why are you embarrassed ?

I'm embarassed by your inability to understand (or admit) that your street performer analogy makes no sense. Let me try again.

A person wants to go from point A to point B. What the street performer do is place himself between point A and B. And what are the publishers? Publishers are point B, the destination. Can you see the difference now?

My hosting is truly unlimited bandwidth and space..

Apparently you don't understand how hosting works. There's no such thing as unlimited bandwidth and space. If that was true, Google and Amazon would move their servers to the same hosting provider you are using. You just think you have unlimited bandwidth because you don't have enough traffic to reach the limit, that's all.

Stealing is taking permanently what someone has ( actual money "in hand")..you are talking about adblockers affecting your "potential income" ( note that I do not say potentially affecting your income ).."potential income" cannot be stolen, because before you actually have it..it doesn' t exist..and what doesn't exist..cannot be stolen..

The price I set to see my content is to view the ads. If you don't pay the price, you are stealing. Potential income is not part of the equation.

[edited by: thms at 2:27 am (utc) on Aug 27, 2015]

@csdude55
But they are not shown on your own sites ..they are shown on the users own browsers, using their bandwidth ( an adblocker actually means that you the site owner use no more bandwidth than if there was no adblocker, the ads are not being served from your server ) ..and the users can do what they want with their browsers..including use adblockers , or switching off images ( or any other file type ..such as is done with flash )..So ..I repeat..if you want adblockers used by users on their own computers, outlawed by law..You'd have to also want any file type that can deliver advertising ( that you or the 3rd party networks use ) made mandatory..including mandatory flash use ..because soem ad networks use flash ads..

The adblocker merely provides a point and click GUI to interface with the hosts file of a computer.. some of the IP addresses that it "blocks" may be used to serve ads via script calls from your site..But it isn't blocking the IP address of your site...
It works in the same way that a browser GUI allows to accept or deny calling for, loading , displaying certain file types..which may also be either hosted on your site, or called via scripts on your site from other sites, and they may serve adds..

Want to ban web browsers with GUIs that allow choice of file types to call to or display..

That will leave you with lynx..( and a few other text only browsers ) ..hard to deliver ads via lynx..

One can block file types and IP addresses of adservers that your site may be calling to via the command line interface..or terminal..

Want to ban that..

Adblockers cannot be put back into the box..they are a reaction to abusive ad companies and abusive ad serving sites..

Sites that did not abuse , are collateral damage..websites that do not adapt to adblockers existing ( and by adapt I do not mean block the users who use the adblockers ) will die..

When it is pouring with rain..the adaptable sell umbrellas ..or even supply plastic bags to keep their visitors heads dry..

Those who don't adapt to the rain..or merely complain, or think that "anti rain" legislation is the answer, will get wet, catch cold, get ill, and maybe die..

Offer something so usefull and interesting to your visitors that they will whitelist you..explain to them how to do it..

Why did people begin to use Google and not Yahoo ..because Yahoo was massy and you couldn't tell the ads from the content..and Google was simple unobtrusive ads..

Google search engine query pages still are..and people allow scripts beacuse the results pages are usefull to them..and don't have all singing all dancing ads in them..

Google keeps the kind of ads that people don't like so much for adsense..especially the creepy tracking following you around from site to type..

@thms..
Nope ..you are not getting the analogy..
The performer is not getting in between the person ( visitor ) and their destination ( website ) ...the performer is the destination ( website )..I made that perfectly clear..the visitor moves from site to site..from performer to performer..if you insist on the word , from "publisher" to "publisher" ( you do insist on using adsense terms, I can guess your site's income source ) ..the ads are the sandwich boards that the performers wear..

My hosting doesn't notify me if I'm using below 50 terra per month..and even then they'd not charge me extra..they'd charge me for the faster servers that they'd move me to..

and no..I(m not saying who I use in this case*..they are friends..and they try to avoid potentially difficult customers ..

I have been doing this "interwebs" thing a long time, and working with computers since the days of punch cards back in the early 70s..I was even involved directly in hosting around 2K..( back in the days before adsense ) wrote about it here a few years back..probably before you got on the internet..

