I saw a funny line written by a blogger today:
We won't stop you from using ad blocking software, but if you do use it we ask you to support the site another way: by purchasing a site subscription.
We won't stop you from using ad blocking software? Uh... thanks... Thanks, because you can't stop me anyway.
Personally, I think that advertisers shouldn't be too upset with ad blocking software. The people who install it don't want to see ads, and therefore don't care about the ads. With adblocking software, advertisers avoid paying for ads distributed to users who don't want them in the first place.
I don't have a problem with a site selling a subscription, but to expect one from those who use ad-blocking software is just absurd. That would be like the newspaper charging me twice the subscription price because I never look at the ads.
Comments
I'd hate to tell an advertiser that a site gets 20K page views a day and then find out that only 10K of those views are getting ads served. That would really piss of an advertiser who was paying a flat rate thinking they were getting 20K impressions daily but were only getting an actual impression rate of 10K daily.
I do my best with affiliate ads that are part of the content. I do this when I review a game or a tech product. I embed links to buy the item in the article. That way if someone likes the review and wants to buy the item they can and I get a cut of the sale.
I recently added two ad blocks to one of my forums. I did not want to do it but the site was sucking up so much server power I needed something to offset the cost. I did not want to go the route so many do with inline ads and ads all over the place so I just put one long banner and a small box up on top and out of the way. The space was empty anyways so no big deal.
What I hate is when sites shove ads all inside of their content. I know it performs better there but I still hate the way it disturbs my reading.
Surely there must be a better way to make up the hosting costs than just adverts.