Re: ad-blocking software

From: Maria Helm <mrs_helm_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Fri 17 Mar 2000 10:38:37 -0500

JOHN GASKILL WROTE:
> 1.) Programs which strip ads are not
> much different from TV set mute buttons

They are quite different! With a mute button, the user
is first exposed to the ad and has the CHOICE to mute
it or leave it play. Most people have a mute button,
but few go to the trouble of using it on every single
commercial. Plus, the user must determine when to turn
the sound back on - which means looking at the TV and
possibly seeing an advertisement, even if they aren't
hearing it. Mute buttons do not completely cut the user
off from the sponsor - they just reduce the exposure at
the user's discretion.

ROB FRANKEL WROTE:
> Just out of curiosity, how is this different from TV
> commercial zappers? If someone invented a zapper
> that ran rock videos instead of ads (of course, rock
> videos ARE ads), who would complain?

If the product was likely to go into the home of every
TV consumer, I think the advertisers WOULD complain!!!
(And ad-blocking software distributed over the internet
is more readily available than a physical product,
which is why it worries people.) Just what do you think
"a word from our sponsors" means? Those advertisers
"sponsor" the shows. If their ads are no longer being
seen, there is no profit in sponsoring the show. They
bank on the fact that viewers often find a show they
like and leave it on that TV channel long enough to be
exposed to their ad at some point. In the case of a TV
ad blocker, though, It is unlikely to end up in
everyone's home. No matter how cheaply they can sell
it, most viewers are so used to TV ads they aren't
going to bother. And I think that the same will
eventually be true about ads on the web. Don't agree?
Well, has anyone ever tried to promote a service that
would replace all the ads in your magazine/newspaper
before you get it? (Those ads can be just as annoying -
especially the ones that are formatted to look like an
article.)

> many of you have the attitude that the www was invented
> expressly for your benefit, not the users.'

I think everyone here knows otherwise, it is just that
it is their JOB to determine how their company can use
it to their benefit. And who says it is to the benefit
of the user to never see an ad for a product? They
might be in need of our product. Ideally, our ads are
reaching people who ARE in need of our product - people
who are grateful they heard of us!!

> 2.) If the content "quality" of the advertiser
> supported "free" sites is such that people are
> unwilling to pay to receive it (either via watching ads
> or through subscriptions) those site will fade into
> black.

If that is true, it is going to be a lonely world in
cyberspace. There are a lot of quality sites I use
daily that I, as a consumer, would not pay to subscribe
to. Just because, like many people, I am -admittedly-
cheap. But I do have the time to view/ignore an ad
while I'm there. Fortunately, it is not true. Haven't
you seen all the really junky free sites out there?

I remember hearing about ad-blocking software a few
years ago, and it didn't catch on then. I don't know if
it will catch on now, either. I think most people have
gotten so used to banner ads I can't imagine going to
the trouble of blocking them - just ignore them. All us
cheap people certainly wouldn't pay for the ad-blocking
software. And even if it was free (I don't see how they
could be unless it is replaced with other ads?!) it
still is going to use resources on my PC and slow down
my overall performance at least minimally. Users will
eventually catch on to that and many will choose a
faster system over blocking ads.

> They'll only take being hit across the face with
> a 2x4 so many times before they go the other way,
> never to return.

I think this mostly applies to the very few sites the
place multiple ads on each page - usually sites run as
someone's hobby with an attempt to make a little money
on the side. Yes, the user will go elsewhere - because
they can't find useful content! Most serious sites
which have the intent to sell/provide a product or
service are very considerate about their placement of
ads. They realize the consumer is there for their
content, and will return for their content, and
therefore must be served the content - or they won't
return and the banner ad will never generate revenue
anyways.

Especially with the growth of affiliate programs, many
consumers are now aware of how the ads support the
sites. We can only hope that they realize they would be
shooting themselves in the foot if ad-blocking software
becomes so widespread that it eliminates web site ads
and renders every non-commerce web site a pay-per-view.



Received on Fri Mar 17 2000 - 09:38:37 CST