The "price you set to see your content is to see the ads"..and the visitor doesn't know that you are going to use their bandwidth to show them ads until they hit your pages..

Or you could tell them up front....when they are still in the search engine..you could make the first paragrpah of every page say something like " this site uses ads to pay its owners costs and salary, you must allow scripts that allow ads , no adblockers allowed on this site"..that ( if on every page at the first paragraph, and maybe in the meta description,the search engines would index that as your "snippet" in many cases, it would let your potential visitors know what your terms are, before you waste their bandwidth and data allowance with your landing page displaying in their browser, on their machine, the bandwidth that they are paying for..

As to your definition of what is part of the equation..

You really don't get it do you..you cannot impose an contract on a visitor before they arrive..not legally, nor morally..a lawyer specialising in contracts will tell you the same..if they can stop laughing at the mere idea of it..

So..put your pages behind a paywall..then you'll see if the visitor thinks that they are worth paying to see..

Simple..

* I host in various places and countries .. for GEO targeting reasons..

[edited by: Leosghost at 3:00 am (utc) on Aug 27, 2015]

When it is pouring with rain..the adaptable sell umbrellas ..or even supply plastic bags to keep their visitors heads dry..

Those who don't adapt to the rain..or merely complain, or think that "anti rain" legislation is the answer, will get wet, catch cold, get ill, and maybe die..

I agree that those who don't adapt will go out of business. But in this case, the final say is in the hands of the publishers. A few lines of code is all that is needed to prevent adblockers to access content. So it's the adblockers who will have to adapt.

My hosting doesn't notify me if I'm using below 50 terra per month..and even then they'd not charge me extra..they'd charge me fro teh faster servers that they'd move me to..

.I even was involved directly in hosting around 2K

Bandwidth is a useless metric. That's why they say "unlimited bandwidth". The bottleneck is the CPU or RAM.

I just wanted to post a couple more thoughts here:

1) The internet existed before internet advertising, or internet based companies. It's foundings are in academia. Even if 100% of all ads got blocked tomorrow, the internet wouldn't cease to exist. A different crowd would step in to fill in the content gap.
2) If you try and block adblock users, get ready to be deindexed. Most search engines don't load advertising (i.e. they work like an adblock user). I've watched a site disappear first hand...they started blocking adblock users...suddenly they disappeared from google. They never recovered. Google also detects and penalizes sites that display different content to the user vs google. In addition, remember that you aren't the only fish in the sea. There are other competitors out that don't rely on ad revenue or don't block adblock users.
3) Adblock apps will always outsmart you. If you have a script that detects adblock, they'll find a way to outsmart it (load ads in hidden copy of page, then blow it away once the scripts execute for example...or they could fake things altogether for the biggest networks).

The better solution is to a) Come up with a better business model. Have a subscription plan in place. You'd be surprised at the conversion rate...and once things get going...the revenue. One of my competitors was earning more than a million a month ($10/mo, more than 100,000 subscribers) at his peak...AND HE WAS A ONE MAN SHOP (he quit because he got burned out). b) Don't direct your anger towards adblockers...instead direct it towards the publishers that don't behave. They are driving adblock adoption. If everyone only had 2-3 ads per page, all placed in un-obnoxious places...do you think that adblock would exist and have the growth that is has? Adblock software is the response to a problem that has continued to get worse.

That being said, saw a couple comments about media.net earlier...Microsoft has all but severed ties with media.net FYI. I suspect they are only still partners thanks to a lengthy contract.

Thankyou eek2121..But you may still not convince those who apparently know better and wish to accept no voices of reason..

5.20 am here, I'm done trying to lead horses to water for hydration for their own good today..

btw..thms..bandwidth isn't the "useless metric" in hosting deals ..because bandwith depends on the agreements that the hosters have with the "upstream" and so on up the chain ( shorter chain, more bandwidth, DC on a "backbone" is best )..the useless metric in hosting is "unlimited disk space"*..because disc space has physical limits per box config..No hosters offer unlimited CPU and or RAM..the laws of physics won't allow it..

