Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[Andy Leighton]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 09:44:13AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think Jason makes a very good point in his mail below: advertising does
> work.

I don't think this is surprising at all.  After all for some value of
works so does spamming.  Not that they are equivalent.

> This is especially true with the context based ads served by companies
> like Google where when you visit websites you can usually find ads that are
> relevant to what you are already looking at. 

Usually.  I do have to say that Google ads can be the least intrusive of
all and I don't think that I have them blocked.

-- 
Andy Leighton => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" 
   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[vijay chopra]

On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>> Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on.
> Not seen one yet - doubt I ever will.

Yet more proof that this list is not indicative of the general internet
users (which is understandable).

Adverts get clicks and people make money from it. LOTS of money - for
instance Google made $1.2bn from Adsense (Google Ads on non-Google
sites) last quarter. This is primarily Pay-Per-Click money, I'd imagine.

Jason



You probably have a point, but i've never seen an advert that I've found
relavant to my needs; then again I've never bought anything due to a TV or
Radio ad either. I've clicked on many ads though; they help generate revenue
for many of my favourite FLOSS projects.

Vijay.

RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[zen16083]

I think Jason makes a very good point in his mail below: advertising does
work. This is especially true with the context based ads served by companies
like Google where when you visit websites you can usually find ads that are
relevant to what you are already looking at. They are just the same as going
to Google and doing a search from the home page: Google serves up fairly
relevant ads and links. On a regular Google search, I will normally look at
the ads first rather than at the search results, especially if I am looking
to buy a product or a service.

I also carry ads on some websites I run, and have got to say that the ads
served to the websites are relevant and people clearly do read and respond
to the ads.

I am an advertiser as well through Google and am very happy with the
business that the ads generate.

Of course, some people refuse to click on ads and don't ever want to see
them - but, from experience, I'd say that such people are in a minority.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jason Cartwright
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:21 AM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

>> Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on.
> Not seen one yet - doubt I ever will.

Yet more proof that this list is not indicative of the general internet
users (which is understandable).

Adverts get clicks and people make money from it. LOTS of money - for
instance Google made $1.2bn from Adsense (Google Ads on non-Google
sites) last quarter. This is primarily Pay-Per-Click money, I'd imagine.

Jason

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[Andrew Bowden]

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Cridland
On 2/26/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even
more -
> lowering the CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet
user
> has no opportunity to click.
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_Through_Rate

Depends if you ever click ads...



Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click
on.

"Ads are crap so I won't click on them ever" is a rubbish
argument. You will click on ads if they are relevant. There is a value
to the brand owner for you to see the ad even if you don't click on
them. And how do you know whether the media owner has a CPM or CPC deal
for this particular ad anyway?  

Well okay,  I'm still waiting for the ad that ads some value to me.  And
I've been waiting a long time!
 
Because ultimately when I'm looking at, say, Media Guardian (for
example), I have a purpose and the purpose is to read the content.  I'm
not in an information seeking mode so the ads are not of any value to
me.
 
On the other hand (and to contradict my earlier message), I have clicked
on sponsored links on Google because they occassionally help me find
things I want (usually when I'm trying to buy something).
 
I guess, if I was reading a review of something and I wanted to buy it,
I might click on an ad that was related to purchasing that item.
However personally, that activity is almost non-existant in my internet
life.
 
(Of course then there's the "promotions for another section of a site,
which mascarade as adverts" which are a different argument!)

RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[Jason Cartwright]

>> Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on.
> Not seen one yet - doubt I ever will.

Yet more proof that this list is not indicative of the general internet
users (which is understandable). 

Adverts get clicks and people make money from it. LOTS of money - for
instance Google made $1.2bn from Adsense (Google Ads on non-Google
sites) last quarter. This is primarily Pay-Per-Click money, I'd imagine.

Jason

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[Andy Leighton]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 08:45:37PM +, James Cridland wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more -
> >> lowering the CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user
> >> has no opportunity to click.
> >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_Through_Rate
> >
> >Depends if you ever click ads...
> 
> Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on.

Not seen one yet - doubt I ever will.
 
> There is a value to the brand owner for
> you to see the ad even if you don't click on them. And how do you know
> whether the media owner has a CPM or CPC deal for this particular ad anyway?

As a consumer of the content on the website I don't care whether the media 
owner has a CPM or CPC deal.

