The thing is, i totally agree with you when only 20% of people are using adblockers, which is what im seeing right now. But in a year or two's time it could be 50% or more, and then you're argument starts to fall apart. There comes a point when it doesnt matter how many extra people they send through links or social media, if all of them are adblockers themselves.

These things are popular, and users want them. I can see them being built into the actual browers eventually -- in the same way that pop-up blockers are. When that happens i think you will change your tune

[edited by: martinibuster at 11:54 pm (utc) on Apr 10, 2016]
[edit reason] Spliced post into intended discussion. [/edit]

And the tune is .... what?

This whole ad thingy is topsy turvy and has been from day one.

TANSTAAFL

This is g's way to profitability. Developed by them for them. Most have jumped on the band wagon seeking pie in the sky with the "free and easy" injection of THEIR script into your pages and, for a period of time (now long past) where a few made gazillions to fuel the myth of gold in "them thar hills". We are now at the back side of that original loss leader "play date" to get players (millions of them) begging for that 0.01 a click (which when exo scaled fills the coffers on the top side).

As it stands it does work... but it does not (and never has) recognized SITE CONTENT, CREATIVITY, or VALUE --- except via some fuzzy and obscure (and trying to kill off the gamers of the system) "guidelines".

For most this is the game to play. For others, who have stepped outside the box and found the ORIGINAL way of advertising (have a product an advertiser would be proud to endorse and support by paying to appear there) they have moved on to pastures a little more greener.

Having said that, the current system still works. Will it make one rich? Probably not. This is not the voice of doom, heck, I'm not sure if I'm healthy enough to take the next breath, but there's one thing I won't do and that is delude myself that adsense was created for me, for my benefit, and was constructed to roll in lovely profits for me.... forever.

It was created by g for g and anyone who can't see that is wearing blinkers.*

_{*Blinkers, sometimes known as blinders, are a piece of horse tack that prevent the horse seeing to the rear and, in some cases, to the side.}

[edited by: martinibuster at 12:22 am (utc) on Apr 11, 2016]
[edit reason] Spliced into correct discussion. [/edit]

The thing is, i totally agree with you when only 20% of people are using adblockers, which is what im seeing right now. But in a year or two's time it could be 50% or more, and then you're argument starts to fall apart.

You could perhaps say that - however alienating your visitors, or denying entry to them most certainly isn't the answer at all.

If it works for anyone long term - then go for it.

I'm a very old school businessman with 50+ years experience. One critical lesson I learned a very long time ago is that "satisfied customers" will out-compete thousands of dollars worth of advertising. It is called "good word of mouth advertising". It is why my sites still exist after the decimation by the Google Zoo.

The almost polar opposite effect to "good word of mouth advertising" is one badly dissatisfied customer can cost you very dearly - several badly dissatisfied customers can put you out of business - "bad mouthing advertising". If you rely upon people coming to your site once in their lifetime from Google, then perhaps it doesn't matter to you.

Ever heard of the business term "85/15 rule"? It means 85% of your business revenue come from the top 15% of customers. Curiously that minority of 15% often also provides your bottom line net profit margin for the year - the 85% have already likely paid for all your annual overheads.

Back on topic - it would be extremely interesting to see the eventual impact if Facebook introduced a blanket prohibition to members using AdBlockers. Complete denial of entry as many advocate.

The only solution would be a collective response from web publishers; if a user with an adblocker gets denied access at site A and then clicks to site B and gets denied access there as well, then they will soon disable their Adblocker.

That is never going to happen - I for one would neither support such a proposal, nor participate.

The ball is in the advertisers court, primarily Google - they and others have caused this problem with greed. Back tracking is going to be immensely difficult.

Being a web publisher doesn't make you God's gift to mankind, or the internet. We're just another minor cog in a vast complex web of wheels.

Do you see the very short sighted stupidity in blocking visitors?

No. What I do see is another poster with an opinion, hectoring others about what they should do. And accusing those who don't follow suit of "stupidity".