* unless you are running your sites(s) on a "cloud" like Amazon's elastic"..where, as you use more space (and CPU and RAM ) they'll expand what you have access to, and charge you in near real time for..hosting that way..you can ..Go really viral..and go really broke..in less than 60 minutes..especially if no one clicks on the ads :)

But they are not shown on your own sites ..they are shown on the users own browsers, using their bandwidth ( an adblocker actually means that you the site owner use no more bandwidth than if there was no adblocker, the ads are not being served from your server ) ..and the users can do what they want with their browsers..including use adblockers , or switching off images ( or any other file type ..such as is done with flash )..So ..I repeat..if you want adblockers used by users on their own computers, outlawed by law..You'd have to also want any file type that can deliver advertising ( that you or the 3rd party networks use ) made mandatory..including mandatory flash use ..because soem ad networks use flash ads..

The adblocker merely provides a point and click GUI to interface with the hosts file of a computer.. some of the IP addresses that it "blocks" may be used to serve ads via script calls from your site..But it isn't blocking the IP address of your site...
It works in the same way that a browser GUI allows to accept or deny calling for, loading , displaying certain file types..which may also be either hosted on your site, or called via scripts on your site from other sites, and they may serve adds..

Want to ban web browsers with GUIs that allow choice of file types to call to or display..

That will leave you with lynx..( and a few other text only browsers ) ..hard to deliver ads via lynx..

One can block file types and IP addresses of adservers that your site may be calling to via the command line interface..or terminal..

Want to ban that..

Don't misunderstand me, I'm neither a legislator nor an attorney, and I'm in no position to determine all of the intricacies of the law. I think that there's a significant difference between (1) owning a business (like Adblock Plus) that only exists to hurt the income of other businesses and that openly extorts money from ad networks, and (b) turning off optional software on your own computer. But I'm no law writer.

My point has been that, when ad blockers cause enough harm to the US economy, then the US government will have no choice but to step in.

As this thread began, ad blockers have already cost the world economy $21.8 billion in just 8 months. Assuming that nothing changes, this will be about $32 billion by the end of the year. That's about the same as the ExxonMobile annual revenue in 2014*, and Exxon was #2 on the Forbes 500 list.

If Exxon were to disappear tomorrow, the world would notice, and the government would quickly intervene. Which is ironic when you consider the negative environmental impact that Exxon has had on the world, and the fact that their bankruptcy would affect a much smaller percent of the population than if online microbusinesses all closed up at once. But the government(s) pay little attention to those microbusinesses, or the fact that ad blockers are already having a significantly negative impact on the economy.

Do I think that legislation is the answer? No, not really. I believe that, if people recognized the damage they were causing and would simply think long term, then the majority of society itself would stop using ad blockers. But do I think that legislation is inevitable, due mainly to the negative economic impact? Yes, I do.

* [news.exxonmobil.com...]

Don't direct your anger towards adblockers...instead direct it towards the publishers that don't behave. They are driving adblock adoption. If everyone only had 2-3 ads per page, all placed in un-obnoxious places...do you think that adblock would exist and have the growth that is has? Adblock software is the response to a problem that has continued to get worse.

Since this was first mentioned, I've given thought to this, and I can't think of a time in the last several years that I've even seen a site that matches this description. The closest that come to mind are those slow-as-molasses sites where you have to keep clicking through a slideshow.

But as I said before, I believe that most ad blockers were installed as an ignorant knee-jerk reaction to spyware, not against obnoxious publishers. I believe that the majority of people would simply have chosen to not visit the obnoxious website, as opposed to installing additional software to allow them to view that site without the minor annoyances.

[edited by: bill at 5:11 am (utc) on Aug 28, 2015]

might help the search engines if there was a meta tag for sites that deny their content to adblockers.

:)

A different crowd would step in to fill in the content gap.

Yes. Information would be produced by a much smaller contingent of publishers, those who can afford to publish without recourse to advertising. So you are happy to see information published chiefly by government, business and the wealthy. That's a bigger threat to your privacy and freedom than a few cookies.

Most search engines don't load advertising (i.e. they work like an adblock user). I've watched a site disappear first hand...they started blocking adblock users...suddenly they disappeared from google. They never recovered. Google also detects and penalizes sites that display different content to the user vs google.

