It’s been nearly a month since I deleted all the ads from my site. Instead of pasting targeted distractions to my readers, I opted for simplicity. If readers wanted to support me, they could buy my book, donate, or share my work. Since then, an explosive dialogue surrounding the ethics and use of ad blockers has ensued. I decided to share my two cents on advertisers, marketing, and the “death of the web.”
Advertisers want us to believe that their commercials and banner ads inform us. They need us to consider their arguments, and think we’re making rational decisions in response. And they implant a picture of perfection – of what life could look like – with their products.
We’re supposed accept this bombardment of stimuli as the cost of accessing and reading websites. Go to The New York Times, and a slurry of ads feast over your metadata to predict what you might purchase next and serve up a healthy dose of consumerism. Behind the scenes, trackers surreptitiously soak up your browsing history, location, and personal data.
This is the cost of being a content consumer in the 21st century, and for years, we’ve accepted it. Until recently, when the entire Internet exploded in euphoria and vitriol over Apple’s new mobile operating system (iOS). It’s most recent update empowered users to install “content blockers,” which would effectively eliminate advertisements in the mobile browser.
These ad blockers allow users to surf the web cleanly. The busy and distracting pages disappear – suddenly the content comes into focus. Trackers suffer and people’s profiles can’t be built as easily. Now, companies struggle to personalize ads via privacy infractions.
As the browsing experience improves, profit revenue decreases. It’s a perfect inverse correlation. The web feels calmer without ads. I don’t have to be defensive and avert my eyes.
Over the last few weeks, publishers worldwide have clambered to their keyboards, predicting apocalypses. The Verge conducted a poll of its users, which found that 78% said “Yes” they will use an ad blocker. Without ad revenue, how will they survive?! If everyone turns off the ads, how will companies make money?
Publishers are already predicting that companies will cease to exist. One quote from PC Mag highlights the hyperbolic language: “With this move, users will eventually wonder why their favorite website died before finding another set of content to plunder.” Supposedly, a content pirate will kill sites left and right because of their ad blocker use.
Wired highlighted the plight of Google’s profits in an almost sympathetic tone: “Google depends almost entirely on ads for revenue. By one estimate, the giant may be losing billions of dollars from these kind of browser blocking extensions.” What will the massive, multinational corporation do without its record-breaking ad revenue?
Adding to the publisher outcries is The Verge’s Nilay Patel, who said ad blockers could mean the “Death of the web.” Then he added that “taking money and attention away from the web means that web innovation will slow to a crawl.” Wow! Death, as in ceasing to exist. That’s pretty extreme, right? Without ads, your computer literally would cease to surf – browsers would be pointless.
The problem with all this fear mongering is that it’s flawed. The web was not invented by corporate interests; rather, it was a governmental invention that became a public good. Advertising wasn’t part of the equation. Profit wasn’t the sole motivator to those who innovated in the early days of the Internet.
Even today, much of the web exists because of volunteers, governments, and public grants. Open source projects like Wikipedia, Ubuntu, and Firefox are perfect examples of how third-party ads needn’t be the sole source of innovation or income.
Interestingly, in this ad-infested web, major publishers have grown to bloated proportions. Many recycle other news outlets’ content and repackage it as their own. Companies like The Verge, Wired, and PC Mag occasionally publish top-notch journalistic pieces, but they’re most often caught up in quasi-advertisement “product reviews” and republishing. It’s lazy work to draw eyeballs, not critical thinking. To lose these companies would be awful, as I must admit I enjoy them, but we’d move on.
We’ve come to a crossroads as publishers and consumers. Should we put up with ads or use ad blockers? Should we accept distraction or simplicity? Should we keep the status quo or demand an alternative?
Some suggest paywalls, which force readers to subscribe for content. I can guarantee that circulation will drop immensely and many won’t pay (here’s looking at one of them). If it’s news, it’ll be printed somewhere else in a non-subscription form. And if it’s not reprinted, then it can’t be that important, can it? So, that idea’s gone.
Others promote the concept of paid articles. Many publishers have already experimented with advertiser-paid articles such as The New York Times and The Verge. Instead of reading a non-biased, semi-objective piece of journalism, readers have the distinct privilege of reading a lengthy advertisement. Again, everyone loses if the web destroys objectivity in journalism.
We live at a time of immense progress; ironically, technology is contending with these advances. Ad blockers censor and clean the web of the dirty bits. You no longer need to continually feel compelled to buy, buy, buy. Nor do pages deliver 20, 30, or 40+ trackers to your computer.
The rationale is clear: the web is better when it’s simpler. But questions remain about the sustainability of any company once their ad revenue dries up.
Here’s where I must be slightly callous. Frankly, capitalism is said to be flexible and adaptive. The invisible hand is supposed to morph and move with demand. There are companies constantly winning and losing in this roulette wheel of life – not everyone wins all the time. The companies that can successfully adapt to changing market forces… They’re the winners in this game.
Either way, the web is here to stay.
Kudos for simplifying your site, Sam! And I’m in agreement with a lot of your points. Clearly, many of these sites need to change their entire model. Paywalls don’t work. And as blockers will only continue to grow in use. Native advertising works, but at what cost to the readers?
I am obviously not up to date on technology, because this is the first I’ve heard about the apple software. I will be looking into it, and updating my phone. I can not stand to go to a sight to read an article, but can’t because the ads take over. I have already quit visiting a number of sites due to this.
