From the "well, they would say that Dept":
CNet discusses the perceived unfairness of Ad-blocking software (to the site owners):
In the end, a few things are clear: Users of advertisement-skipping technology are essentially engaged in theft of resources. Web site owners have not, yet, wrapped their Web sites in shrinkwrap contracts, and so while the ad-skipping may be immoral, it certainly isn't illegal. Web site owners are perfectly within their rights to utilize any and all browser/extension/Web behavior detection technologies in order to blacklist the ad blockers. Similarly, creative users are more than within their rights to evade whatever detection technology the Web site designers use.
The real question to be answered is: will other Web site owners wish to get themselves into an arms race that they almost certainly cannot win?
That, as they say, is the billion dollar question (or $500 bn question in the case of the Ad industry).
I'm with Nick Carr on this, who
roughly typed that:
When a publisher or other supplier makes a decision to give something away free and to make money indirectly, by selling ads, the supplier and the advertiser are the ones who assume the risk that the ad will not reach its target. The reader or viewer never has an obligation to look at or to click on or even to load an advertisement. It's completely discretionary.
The tear jerking refrain that it despoils many a Wannabe 2.0's business plan is, in the grand scheme of things, tough sh*t. Hard words, but hear me out - as Nick notes, the viewer has not contracted into that obligation. Secondly, the Ad-side (in general) has not shown a propensity to treat the user with respect - Ad intrusiveness is fairly prevalent. More than that, intrusive Ads eat bandwidth, slow down pageloads and are a potential security risk, especially in an Enterprise 2.0 ecosystem.
Now one objection to this hard hearted attitude is that by denying Ads, all that delightful stuff that you get for free will go away. And thats a good point
So, where are we:
- Adblockers block all sites because some sites are overenthusiastic Ad users
- Adblocker blocking at present blocks anyone who uses Firefox, as it cannot discriminate between Adblocker users and not.
The problem is asymmetric information, so we need the site to tell us more about the level of Ad nastiness it will throw up, and the viewer to tell us something about their Ad-tolerance
We suspect the way around this is some form of handshake arrangement, where a site "rates" itself on its level of Ad intrusiveness - or more likely is "rated" by the viewer's browser exploring the site - and the viewers' browser decides to load the site or not - so that if it is too intrusive the viewer can make a decision as to whether the delightful content is worth the aggro.
And of course, this being 2007, you can go without having a social network that allows you to share your site blacklists with your budddies.....
Postscript....a later CNet post
here points out that we don't really even want a conversation with advertisers either:
I can't help but view conversational marketing as a thinly veiled attempt by the ad industry to insinuate itself into the popular social media craze. Calling it a "conversation" makes it sound benign and implies that it is consensual. Sure, I don't mind hearing about discounts on products I buy, and between all the outdoor, print, TV, radio and traditional online advertising, it's a safe bet that I will have heard about new products that I might want.
