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
On 27/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/27/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on the black list Ah. Other people might get irritated with the ads and therefore not go back to Slashdot. Instead, you want to get the content, but not want to let them have any chance of earning revenue from it. It's akin to stealing chocolate from the store because you believe the prices are 'over-high'. It's unethical. It's indefensible. It's wrong. You know it - I know it - we all know it. Your only ethical option is to Not Visit. Full-stop. Stop stealing, and stop boasting that you're stealing. My first instinct was to write something very unBBC here (think hallucinogenic drugs), but that would be an abuse of the list, so I wont. Instead I'll defend myself rationally. Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. To use your metaphor, the shop store might be offering it's broken chocolate free (there's a shop near me does this), I don't have to take it. Secondly I contribute back to slashdot because I meta-moderate, moderate and submit stories regularly, I also partake in the public beta of discussion 2 and drink from the fire hose; what I spend in time doing that out ways any benefits they get by my downloading and ignoring ads Interestingly, we did some experiments on Virgin Radio's website with flash overlayz (you know, those horrid things that get in the way of content). I said to the sales manager: We'll do those, fine. The first complaint we get, we'll remove them from the site. She agreed. I believed that we'd get the first complaint within the first hour of the first day. We're still waiting for that first complaint, nine months later. The moral of the story? Complain, people. Please. If you don't complain, I can't tell the sales manager to take her crappy overlayz and shove them where the sun doesn't shine because our visitors don't want them. I've never visited Virgin Radio's site (I don't listen to Virgin Radio) but if I did and saw flash overlays in my way I'd either leave and not come back, or (if there's content I like) remove them with my ad blocker; why should I help some random company make money from their site if they don't have basic skills for good web design. The only time I complain is if companies put the W3C compliant logo on their page and it doesn't validate as that's false advertising, If there's only a couple of mistakes I'll even send a fix. However, I should rush to point out - we no longer carry overlayz, because we believe nobody likes them. If only someone had complained, we'd have acted earlier. (Please give feedback about anything you see on that site to www.virginradio.co.uk/contact_us/?to=techies and I or one of my team will reply). Again it's not the public's responsibility to fix your site design to make it profitable; that's you and your line managers job (put a focus group together or something), however as you've asked, if I open my sidebar, instead of resizing the page, I get a scroll bar; this is highly annoying and next to the main picture box (the one that changes with the rollovers) I have a second black box that seems to do nothing at all (yes I turned my adblocker off). Also in Opera (previous comment's were about firefox) your rollovers don't work, though the black box disappears (I haven't checked it in IE). I'll send you that through your feedback form for you as well. Vijay.
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
Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order to pay for your request taking up thier resources you are served an advert. If you don't like this 'deal' then you shouldn't request the content. Secondly I contribute back to slashdot because I meta-moderate, moderate and submit stories regularly This contribution is of little or no monetary value - and hence doesn't pay for thier salaries/bandwidth/servers etc etc. Know anyone that makes a living from Amazon's Mechanical Turk service? it's not the public's responsibility to fix your site design Bugs happen, no matter how good your management/coders/testers are. Best to have a feedback from the end user. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 28 February 2007 11:00 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking On 27/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/27/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on the black list Ah. Other people might get irritated with the ads and therefore not go back to Slashdot. Instead, you want to get the content, but not want to let them have any chance of earning revenue from it. It's akin to stealing chocolate from the store because you believe the prices are 'over-high'. It's unethical. It's indefensible. It's wrong. You know it - I know it - we all know it. Your only ethical option is to Not Visit. Full-stop. Stop stealing, and stop boasting that you're stealing. My first instinct was to write something very unBBC here (think hallucinogenic drugs), but that would be an abuse of the list, so I wont. Instead I'll defend myself rationally. Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. To use your metaphor, the shop store might be offering it's broken chocolate free (there's a shop near me does this), I don't have to take it. Secondly I contribute back to slashdot because I meta-moderate, moderate and submit stories regularly, I also partake in the public beta of discussion 2 and drink from the fire hose; what I spend in time doing that out ways any benefits they get by my downloading and ignoring ads Interestingly, we did some experiments on Virgin Radio's website with flash overlayz (you know, those horrid things that get in the way of content). I said to the sales manager: We'll do those, fine. The first complaint we get, we'll remove them from the site. She agreed. I believed that we'd get the first complaint within the first hour of the first day. We're still waiting for that first complaint, nine months later. The moral