A ludicrously contradictory argument. If search engines don't load advertising, how do they know if sites are blocking adblockers? And don't say bounce rates. Some of my sites have very high bounce rates AND ads, yet they continue to climb in SERPs.

There are other competitors out that don't rely on ad revenue or don't block adblock users.

There are now. The question is whether they'll be still be there when adblocking reaches 70, 80 or 90 percent. I very much doubt it. Chances are they'll lock their doors and you'll be paying. For sites that "don't rely on ad revenue", see point one above.

Adblock apps will always outsmart you.

That argument is so ridiculous it's not worth responding to.

Thankyou eek2121..But you may still not convince those who apparently know better and wish to accept no voices of reason.

Claiming to be the 'voice of reason' is usually the first sign of unreasonableness. I don't "know better" and neither do you, despite your repeated claims to authority. We act as we think appropriate for our circumstances, based on our aims and experiences.

How can it possibly be legal for a company (eg, an ad blocker) to say, "I am going to actively hurt your business, unless you agree to give me 30% of the revenue that you would have lost to me"? By definition, that's extortion.

Not any more or less legal than any Search Engine or a scraper/MFA scraping your content and slapping Ads all over your content while you actively allowing "that" search engine or a scraper/MFA do so. Try to think that way. Cost of doing business now days, isn't it?

At this point one might say but that search engine gives me traffic! It is up to the site owner to decide how to monetize that traffic. If that traffic is blocked(blank screen as some suggest) then you make 0 quid/groszy/zilch from it, Cost of doing business - again.

Not any more or less legal than any Search Engine or a scraper/MFA scraping your content and slapping Ads all over your content while you actively allowing "that" search engine or a scraper/MFA do so.

Incorrect. All my content is copyrighted and clearly indicated as such. If a scraper steals it and uploads it elsewhere, he is in violation of the laws of my country and perhaps his own. The problem is that copyright is difficult to enforce across borders. You shouldn't conflate a publisher's inability to deal with scrapers or content thieves as consent.

If that traffic is blocked(blank screen as some suggest) then you make 0 quid/groszy/zilch from it, Cost of doing business - again.

If it's left open to adblock users I make zilch from it anyway. If the adblock users rely on my site (as many of them do) then they either comply and whitelist or they don't. Those that do earn me some revenue via CPM ads. It's a de facto paywall really.

1. ...You shouldn't conflate a publisher's inability to deal with..
2. ...Those that do earn me some revenue via CPM ads...

see!,

Replace the rest of the sentence 1 with AND/OR EVOLVE.
Add to sentence 2 a question for your self: What else can I do with that traffic? Show me the Money sort of question.

added.
I am walking on the street and I am color blind, here is your store that has peanuts. I am wearing a pair of shades that clearly identify me as color blind. There were at least 5 people wearing the same shape of shades that went in but did not pay attention to your peanuts. Would you shut your front door when you see me trying to get near the peanuts?

Sorry, I've read enough silly analogies on this thread already. Not buying into another.

As already explained, any publisher with any sense will be looking at alternatives for monetisation. They should have been doing that anyway. The bigger question is how will your love of ad-free free content change the face of the web? That's the question you adblock propagandists won't seem to consider.

I would like to point out that ad blocking is larger than many think.. For example, at this moment I'm sitting Columbus,Ohio's airport (CMH) using the free airport internet access and cannot see any AdSense ads on any website (except Google of course). I travel extensively and often while at my clients place of business I show my website and various webpages and it is not uncommon to have my AdSense ads blocked by the business firewall or whatever...

My single banner ads show at this moment which are delivered by a commercial advertising software suite run from my server.

I have been aware of this for many years and have mentioned this years ago on this very website.

I'm truly glad that adblocking concerns have become more front and center..

Sorry, I've read enough silly analogies on this thread already. Not buying into another.

Aw, come on, I was just getting ready to use a High Performance Engine analogy. ARGH!

As already explained, any publisher with any sense will be looking at alternatives for monetisation. They should have been doing that anyway.