I block adblock users. It's a decision I made after a lot of research, external advice and consideration. It's also a tactical decision, made to protect my content while I explore and develop another form of monetisation. It may not be a long term solution but it'll do for the moment.

I understand the argument that welcoming all comers, ad viewers or not, enhances goodwill and sharing. Those factors would be important for sites that sell things, rely on return visitors or host a community. Those are not my sites. My sites offer information and rely on search traffic, so my visitor base is much more 'hit and run'.

No, being a web publisher doesn't make you anything special. But the people who visit my websites with adblockers aren't anything special either. If they want access to my content then it'll be on my terms, not theirs. They're not obliged to comply, any more than I'm obliged to give them unfettered access to my content.

We all have different websites with different functions, layouts and content, serving different audiences in different markets and jurisdictions. Not only that, adblocking is a new and unfolding phenomenon; its reach and its effects are still unclear. We're all still watching and learning and thinking about how to respond. With all this in mind I'm not sure why one web publisher would take it upon themselves to lecture others about a particular course of action.

The only solution would be a collective response from web publishers

The Daily Telegraph (UK major newspaper) is now blocking adblock users.

The Daily Telegraph (UK major newspaper) is now blocking adblock users.

They're not doing it very well if they are - I got no warnings for Ublock or Adblock Plus (it didn't make any difference which country I browsed from).

Is social media a funnel in or a funnel out? If I send people to my Twitter, I don't get a %. Facebook doesn't pay a % for ads on my page. I don't imagine a majority of people are seeing their website as a long term investment that will be forever and can be passed down to their children to milk money from for years to come. At the end of the day, I don't do this for free. In the end there will be offensive style advertising that works around the adblocking technology. I'm sure we are all seeing "articles" that just happen to have a video player also which you can't avoid and have no interest in, but it's going to play an ad to you while you read. Blocking adblock users? Who cares either which way. Is doing that going to cost you a page 2 vs page 5 ranking in Google SERPS? Most of these discussions are losing relevance by the day. I can say this regardless if I'm having success on a personal level. It's like coffee shops with free internet. People sit for hours, taking up seats from the customers who don't want to mooch. Do you think coffee shop owner should give a S about flipping the bird to the moochers? The moochers will just find the shop next door which has an owner who's happy to accomodate the moochers and lose out on the customers who wanted a seat to enjoy their coffee for ten minutes. Even with this example, ads on pages sit there and don't block out content. The justification for their use is a joke and it's a cult mentality. But for me I'm not blocking anyone because the moochers aren't negatively affecting the non ad blocking users. It's about as simple as that, although I have zero respect for a webmaster who uses the technology.

The justification for their use is a joke and it's a cult mentality.

That's about the size of it. The problems with publishers who obstruct content and assault the eyeballs with ads, I understand and accept. The technical problems with third party ad serving, like excessive tracking and bandwidth consumption, I understand and accept. Those are the reasons we have adblocking now.

The adblocking cultists are a different kettle of fish. They're just in it for the argument, to tell you how to do things, to assert their rights over yours. In their strange little world, their right to view your content trumps your right to monetise it. And if/when you stand up to that, the response is that your sites are nothing special, your content is worthless, I'll get it somewhere else, etc.

I have zero respect for a webmaster who uses the technology.

You mean webmasters who use adblock, or who block adblock users?

I should clarify. I shouldn't make a blanket statement. Anyone who uses ads as a means for montatization and admits to using an adblocker? That's where I lose respect. If you hate ads then by no means should you be submitting your precious visitors to them. If I won't subject myself to something then I most certainly wouldn't subject my customers to it.

But to the point of blocking adblocking users, I'm not likely to get onboard that. If people do it, I can understand and appreciate the passion of their feelings. It's a drastic measure. People can't link what they don't see, that's really it for me. If the freeloaders were somehow degrading the experience for the non adblockers, then I would revisit it. Like anything, other monetization methods will come about.

Ah, I thought that's what you meant. I'm not about to tell webmasters to turn off their adblockers; it's not my business what they do. But if someone blocks ads while making money from ads, it seems a rather hypocritical existence.