of the story? Complain, people. Please. If you don't complain, I can't tell the sales manager to take her crappy overlayz and shove them where the sun doesn't shine because our visitors don't want them. I've never visited Virgin Radio's site (I don't listen to Virgin Radio) but if I did and saw flash overlays in my way I'd either leave and not come back, or (if there's content I like) remove them with my ad blocker; why should I help some random company make money from their site if they don't have basic skills for good web design. The only time I complain is if companies put the W3C compliant logo on their page and it doesn't validate as that's false advertising, If there's only a couple of mistakes I'll even send a fix. However, I should rush to point out - we no longer carry overlayz, because we believe nobody likes them. If only someone had complained, we'd have acted earlier. (Please give feedback about anything you see on that site to www.virginradio.co.uk/contact_us/?to=techies and I or one of my team will reply). Again it's not the public's responsibility to fix your site design to make it profitable; that's you and your line managers job (put a focus group together or something), however as you've asked, if I open my sidebar, instead of resizing the page, I get a scroll bar; this is highly annoying and next to the main picture box (the one that changes with the rollovers) I have a second black box that seems to do nothing at all (yes I turned my adblocker off). Also in Opera (previous comment's were about firefox) your rollovers don't work, though the black box disappears (I haven't checked it in IE). I'll send you that through your feedback form for you as well. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
Jason Cartwright wrote: Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order to pay for your request taking up thier resources you are served an advert. If you don't like this 'deal' then you shouldn't request the content. Slashdot probably isn't the best example - I think they expect a lot of ad blocking (considering who there audience is) and so their business model probably takes that more into account than other sites might (which is why you can subscribe to slashdot and get a few perks besides not seeing ads). Scot
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order to pay for your request taking up thier resources you are served an advert. If you don't like this 'deal' then you shouldn't request the content. No one informed me of this deal, I've signed nothing obliging me to hold to it. I reiterate, if you don't want end users doing what they like with your content on their PCs, don't put it on a public network. It's up to me what my client displays and how it renders it, if you don't like it, use a private network with terms of use forbidding ad blockers. Secondly I contribute back to slashdot because I meta-moderate, moderate and submit stories regularly This contribution is of little or no monetary value - and hence doesn't pay for thier salaries/bandwidth/servers etc etc. Know anyone that makes a living from Amazon's Mechanical Turk service? On the contrary, if no one meta-moderated, moderated or submitted stories etc. OSTG (the owners of slashdot) would either have no site to operate, or have to employ an army of people to do it for them. I'm saving them quite a lot of money, combined with purchases I've made from other OSTG sites (I've bought stuff from Think Geek), overall they have made money from me, despite my blocking of their ads. I have no ethical qualms about it. it's not the public's responsibility to fix your site design Bugs happen, no matter how good your management/coders/testers are. Best to have a feedback from the end user. J True, and for Public service sites (Government, Local government, the BBC etc.) and non-commercial sites, I'll give it help, after all it's my money being spent. However I see no need to help a commercial site (radio stations, newspapers etc.) make money, and unless they have good content to draw me in as a regular reader, I'll see no need to help the with their UI design. Secondly, they are providing me with a service for free; what right do I have to complain? I help admin a forum for a firefox extension (I'm not the dev, but I've been using it since the beginning, and giving my time is my way of donating to the project); we get millions of complaints (often rude or abusive) about the extension, despite the fact that the dev is giving away his time and effort away for free, yet people expect more from him than they do if they had paid for the software (of course constructive criticism and feature requests are welcome, but RTFM before coming to the forum with trivial requests please). FYI it's the Wizz RSS news reader that I'm involved in: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/424/
RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking
Ok Vijay. You win. Everybody block those evil adverts, and those fools who educate and entertain me everyday (for free) can sod off down the dole office. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 28 February 2007 12:27 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order to pay for your request taking up thier resources you are served an advert. If you don't like this 'deal' then you shouldn't request the content. No one informed me of this deal, I've signed nothing obliging me to hold to it. I reiterate, if you don't want end users doing what they like with your content on their PCs, don't put it on a public network. It's up to me what my client displays and how it renders it, if you don't like it, use a private network with terms of use forbidding ad blockers. Secondly I contribute back to slashdot because I meta-moderate, moderate and submit stories regularly This contribution is of little or no monetary value - and hence doesn't pay for thier salaries/bandwidth/servers etc etc. Know anyone that makes a living from Amazon's Mechanical Turk service? On the contrary, if no one