I'm still waiting to see answers to dethfire's original question as to what the solution(s) are. We're 8 pages into this topic and I've not seen any viable solutions yet.

The bigger question is how will your love of ad-free free content change the face of the web?

I'm expecting to start paying a small fee to access some content that I may need to see. I have no problem with that concept, it's been a long time coming. I just don't think it's going to work well for many based on their current business models. Not only that, there are way too many players in the mix, someone, somewhere will always be offering similar content for free.

If your business model relies on someone else's content wrapped with your affiliate advertising, that business model is DEAD. I know, there's no one participating in this topic with that type of business model. Problem is, that is what I mostly run into when visiting sites. There are too many damn middle men between the originator of the content and the distribution thereof - and everyone in-between is trying to get into your pockets.

So, over the next year we're hopefully going to see some cleansing of the SERPs. As a long time consumer of the SERPs, I'm looking forward to it.

On a related note, back in April 2015, YouTube announced plans for an "Ad-Free Subscription" based model coming later this year. They've already got one "viable solution" in the works. How long will all of you be participating in this topic before you start implementing your solution(s)?

Disclaimer: I am a Publisher with NO advertising involved. I am also an Advertiser e.g. Google, Facebook, Twitter.

I'm still waiting to see answers to dethfire's original question as to what the solution(s) are. We're 8 pages into this topic and I've not seen any viable solutions yet.

You've seen plenty of 'solutions'. Blocking adblockers. Pay per view or subscription paywalls. Serverside or embedded advertising. Sponsored articles, advertorials and other forms of advertising merged with content. If you don't consider those "viable" then that's bad luck. Unless someone comes up with something better, they'll be the logical outcomes of the revolution you support.

If your business model relies on someone else's content wrapped with your affiliate advertising, that business model is DEAD.

I don't think anyone here will mourn those kinds of sites.

On a related note, back in April 2015, YouTube announced plans for an "Ad-Free Subscription" based model coming later this year.

Good should consider something similar for web content. Though I can see a Google-managed subscription service being fraught with problems and less likely to pay the bills.

Sorry, I've read enough silly analogies on this thread already. Not buying into another.

Totally agree with that one, lets keep it clean then.

The point I was trying to make that there is a demographic, want it or not, that has a potential of being monetized, your site or the next door neighbor who wakes up to the fact faster than the other guy.

@P1R > HPE > LOL

Problem is, that is what I mostly run into when visiting sites.

Problem was that some Conglomerate created a revenue stream model that allowed this to become profitable, mainstream. It was a brilliant move on their end of WWW. It created a competitors, winners and losers and so on, and so on... Pure Capitalism, Capitalize of someone else`s efforts.

@ Edge

I would like to point out that ad blocking is larger than many think..

I know several IT departments in US(FED Gov and Intl Commercial Comps, over 100k employees at some) where AdServers IPs/URLS are baked either in firewalls of host file via AD Group Policy to 0.0.0.0 for several years now. Saves on Bandwidth.

1. Blocking Ad Blockers
   
2. Pay Per View or Subscription Paywalls
   
3. Serverside or Embedded Advertising
   
4. Sponsored Articles
   
5. Advertorials
   
6. Other forms of advertising merged with content
   

Ah, that's what I needed to see trebuchet, an ordered list of the "viable solutions" so far. This works for me, I'm a bit ADD. :)

[edited by: pageoneresults at 2:14 pm (utc) on Aug 27, 2015]

Google should consider something similar for web content.

I'd pay a monthly subscription to utilize Google, would ALL of you? I'd want Ad-Free content across ALL Google properties.

The bigger question is how will your love of ad-free free content change the face of the web?

Not a "lover of ad free content"..
But adblockers will IMO change the face of the web for the better..
Some, may however, ( if they choose to block adblockers, or if their sites are not able to adapt in other ways ) need to practice asking "would you like fries with that"..it will give them an alternative for when the adsense checks begin drying up..

That's the question you adblock propagandists won't seem to consider.

We have ( or at least I know with certainty that I have) considered it..
My response is above..