I’ve used Firefox since it was available, and I’ve used their ad blocker for years. I love it! Now I use mobile devices exclusively, and most mobile web pages are free of ads, because they take so long to load. Those that aren’t, I rarely go to, no matter how much I like the content, because they are obnoxious.
The web will adapt, like all things, if most people start using ad blockers and mobile devices. I agree with Sam that “fluff” and “filler” articles will decrease. The only point of tem is to increase clicks, to increase ad revenue.
If they need to poke and prod, interrupt, and track me in order to get my attention and convince me to buy their product, then I clearly do not need it. What I need, I will seek out and buy, advertisement or not. So do I care if their ad revenue dries up and they go out of business? Not one iota. I am so tired of the incessant noise, the banners, the flags, the flashing lights, the ticker tapes, the tv screens, the garish colors. Leave my senses be!
Ads never bothered me, I barely look at them. I have never been into shopping and no amount of ads can change that. So I’m ok with them as long as they don’t blast sounds at me. By the way, on this site, there are 3 requests from LinkedIn, 6 from Google, 5 from Pinterest and another 6 from Automattic.
Yewen,
Thanks for your comment. Appreciate you sharing your experience with advertisements. I’m glad to hear you’re able to resist the drives that ads sometimes cause. As for the “requests,” you are correct that different companies have services delivered, but these are different from advertising trackers. Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, etc. are all to serve the social networking widgets. Additionally, the Automattic request is for my internal statistics so that I can understand how popular an article is. More relevantly, I do not serve any trackers via advertisements, and I’m constantly looking to minimize how many requests the site makes.
Sam
I’ve only just started trying to monetize my blog so you are obviously further along the life cycle of PF blogging than me, but a bit like the commenter above, I almost never even look at advertisements. It’s quite ironic that I am now putting them on my blog, but no one seems to care (perhaps be a use they don’t notice them either).
I personally try to reduce exposure to advertising in my life, but the web seems different. For some reason the ads don’t seem to annoy me anywhere near as much, perhaps because they are a lot less effective and don’t interrupt me (like they would on TV or radio)?
I installed an ad blocker when watching a sporting event (legally too) that tortured me with the same commercial about 30 times 3.5 hour period. The same commercial would play 3-4 times in a row before I could watch the action again. I hated the commercial, I hate the product and I hated the site for ruining the sporting event.
I love your website without ads. I’ve also opted to be ad free on my site (I decided from the beginning not to have them). And I use an ad blocker. I avoid sites with lots of ads. I’m looking for content when I’m online, not advertisements (which I work to avoid in all parts of my life).
I don’t like being bombarded by ads, especially when a tracker has been soaking up my metadata, as you said. Ads are certainly a one-sided argument, and our generation is so distractable that it’s all too easy to wind up buying new shoes when you just wanted to read the news. Congrats on going ad-free.
Yes, I have wrote this post elsewhere but it definitely expresses my feelings to the fullest of how I feel and I make no aplogies for it so here’s my comment/rant:
The fact is no matter the ad or what its for it should NEVER exist. If ads are required for the site the run then it just needs to go down permanently. Yes, I know I’m firing at Youtube, Google, Yahoo and other sites but I don’t care as they all can go under if ads are a required for the existence of these sites. If a site blocks me for using an ad blocker that’s fine but I’m NOT dropping my blocker, I just get the info elsewhere. There are many many ways to get info for free on the internet and that won’t change at all even if half the web dies due to ad blockers as it if this happens it will only be a better internet.
BTW better subscription based than ad based. I use Netflix, no ads. Siriusxm, no ads Hulu Premium, no ads. I do not subscribe to Cable or satellite due to ads or listen to AM/FM radio. To get weather info I have a weather radio, again, no ads.
I had tens of web sites, starting from March 2002. Yes, over 13 years DEDICATED to my passion. I closed down tens of web sites and sold few, because I could no longer afford to pay thousands of bucks to provide ‘free’ content. I had web hosting costs, domain names, various platforms (forum especially: Vbulletin, IPB, Xenforo etc.). Fortunately for me, I am a web designer, so I never had to pay for this service.
As soon as I had to close down web sites, people came to say it’s a pity, the site was so great. Yeah, it was. All of them were. But I could no longer spend 8 hours/day (at least) and a lot of money to provide content for free.
Right now I focus on very few projects and they HAVE to earn me revenue. I cannot be a volunteer anymore, I have a family, I need to provide for them.
I never used adblockers, because I KNOW what it takes to provide the stuff others take for granted. If I find a web site too intrusive with advertising, I stop visiting. I don’t block their revenue stream and then still come back to use their content.
Right now, I have also removed my adsense ads, since they underperformed for years. But I am looking for ways to monetize, otherwise I’ll just close down everything and do something more lucrative. My time is money as well 🙂
Quick question for you here and you might not be able to answer but I’d like to support – for instance by buying your book – I’ve got Amazon prime – What’s the best option to support you in this buy it from Amazon or Borrow it with my Prime membership?
Andy,
Thanks for your help! You can support me either way, but yes, purchasing the Kindle book from Amazon pays more than the Borrow with prime. Whatever you decide, it’s up to you! 🙂
Really appreciate it!
Sam