meta-moderated, moderated or submitted stories etc. OSTG (the owners of slashdot) would either have no site to operate, or have to employ an army of people to do it for them. I'm saving them quite a lot of money, combined with purchases I've made from other OSTG sites (I've bought stuff from Think Geek), overall they have made money from me, despite my blocking of their ads. I have no ethical qualms about it. it's not the public's responsibility to fix your site design Bugs happen, no matter how good your management/coders/testers are. Best to have a feedback from the end user. J True, and for Public service sites (Government, Local government, the BBC etc.) and non-commercial sites, I'll give it help, after all it's my money being spent. However I see no need to help a commercial site (radio stations, newspapers etc.) make money, and unless they have good content to draw me in as a regular reader, I'll see no need to help the with their UI design. Secondly, they are providing me with a service for free; what right do I have to complain? I help admin a forum for a firefox extension (I'm not the dev, but I've been using it since the beginning, and giving my time is my way of donating to the project); we get millions of complaints (often rude or abusive) about the extension, despite the fact that the dev is giving away his time and effort away for free, yet people expect more from him than they do if they had paid for the software (of course constructive criticism and feature requests are welcome, but RTFM before coming to the forum with trivial requests please). FYI it's the Wizz RSS news reader that I'm involved in: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/424/
RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking
You know, I'm with you here. I was just about to write a good ol' retort to the frankly ridiculous assertions by Vijay. But then I realised some people refuse to engage in sensible discourse. Oh and remind me - which plug is it for free access to the public internet ? tom From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 28 February 2007 13:02 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking Ok Vijay. You win. Everybody block those evil adverts, and those fools who educate and entertain me everyday (for free) can sod off down the dole office. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 28 February 2007 12:27 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order to pay for your request taking up thier resources you are served an advert. If you don't like this 'deal' then you shouldn't request the content. No one informed me of this deal, I've signed nothing obliging me to hold to it. I reiterate, if you don't want end users doing what they like with your content on their PCs, don't put it on a public network. It's up to me what my client displays and how it renders it, if you don't like it, use a private network with terms of use forbidding ad blockers. Secondly I contribute back to slashdot because I meta-moderate, moderate and submit stories regularly This contribution is of little or no monetary value - and hence doesn't pay for thier salaries/bandwidth/servers etc etc. Know anyone that makes a living from Amazon's Mechanical Turk service? On the contrary, if no one meta-moderated, moderated or submitted stories etc. OSTG (the owners of slashdot) would either have no site to operate, or have to employ an army of people to do it for them. I'm saving them quite a lot of money, combined with purchases I've made from other OSTG sites (I've bought stuff from Think Geek), overall they have made money from me, despite my blocking of their ads. I have no ethical qualms about it. it's not the public's responsibility to fix your site design Bugs happen, no matter how good your management/coders/testers are. Best to have a feedback from the end user. J True, and for Public service sites (Government, Local government, the BBC etc.) and non-commercial sites, I'll give it help, after all it's my money being spent. However I see no need to help a commercial site (radio stations, newspapers etc.) make money, and unless they have good content to draw me in as a regular reader, I'll see no need to help the with their UI design. Secondly, they are providing me with a service for free; what right do I have to complain? I help admin a forum for a firefox extension (I'm not the dev, but I've been using it since the beginning, and giving my time is my way of donating to the project); we get millions of complaints (often rude or abusive) about the extension, despite the fact that the dev is giving away his time and effort away for free, yet people expect more from him than they do if they had paid for the software (of course constructive criticism and feature requests are welcome, but RTFM before coming to the forum with trivial requests please). FYI it's the Wizz RSS news reader that I'm involved in: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/424/
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
vijay chopra wrote: As a final note, as a result of this conversation, I decided to check out the subscription price at slashdot, at $5 (£2.62) I ended up buying one... decide for yourself what that says about me. It says I reply to every single e-mail on this list with an inane and largely useless point which is like 'Me too' but slightly more wordy Sorry Vijay, but it's just bugging me now. -- Kirk - 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
Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth, however, you're Adblocked. If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting in the first place? Making his evaluation? Don't criticise something without first knowing what you're on about, etc etc. Surely if you want to properly evaluate the site, you need to see it all - everything in context, ads included? Cheers, Rich. - 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