You apparently consider any answer that does not match what you want to hear,( ie: an answer that dissagrees with you ) to be "invalid" as an answer..

it is not uncommon to have my AdSense ads blocked by the business firewall or whatever..

Indeed , been going on for years, so some might say that we should ban firewalls..accuse them of "stealing" and / or nuke them from orbit, after all, it is the only way to be sure..;)

My single banner ads show at this moment which are delivered by a commercial advertising software suite run from my server.

One of many "practical " solutions, which have already existed for years..

BTW as the U.S.A national debt is at $18 trillion and getting worse..( and with the country in hock to the P.R.C which holds all the scrip and whose economy is "sneezing" at the moment ) $18 billion is small change ( and almost a "rounding error" by comparison ) to the U.S.A governments concerns.....( U.S.A governments of any colour )..For comparison apple briefly lost $75 billion in the last few days..( due to concerns over the Chinese economy ) and then came back higher than last Fridays close..$18 billion ( and that is "short" billions ) of money ( not "lost" money ) that didn't go from advertisers bank accounts to search engine and website owners ( sonly some of whom are small businesses ) accounts..Didn't get "lost", didn't vanish..it stayed where it was , in a different part of the economy, consumers pockets and bank accounts ( as any ad person knows, advertising costs are included in the cost of what one sells, the consumer pays for the ads )..Google and the government ( or any of the candidates, no matter what they might say ) are not going to do anything about this, unless someone discretely gives them a big bag of cash, "or its equivalent in kind"..

Because they don't care, and for webmasters, dealing with those who don't see the ads ( because of adblockers, or firewalls , or those who surf with images off, "is just another cost of doing business" )..and again, if Google have to choose between fighting / paying for adwords to not be "blocked", and fighting along side of websmasters for adsense to not be "blocked"..well they already chose didn't they..

And their lawyers ( if the search engines and the big ad agencies were actually considering themselves threatened or concerned by adblockers ) will have already looked into the "legal" issues, and the "lobbying for legislation" possibilities..and said "Nah, we are OK with this, we can buy our way onto the whitelists, and legally we don't stand a chance of being able to ban either them or their use, or being able to get the law changed to ban them or their use" ..

Now , I'm off to do something constructive, I have stock to shoot photos of and to ship..and ads to put on servers ready to be served from said servers, some of which may get blocked, some may get through, that latter "some" will be enough.. :)

Every visitor that you block because they use adblockers, and who goes "elsewhere" is one more potential customer for those of us who don't block them..

Thanks ( in anticipation ) for the additional traffic.. :)

hi P1R (I second blend27 re LOls ;)

I'd pay a monthly subscription to utilize Google, would ALL of you? I'd want Ad-Free content across ALL Google properties.

Only if they agree to stop bouncing me to Google.fr when I'm on android..and I actually type Google.com..yeah I know I could set up a VPN and use it..but they could just let me get to where I actually said I wanted to go..you think Google.com is crappy of late..you haven't seen Google.fr..in English it is like Google.com but with added spam fest, and in French..far far worse..

It has been mentioned, but not repeated, that many who use adblockers do so because they are unwilling to accept third party content/scripts. When we click on a link from the serps to view a page, we want that page, not the collateral stuff that might be injected into the "transaction" we agreed (by acting) to achieve.

Third party is not NOT the site. And third party can lead to malware either by intent or negligence, or even lack of knowledge/stupidity, of the webmaster.

In the US, during the VCR days (and innovations from that period, such as "ad blocking"), some rulings indicated that ads were not protected content and could be, by the time shifting, user view what they desire, paradigm. As noted in one case, TV commercials were generally used by the viewing public to go to the kitchen, take a bathroom break, or put kids to bed.

There is also the well-documented "ad blindness" which all sites endure, even those with responsible advertising presentations. If adblockers were disallowed entirely, as of this minute, that is something which cannot be avoided... and sites that abuse the public with too many ads will see a drop, a rather significant drop, from the public.

Few ads served from the site itself are blocked... they are "site content" at that moment, and there's likely a business model for advertisers who wish to max their potential displays to group and share such advertising through a different method that puts those ads, in rotation, on the actual site itself for x-views, or time... but that is for someone else to develop, not me, sorry to say, too many irons in the fire to start something like that!