-- 
Andy Leighton => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" 
   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[James Cridland]

On 2/26/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more -
> lowering the CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user
> has no opportunity to click.
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_Through_Rate

Depends if you ever click ads...



Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on.

"Ads are crap so I won't click on them ever" is a rubbish argument. You will
click on ads if they are relevant. There is a value to the brand owner for
you to see the ad even if you don't click on them. And how do you know
whether the media owner has a CPM or CPC deal for this particular ad anyway?

--
http://james.cridland.net/

Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[Peter Bowyer]

On 26/02/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I completely disagree. The ToU of my website could preclude its use in
> the way you're proposing. I can take proportionate steps to enforce my
> ToU - which in this case could include preventing your proposed use.

So you think the ToU of a website could legitimately say "if you want to
view this site you must view it all"? Because that's what it sounds like
(after all my "proposed use" is just not using some of it at all), and
without taking control of my eyeballs I don't see how that's possible.Even
when on the web away from my home PC, and thus expose to adverts, I take no
notice of them and just scroll past them, what would any ToU have to say
about that, or would you say "to view this site you must view the
advertisements"? In which case how would you enforce it?


Of course it's not 100% enforceable, and the cost of enforcing the
edge cases would be too great. But my point is that you don't have the
right you seem to be claiming to use my (theoretcial) website's
content in any way you choose - I have the right to restrict your use
by ToU, and to take technical steps to enforce that ToU if I choose.

Ad blocking by a small minority isn't a problem, but as has already
been pointed out here, as it increases, it starts to affect the
commercials of the site owner. A large site, as you've correctly
pointed out, has other forms of revenue, monitors the effectiveness of
all such forms constantly, and is able to shift its focus as and when
it needs to. But it's the smaller site which relies on its ad revenue
to stay cost-neutral that would be badly hurt if a large proportion of
its users blocked its ads.

Those sites at least have the right to say 'if you want to take my
content, take my ads', and to take technical steps to enforce that.
The user of course has the right to say 'no thanks' and go elsewhere.

Peter



--
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[vijay chopra]

On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I completely disagree. The ToU of my website could preclude its use in
the way you're proposing. I can take proportionate steps to enforce my
ToU - which in this case could include preventing your proposed use.

Peter
--
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



So you think the ToU of a website could legitimately say "if you want to
view this site you must view it all"? Because that's what it sounds like
(after all my "proposed use" is just not using some of it at all), and
without taking control of my eyeballs I don't see how that's possible. Even
when on the web away from my home PC, and thus expose to adverts, I take no
notice of them and just scroll past them, what would any ToU have to say
about that, or would you say "to view this site you must view the
advertisements"? In which case how would you enforce it?

Vijay.

Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[Peter Bowyer]

On 26/02/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26/02/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and
bandwidth
> > > then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask. If the
banner
> > > or whatever payment terms they have annoys you, then don't go back.
> >
> > If you don't want me to look at your site, on my terms, don't put it on
a
> > public network; otherwise I'll do what I like with what you serve me,
> > including not taking content (aka adverts)on my PC
>
> Perhaps you'd care to publish a list of the IP addresses you're likely
> to use a web site from, in order that the owners can comply with your
> requirements, then. I'd be glad too, for one.
>
> --
> Peter Bowyer

What's that supposed to mean? You're either publishing your content (in
whatever format) on a public network or not.


I completely disagree. The ToU of my website could preclude its use in
the way you're proposing. I can take proportionate steps to enforce my
ToU - which in this case could include preventing your proposed use.

Peter
--
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[vijay chopra]

On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 26/02/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and
bandwidth
> > then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask. If the
banner
> > or whatever payment terms they have annoys you, then don't go back.
>
> If you don't want me to look at your site, on my terms, don't put it on
a
> public network; otherwise I'll do what I like with what you serve me,
> including not taking content (aka adverts)on my PC

Perhaps you'd care to publish a list of the IP addresses you're likely
to use a web site from, in order that the owners can comply with your
requirements, then. I'd be glad too, for one.

--
Peter Bowyer



What's that supposed to mean? You're either publishing your content (in
whatever format) on a public network or not. Making an exception for a
specific person or group of people doesn't make it any less public. If you
don't want your users to do with it what they like (i.e. not look at your
adverts) don't host it on a public network, host it privately or on a VPN
and make the terms of viewing it that people have to watch the ads (not that
that will stop people, as already mentioned they'll just download the ads
then hide them).

