About Mike
Adblock - Savior or Scourge?
There is an interesting little plugin available for the Firefox browser going around called Adblock Plus that has some pretty significant implications for your Internet experience. This plugin erases all of the ads from web pages - stops them cold. No more Google Adsense ad, no more annoying pop-ups. Nirvana, right? Well maybe not. If you stop to think about the economics of the Internet this might not be a good thing. After all it is all that advertising that drives all the "free" sites we love. We all love Google but advertising is the price we pay to use it.
The NY Times quotes the developer of Adblock Plus as estimating that there about 2.5 million users of Adblock worldwide which is not yet enough to be a serious problem. He goes on to estimate that it is growing at about 300,000 to 400,000 users per month. I noted that a simple Technorati search of the term Adblock lists around 25 pages of blog references within the past seven days so it would appear that it is generating interest.
Apparently, for the time being Google is being quiet about all of this perhaps hoping it will not grow to be a significant problem. However, this does pose a "Sophie's choice" dilemma for them. As Nicholas Carr states:
The company [Google] is in a particularly dicey position. The broad adoption of ad-blocking software could devastate its business, yet an outright attempt to block the use of such programs would run counter to its often-expressed commitment to give users what they want. If web users decide they don't want to see ads, Google would face an extremely unpleasant dilemma. Either its business or its credibility would end up in tatters.
So what will happen?
Ultimately I think Google will try to block the use of such programs. The threat to their revenue base is just to great. Hopefully they and other companies will temper this by a more reasonable approach to advertising (but I'm not overly optimistic).
A lot of users (including me) don't mind advertising recognizing it as the "toll" we pay to use the information superhighway. However, we do mind those annoying popups and the continual barrage of ads. In my opinion that is what is driving the growth of Adblock Plus.
To counter this some sites being unable to stop Adblock Plus instead stop Firefox from accessing their site (see whyfirefoxisblocked ). As my mother might describe it this sounds like "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
The use of "in your face" advertising, Adblock Plus, and the blocking of certain browser types all seem to have something in common. All seem to be using technology to do things because they can be done rather than because they should be done.
As long as every side takes the maximum position I foresee a back and forth technology tug of war between the advertisers and the ad blockers. What it really takes is reasonableness on the part of everyone. I'm just asking for some balance. As Rodney King said, "People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?" I'd love to see this but experience doesn't make very optimistic this will happen.
What do you think will happen? Do you or would you consider using AdblockPlus ?
"Stop Sign, High Springs" photo by adobemac
If this topic was of interest, you might also like these:
- Nicholas Carr's Blog Post: Adblock Plus: the nuclear plug-in
- New York Times article "Whiting Out the Ads, but at What Cost?"
- Adblock Plus and (a little) more Yet Another Boring Blog
- Or the posts in the "Strategy & Management" category
Posted by Mike on
September 6, 2007 in
Branding and Marketing
, Internet
, Technology
, Web/Tech
| Permalink
Tell a Friend
View blog reactions
Actually, the NY Times article uses flawed logic. Blocking ads doesn't immediately "vaporise" revenues - it only makes the ads that are not blocked more valuable. See http://adblockplus.org/blog/ads-dont-generate-money
And another note: Adblock and Adblock Plus are different extensions. The former is abandoned, the latter alive an kicking. NY Times refers to Adblock Plus that you find at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865
Posted by: Wladimir Palant | Wladimir Palant | Sep 10, 2007 10:08:53 AM
Wladimir,
Thanks for your comments. The concept of making the ads not blocked all that more valuable is an interesting concept. I guess it will all depend on how widespread the use of such technology becomes.
As to the Adblock vs. Adblock Plus - you're absolutely correct. I should have been more careful in my shorthand reference and have correct that in the post. Thanks.
Mike
Posted by: Michael Schaffner | Michael Schaffner | Sep 10, 2007 9:44:26 PM
The purpose of blocking Firefox was to bring attention to the problem. And it has worked.
Wladimer Palant has been exposed as a hypocrite because rather than protecting against "bad ads" he rushed to upgrade AdBlock Plus this weekend to keep one site (mine) with no obtrusive ads, from detecting and blocking AdBlock plus users.His efforts have never been about freedom from bad ads, but empowering theft. Why not allow sites the ability to detect and block Ad Blocking software? AdBlock plus is the only ad blocking software that does that. Only a handful of sites ever blocked ad block users and few of them even had obtrusive ads.
Had Palant simply allowed site owners the ability to control their own content there would have been no problem. He has chosen to collaborate in defrauding hard working people of income and hypocritically calls it "freedom".
Blocking ads do not make those remaining more valuable. People who use ad blocking software do click on ads. All thieves rationalize how what they're doing somehow isn't really wrong. Palant is no different. Ad blocking reduces the monetization potential of sites.
Also, there is no technological war, and I can't understand why almost every blog and news site is trying to play that angle. It's an ethical war. It's a war of societal philosophies. It's between the Socialists that think everything should be free for the taking without regard to what it cost someone else, and the Capitalists who want people to be allowed to enjoy the fruit of their labor. I block Firefox with a simple method that will annoy a lot of people so attention can be brought to this problem. Mozilla is to cowardly to address it. But now we have a discussion going on, because of some fairly low tech coding that blocks Firefox users.
Site owners which non-obtrusive ads are punished by Palant's plug-in which he claims exists to help people avoid the bad ads. (and I've shown that isn't true). Yet the same people that defend punishing all publishers for the abuse of a few, seem to think it's horribly wrong to punish all Firefox users for the acts of the Corporation that makes it and which endorses an unethical plug-in.
Posted by: Danny Carlton | Danny Carlton | Sep 18, 2007 3:43:18 PM
Danny,
Thanks for stopping by.
Your comments in your last paragraph are particularly important in my opinion. It gets down to each side having a right to do what they do and the issue is the conflict point.
Personally, while there are some ads that are particularly obtrusive I've come to realize as I've said before that ads are the toll I pay for using the "information highway".
On of the issues is who has the right to control a sites content - the site owner or the site visitor. I tend towards the site owner and if I don't like what they do I "vote with my feet" so to speak and go somewhere else.
Mike
Posted by: Michael Schaffner | Michael Schaffner | Sep 20, 2007 9:19:34 AM