They're not doing it very well if they are - I got no warnings for Ublock or Adblock Plus (it didn't make any difference which country I browsed from).

The adblock block has gone now! Possibly they were testing to see the effect. I'm on Adblock Plus in the UK.

Anyone who uses ads as a means for montatization and admits to using an adblocker? That's where I lose respect. If you hate ads then by no means should you be submitting your precious visitors to them.

That misinterprets the intentions of many of those using Adblockers.

I use an Adblocker simply because many sites load so slowly and in such a poor fashion with ads enabled that they are unreadable as far as I'm concerned.

I have no problem with ads which load in a reasonable time (as mine do).

So I think there is no conflict, it's quite possible to display a reasonable number of ads on a site and be relatively certain that the user experience is not unduly degraded.

The problem comes from the fact that many people (me included) are lazy and can't be bothered to turn Adblocker off for usable sites. I wish I could be bothered but it's just not life. I suspect many others are in the same situation.

If there was a button on the Adblockers which said "allow all pages which load in 8 seconds or less" I'd almost certainly use it. But of course there is unlikely to ever be one because the Adblockers are making so much money from gathering our information that it would blow their business model to bits.That's where I loose respect but they do the job and allow me to see content that otherwise I would not have time for.

Just a note thanking members for allowing other members to express an opinion and a counter-opinion without taking said opinions personally. This is a fantastic discussion. I'm so proud of you all. :)

I don't use an adblocker, nor do I block visitors who use one. I'm in the school of thought that thinks adblock users are pretty unlikely to click an ad anyhow. That doesn't mean they would click a really well targeted ad, if they saw it.

That said, I do have a FF addon that lets me turn JS on or off with one click. Mostly I use that on news sites that are really over loaded with animated ads which I find really distracting. Of course that means I have already seen the ad blinking or scrolling away before I turned JS off.

My issue with adblockers is that while users may be able to apply them on a per site basis, I'm guessing that most just turn them on and let them run on all sites.

Sort of like the old "throwing the baby out with the bath water" concept.

Consumers generally tell a market where they want to go and how they will interact with producers. I don't see this as anything more than that. The consumers are not as happy with the product as they used to be because of abuses and additional costs (to them) and have taken steps to get the product they are willing to consume.

Nothing wrong with taking a stance either for or against, just know it is a stance that will eventually face cold hard realities. I know some don't like to hear "the customer is always right", but that doesn't change the fact that the customer IS ALWAYS RIGHT in that if they can't get what they want the way they want it they will find another who can give it to them. Just one of those unhappy facts. What HAS changed, with the advent of technology, is the user now has a tool that allows them to make some things known to the producer which won't take years of business loss to learn. An ad blocker is pretty immediate. It affects a certain type of ad technology and ignores others (at present).

Magic wands to wave to fix this conundrum do not exist.

Blocking the ad blockers won't affect much as, as many have noted, such users were likely to ever click on an ad. Thus, no loss in revenue but much gnashing of teeth and outraged posturing.

Users are lazy, to a point, but aren't stupid. When they can't see the forest for all the ads they will make the forest reappear. Can't blame them for that either. (Or reluctance to be tracked, privacy invasions, etc. as well as incurring more costs for less content)

What makes this discussion difficult is that once a user installs an ad blocker there's no incentive to obtain a white listing. Much as we all like to think our Pharts Don't Stink we are NOT unique in the webiverse, no matter how much we believe (or delude) ourselves in that regard.

But if you really believe you are unique, special, and all that other stuff, the last thing you want to do is alienate ANY user! You let them in to see your wares ... and show enough to promote interest,,, and then pull them in with pay to play or other methods which do not rely on advertising alone.

I don't see ad blocking as evil. I see it as a wake up call that the web as we knew it, is changing and if we (webmasters) do not change we will become irrelevant, or extinct. It is time to make some changes on our side.

