Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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_clickhttp://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)
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)
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)
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 doesnÂ’t hurt to show a bit of support by visiting an advertiserÂ… 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)
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)
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)
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)
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/