Vijay.

RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[zen16083]

<< Try offering content that people want instead, and ask them to show
support by clicking on the ads>>

Most ad programs prohibit publishers from asking readers to click on ads as
a way of showing support.

Advertising pays for a lot of work on the net and it doesn’t hurt to show a
bit of support by visiting an advertiser… if only for a second or two.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of vijay chopra
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 4:30 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")


On 26/02/07, James Cridland < [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:

As a point of interest, larger website owners *do* pay for the serving of
the ads (as well, in most cases, as the advertiser).

Incidentally, I have written stuff (for one of my websites) which blocks
website content if the ads don't load. It's quite easy to do, depending on
how your ads are being served. If ad-blockers grow, you'll see a ton of
these scripts proliferating on the web. (Given the stats from one of the
websites I'm responsible for, I estimate that 5% of pages are served to
people with adblockers; which I see as fairly acceptable - 20% might not be,
though).

J

As was pointed out, Adblock can download the ads then hide them client side.
You're making a rod for your own back by doing that as I'll put a heavier
load on your server yet still not see the ads, and as Jason pointed out it
supposedly lowers the CTR (I'm unconvinced, I've never seen an ad that I
wanted to click anyway) as well. So let the various "content blocking"
scripts proliferate, as long as I can do what I like with my client they
will not only remain pointless, but actually harm you. Try offering content
that people want instead, and ask them to show support by clicking on the
ads; if they have an adblocker, and your stuff is good, you should have no
need for said scripts as your community will *want* to support you.

Vijay.

Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[Peter Bowyer]

On 26/02/07, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and bandwidth
> then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask. If the banner
> or whatever payment terms they have annoys you, then don't go back.

If you don't want me to look at your site, on my terms, don't put it on a
public network; otherwise I'll do what I like with what you serve me,
including not taking content (aka adverts)on my PC


Perhaps you'd care to publish a list of the IP addresses you're likely
to use a web site from, in order that the owners can comply with your
requirements, then. I'd be glad too, for one.

--
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[vijay chopra]

On 26/02/07, James Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



As a point of interest, larger website owners *do* pay for the serving of
the ads (as well, in most cases, as the advertiser).

Incidentally, I have written stuff (for one of my websites) which blocks
website content if the ads don't load. It's quite easy to do, depending on
how your ads are being served. If ad-blockers grow, you'll see a ton of
these scripts proliferating on the web. (Given the stats from one of the
websites I'm responsible for, I estimate that 5% of pages are served to
people with adblockers; which I see as fairly acceptable - 20% might not be,
though).

J



As was pointed out, Adblock can download the ads then hide them client side.
You're making a rod for your own back by doing that as I'll put a heavier
load on your server yet still not see the ads, and as Jason pointed out it
supposedly lowers the CTR (I'm unconvinced, I've never seen an ad that I
wanted to click anyway) as well. So let the various "content blocking"
scripts proliferate, as long as I can do what I like with my client they
will not only remain pointless, but actually harm you. Try offering content
that people want instead, and ask them to show support by clicking on the
ads; if they have an adblocker, and your stuff is good, you should have no
need for said scripts as your community will *want* to support you.

Vijay.

Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[vijay chopra]

On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and bandwidth
then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask. If the banner
or whatever payment terms they have annoys you, then don't go back.



If you don't want me to look at your site, on my terms, don't put it on a
public network; otherwise I'll do what I like with what you serve me,
including not taking content (aka adverts)on my PC



If banner-ad doesn't make companies enough money to survive, isn't
that up to them - and whether I block the ads or not, isn't that up to
me?

The problem here is that you are seemingly disconnected from the effects
of ad blocking. I run a fair-sized website that employs people. If
everyone blocks the ads the website wouldn't exist, the people running
it wouldn't have jobs, and the users wouldn't get their content.



If your only revenue stream is adverts, then you're doing something wrong.
Unless you're an ad agency of course (i.e. google). Why not sell something;
extra content for example? If it's good, and you have a strong community
people will pay. Infact if your ads are non-intrusive (eg. some small
google, or other text ads) and you have good content for free, I'll
white-list you and click on your ads without reading them.