On 27/02/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth, however, you're Adblocked. If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting in the first place? Making his evaluation? Don't criticise something without first knowing what you're on about, etc etc. Surely if you want to properly evaluate the site, you need to see it all - everything in context, ads included? Cheers, Rich. Not really, why do I need to see a sites ads to evaluate it's content? Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on the black list, On the other hand I go somewhere like pvponline or pandora, I like it, so I white list and find that the ads are reasonable and don't get in the way of the content, so I click on them, even though I'm not remotely interested in what they have to offer. The things these sites have in common? They all give quality content, if you don't give quality content I'm unlikely to visit regularly (for example I occasionally visit newspaper sites, but the content is as bad as the print versions) so there's no point in me white listing the site. The moral of the story? Give users quality and they will come, if they come they will be happy to help you generate revenue. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
vijay chopra wrote: Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on the black list, Do you subscribe to slashdot? One of the perks of slashdot membership is you don't get ads. Scot - 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
Not really, why do I need to see a sites ads to evaluate it's content? Because the ads are an intrinsic part of the site's content. That's what the owner of the content has decided comprises the full work, and therefore that's what you have been granted permission to use. Consumer choice in this case is not for you to block the site's adverts and deliver yourself a derivative work, but for you to either consume the content intact or not at all. Seb -- Sebastian Potter Technical Project Manager, BBC Children's Interactive - 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
On 27/02/07, Sebastian Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not really, why do I need to see a sites ads to evaluate it's content? Because the ads are an intrinsic part of the site's content. That's what the owner of the content has decided comprises the full work, and therefore that's what you have been granted permission to use. Consumer choice in this case is not for you to block the site's adverts and deliver yourself a derivative work, but for you to either consume the content intact or not at all. Seb -- Sebastian Potter Technical Project Manager, BBC Children's Interactive If something is on a *public* network, there is no obligation on me to waste my bandwidth downloading something that gives me no value; the other day I was browsing the web on my Nintendo DS browser; in order to speed things up it doesn't even have flash capability (interestingly GMail falls back to html only, and they choose not to serve me ads). If I'm using a browser unable to view adverts am I still going against the wishes of the site owner? or would they rather have the hit so that they can charge more for ads on their site? Do you condemn all the users of lynx? http://lynx.browser.org/ as they prefer only html? Or should I be forced to view every tiny quirk of ever script that a site runs? I use firefox, am I being unfair to web admins who like using ActiveX as I can't\don't view any ActiveX scripts, or is that not an intrinsic part of the site's content? To be blunt if it's served to *my* PC I have every right to do as I wish with the content; the same as if I buy a book, I don't have to read it all, why is it different for a website? I don't have to read the adverts in magazines or newspapers no one considers those an intrinsic part of [their] content why do ads have this special status on the web? It's the same with TV, I change the channel (or make a cup of coffee etc.) during ads (or skip them on my PVR just like I did with VHS tapes) is that also wrong? Are TV ads intrinsic part of a programmes content? If not, why are they so much part of a website's content? Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
To be blunt if it's served to *my* PC I have every right to do as I wish with the content; the same as if I buy a book, I don't have to read it all, why is it different for a website? I don't have to read the adverts in magazines or newspapers no one considers those an intrinsic part of [their] content No - but they're still there. You flick past them, and they don't annoy you by their very presence, which web ads appear to. You don't insist your newsagent takes a pair of scissors or a bottle of Tipp-Ex to your copy of Wired or Empire before you buy it, do you? (And, as someone who used to work in print media, I think you'd find that yes, ads *are* considered an intrinsic part of a magazine's content.) Cheers, Rich. - 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
Richard Lockwood wrote: I don't have to read the adverts in magazines or newspapers no one considers those an intrinsic part of [their] content No - but they're still there. You flick past them, and they don't annoy you by their very presence, which web ads appear to. Saying that, ads in newspapers and magazines don't flash, animate, play sounds, pop up over the article you're reading or jump out of the paper after you've closed it. If people have gotten used to using adblockers, a lot of the blame has to go to the advertisers for using such annoying techniques. Web browsing is usually more similar to reading a magazine than watching TV, but the marketers tried their best to make the ads TV-like or worse/better (depending on your point of view). Had the ads not been so intrusive, then the arms race wouldn't have begun. Well, maybe there would have been the odd person intent on blocking ads (along with cookies and javascript), but adblocking would never have become a standard part of every browser. Scot - 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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To