The fact certain ad blocker companies allow for Google to be whitelisted out of the box, yet most everyone else is not whitelisted, says there is something to at least look at. I could see Google doing some cash deal because that's better than the bad PR by going after an adblocking company legally. We will see how that plays out. The question of why one or a few are whitelisted and others are not by default? That leaves one interesting question don't you think?

I've enjoyed reading and I'm on my third bowl of popcorn so far!

New tread started, but relates to this one in a major way. A real world reason to run an ad blocker.

[webmasterworld.com...]

1. Blocking Ad Blockers
   
2. Pay Per View or Subscription Paywalls
   
3. Serverside or Embedded Advertising
   
4. Sponsored Articles
   
5. Advertorials
   
6. Other forms of advertising merged with content

1. Blocking Ad Blockers

Now that I've had me Ad Blocker off for a couple of weeks, I know why the presence of that technology is going mainstream. I just saw a solid comparison of ten (10) very popular destination sites using an Ad Blocker software - the results are EYE OPENING! I've been here long enough to know about posting links but in this instance, the data at this website is something that everyone needs to see and is very relevant to the topic at hand.

[murphyapps.co...]

2. Pay Per View or Subscription Paywalls

I manage a site and we utilize the PPV and Subscription based models. This model works like a charm since we do produce our own content/media and it is something people cannot get elsewhere - not at the level we produce - nor the quality.

3. Serverside or Embedded Advertising

Probably one of the better solutions in the mix. This allows you to really target your consumer. It's also a more lucrative arrangement for all parties involved. I've worked with this model and it did very well. It was "guaranteed" revenue since the ads were paid for in advance for a certain time period. It's also a much more efficient way to serve advertising since you don't have all that third party crap taking place behind the scenes. Ever land on a site and it just sits there constantly doing something in the background? I usually leave those when I see that happening. I don't remember seeing that behavior with my Ad Blocker on, not as much as I have these past couple of weeks.

4. Sponsored Articles

I like Sponsored Articles if they present value. They've been abused over the years. So has everything else. :(

5. Advertorials

I'm not too certain I can be bias in this instance, I don't like Advertorials. There's a whole network of fake news sites out there with Advertorials.

6. Other forms of advertising merged with content

Me no likey this idea! I believe this is one of the biggest problems with today's advertising methods, the merging of ads within content. I need to be more specific and say the "blending" of ads within content. As an Advertiser, I know a certain percentage of my spend can be chalked up to "mistaken clicks", it's a given. I just don't have a true grasp on what that percentage is. Since I only do "Low Risk" advertising, those mistaken click spends are minimal - I think.

After drafting all these thoughts, I'm thinking that the large advertising networks are most at risk here than anything else. Those leaving the largest footprint are the first to get nuked. Of course that means AdSense Publishers are at the top of the list. That means that entire "Google Content Network" is going to have a lot of white space. Maybe now I can read some of those sites without having to worry about having a Photosensitive Epileptic Seizure!

Now that I've had me Ad Blocker off for a couple of weeks, I know why the presence of that technology is going mainstream.

I think this is related to browsing habits. In the case of Adult sites, celebrity/gossip, top 10 lists, etc. I can understand there's a problem there.

I manage a site and we utilize the PPV and Subscription based models. This model works like a charm since we do produce our own content/media and it is something people cannot get elsewhere - not at the level we produce - nor the quality.

This is pointless. It's amazing how people have trouble understanding that there are several types of industries on the internet. Subscription model may work for very specific niches, it's proven that it doesn't work for the vast majority of industries.

[edited by: thms at 4:51 pm (utc) on Aug 27, 2015]

New tread started, but relates to this one in a major way. A real world reason to run an ad blocker.

This is no different than clicking on any link on the internet. What you are trying to do is to spread FUD.

Did you read any of the six page report on the rise and need for ad blockers? And the numbers? 12M new adblockers in UK alone this year... example.

And if this is FUD, then yes, I will continue to spread this. (All my clients run adblockers of some kind, at my specification!)

So tell me are you going to disable link clicking on your clients' devices?