In short you shouldn't build a website around ads, build it around good
content; then put a few small ads in to generate revenue.


In the shorter term - advertising will always get to you as there is too

much money involved. Banners are one of the least evil ways of doing
this. Block them and you'll get crap spammy websites, "flogs" [1], and
advertorials.

Nobody can stop you blocking ads, but by doing so you are taking food
from people's tables.



If a website is crap and spammy or is astroturfing I won't go to it, so
that's not a real problem. Secondly I'm not taking food off any one's table,
it's a bad business model that's doing that. I'm happy to support sites that
give me good content as long as they don't force me to gouge my eyes out.
The advertising companies (double-click et. al.), and those who support them
however, can take a running jump, or develop a sustainable bussiness model.
Their choice.

Vijay

Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[James Cridland]

On 2/26/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> Out of interest, how do you stand on hiding ads...  (That being an
option of Adblock)

Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more - lowering the
CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user has no opportunity to
click.



For Google AdSense, the website owner (normally) only earns from PPC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_per_click
-
so hiding the ads is just as bad as blocking them entirely.

As a point of interest, larger website owners *do* pay for the serving of
the ads (as well, in most cases, as the advertiser).

Incidentally, I have written stuff (for one of my websites) which blocks
website content if the ads don't load. It's quite easy to do, depending on
how your ads are being served. If ad-blockers grow, you'll see a ton of
these scripts proliferating on the web. (Given the stats from one of the
websites I'm responsible for, I estimate that 5% of pages are served to
people with adblockers; which I see as fairly acceptable - 20% might not be,
though).

J

RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[Andrew Bowden]

> Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more - 
> lowering the CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user 
> has no opportunity to click.
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_Through_Rate

Depends if you ever click ads...

I can only recall ever (willingly) clicking on one banner ad in, say,
seven years.  And that was seven years ago as well!  (It was a strange
First Direct one)

So if you never click on ads, then your behaviour is no different
whether you see the advert or not.

If you do click on ads, then it's a different.  


Funny actually, I got a PVR recently.  And I found myself stopping my
ad-skipping, and watching an ad...  Strange world.

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[Jason Cartwright]

>> Nobody can stop you blocking ads, but by doing so you are taking food

>> from people's tables.

> Out of interest, how do you stand on hiding ads...  (That being an
option of Adblock)

Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more - lowering the
CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user has no opportunity to
click.

J

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_Through_Rate

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[Andrew Bowden]

> Nobody can stop you blocking ads, but by doing so you are 
> taking food from people's tables.

Out of interest, how do you stand on hiding ads...  (That being an
option of Adblock)

:)

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

[backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD " how DRM was defeated")

[Jason Cartwright]

This is all my personal point of view.

> you're possibly saving them money by not downloading their assets,
saving them a (fractional) amount of transit costs.

Ad serving costs are usually bore by the advertiser or an agency. Anyhow
- this cost is "cost of revenue" so the higher it is the better it is,
assuming your business model is viable!

> I've just skipped some ads on my PVR. Is that unethical?
> I turned over the centre-ad-spread in a glossy mag - ditto?

PVR - yes. Mag - not so much. The magazine has a multiple revenue
streams.

Blocking ads on websites is particularly nasty because of the
cost-per-user. If 1 person watches a TV programme the cost of
transmission is the same as if 1000 people watch it. On a website this
isn't the case - there is a relatively high cost per user. Just ask
anyone that has been on the front page of Slashdot or the like.

> What I look at on my own computer is surely up to me.

Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and bandwidth
then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask. If the banner
or whatever payment terms they have annoys you, then don't go back.

> If banner-ad doesn't make companies enough money to survive, isn't
that up to them - and whether I block the ads or not, isn't that up to
me?

The problem here is that you are seemingly disconnected from the effects
of ad blocking. I run a fair-sized website that employs people. If
everyone blocks the ads the website wouldn't exist, the people running
it wouldn't have jobs, and the users wouldn't get their content.

In the shorter term - advertising will always get to you as there is too
much money involved. Banners are one of the least evil ways of doing
this. Block them and you'll get crap spammy websites, "flogs" [1], and
advertorials.

Nobody can stop you blocking ads, but by doing so you are taking food
from people's tables.

J

[1]
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flog&defid=1084732#108473
2

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/