be blunt if it's served to *my* PC I have every right to do as I wish with the content; the same as if I buy a book, I don't have to read it all, why is it different for a website? I don't have to read the adverts in magazines or newspapers no one considers those an intrinsic part of [their] content No - but they're still there. You flick past them, and they don't annoy you by their very presence, which web ads appear to. You don't insist your newsagent takes a pair of scissors or a bottle of Tipp-Ex to your copy of Wired or Empire before you buy it, do you? (And, as someone who used to work in print media, I think you'd find that yes, ads *are* considered an intrinsic part of a magazine's content.) There's an interesting side issue on advert intrusiveness in all this. Some forms of advertising are more intrusive than others. The 15 or so billboards I have to walk past in the ten minute walk to the tube station, are far more intrusive than a page advert in a magazine. A flashing, zooming, screeching flash advert on a webpage perhaps even more so. So there's an inevitability. Make your adverts intrusive and annoying, and people will want to skip them. And if they find a way, they will. (Believe me, if I could destroy the combined works of Titan, Clear Channel and JC Decaux who continue to blight the area I live in (usually without planning permission too), I would.) - 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, 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
On 2/27/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on the black list Ah. Other people might get irritated with the ads and therefore not go back to Slashdot. Instead, you want to get the content, but not want to let them have any chance of earning revenue from it. It's akin to stealing chocolate from the store because you believe the prices are 'over-high'. It's unethical. It's indefensible. It's wrong. You know it - I know it - we all know it. Your only ethical option is to Not Visit. Full-stop. Stop stealing, and stop boasting that you're stealing. Interestingly, we did some experiments on Virgin Radio's website with flash overlayz (you know, those horrid things that get in the way of content). I said to the sales manager: We'll do those, fine. The first complaint we get, we'll remove them from the site. She agreed. I believed that we'd get the first complaint within the first hour of the first day. We're still waiting for that first complaint, nine months later. The moral of the story? Complain, people. Please. If you don't complain, I can't tell the sales manager to take her crappy overlayz and shove them where the sun doesn't shine because our visitors don't want them. However, I should rush to point out - we no longer carry overlayz, because we believe nobody likes them. If only someone had complained, we'd have acted earlier. (Please give feedback about anything you see on that site to www.virginradio.co.uk/contact_us/?to=techies and I or one of my team will reply). -- http://james.cridland.net/
[backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
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=flogdefid=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/
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
James Cridland wrote: 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). And if those content blockers proliferate, so will Greasemonkey scripts to counter them. It's an arms race. Scot - 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, 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 doesnt 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
vijay chopra wrote: Try offering content that people want instead, and ask them to show support by clicking on the ads; I think asking people to click on the ads is against the Google's Adsense policy. https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=48182topic=8423 In particular: May not encourage users to click the Google ads by using phrases such as click the ads, support us, visit these links or other similar language Scot - 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: 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
On 26/02/07, Scot McSweeney-Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: vijay chopra wrote: Try offering content that people want instead, and ask them to show support by clicking on the ads; I think asking people to click on the ads is against the Google's Adsense policy. https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=48182topic=8423 In particular: May not encourage users to click the Google ads by using phrases such as click the ads, support us, visit these links or other similar language Scot Well I admit that I've not seen a site explicitly ask for support by saying click the ads but I've seen many say we depend on the ad revenue or similar, usually in threads on forums. Also, if there's no other noticeable form of revenue, it's a safe bet that project x depends on money from Adsense. Even if they don't clicking on ads it an easy way to show your support for a project. So that's what I do for good sites; I would recommend others do the same. Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth, however, you're Adblocked.
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
Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth, however, you're Adblocked. If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting in the first place? Cheers, Rich. - 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, 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
-Original Message- From: Richard Lockwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 February 2007 07:22 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth, however, you're Adblocked. If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting in the first place? Making his evaluation? Don't criticise something without first knowing what you're on about, etc etc. - 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/
