).
It will become a problem for advertising reliant companies very soon.