I've said it before - and will probably be saying it again ad nauseum - but webdevs need to get over the idea that they have control of how their site looks/renders once it is transferred. The client makes a request, the server responds, the client does pretty much whatever they want with that which they receive. Granted, most are ignorant and/or lazy and let their client program, i.e. browser, do whatever it's default might be, but they've never had to. Indeed, there is no legal or moral reason for them to do so.

I have an uncomfortable question; which came first: the drop in ad conversion/income or the ad blocker uptake increase?

Ad blockers have been around - and complained about for various reasons - for over a decade. The more intrusive or disruptive the ads the more ad blockers were installed. Until we now have some sites - no longer just the typical MFA - that are more ads than content aka the ads have become the true content/purpose of the sites. In response ad blockers have gone mainstream. And more ad responsible sites become collateral damage.

But - don't forget - a change in the digital ad milieu came first. While the pie has kept increasing and old dominants such as AdSense still rise YoY in absolute terms, in relative terms they are falling. And their quality has been falling as well as many lucrative accounts try elsewhere, i.e. FB, in whole or in part. Plus, of course, the number of publishers continues to skyrocket. Do you see a problem?

Let me put it very simply: while the quantity of both ads and publishers continue to increase, (1) in some niches there are now more publishers' ad blocks than available ads, and (2) the quality of available ads has at best plateaued and in numerous niches declined. Variations on this are readily available on WebmasterWorld going back years.

If you can, for your site, make a business case for blocking visitors with blockers than do so. Just be certain that you've accounted for the changes to the ads quality/quantity and prior conversion rates and not simply dumped it all on the ad blockers' doorstep.

Listening to the various angst ridden posts over the years I count myself fortunate with how AdSense has and does perform. That said I do track conversions quite granularly and can state categorically that for my sites, none tech oriented, that revenue change due to ad blocking is statistically within the margin for error; in other words I can not prove that ad blocking has any affect on my AdSense revenue.

Unless you can - by the numbers - rule out all other causes the fact that revenue is down while ad blocking is up, or that as one increases the other decreases is mere correlation, which does not posit cause.

And unless one can definitively link (aka prove causation) ad blocking and revenue drop actively blocking the blockers serves little to no actual purpose beyond increasing visitor irritation.

The digital ad landscape is changing. AdSense and it's cousins are not going to disappear overnight but some weaknesses in them as a sole business model are increasingly apparent. Google is adapting (short term) by attempting to corral content via AMP. What are you doing? Short term? Long term?

Yes, IanCP's OP is his opinion. Just about every post discussing anything Google is pure opinion. He lays out what he thinks is lost by blocking those with ad blockers. What he forgets, as I often do, is that many here (not pointing any fingers, just a general comment) rely solely or almost solely on ever new visitors via Google. Their business model does not include transforming new into repeat, gaining testimonials, SM traffic, etc.

We each have quite different sites in different niches with different business models. I appreciate IanCP's post and largely agree. I can also appreciate counter arguments even if they don't apply to my situation provided they seem based on reality.

Ad blockers are not going away. They may increase, even become standard, especially on mobile. If that should happen and you have decided upon block the blockers you may find yourself ipso facto requiring registration in that each visitor will have to make a conscious decision whether to agree to something to enter. Ask yourself: could my site and business model succeed if I required registration? If the answer is no blocking the blockers may indeed be shortsighted if not for the reasons in the OP.

And unless one can definitively link (aka prove causation) ad blocking and revenue drop actively blocking the blockers serves little to no actual purpose beyond increasing visitor irritation.

Of course there's a definitive link. A growing proportion of my revenue in the past 18-24 months has come from CPM ads, not clicks. If CPM ads are blocked then I don't get paid. My impression RPM was tailing away noticeably during the great adblocker uptake of 2014/15. Personally I think the "adblock users never click ads" theory is bunkum as well, particularly with adblockers being taken up by Joe Public.

Many valid and well expressed points in the two posts above - but also some things I disagree with. Yes the customer 'is always right' and customer behaviour is its own beast. Those things are a given. My issue has always been with techs and webdevs predicting what customers will do, usually based on the flawed assumption that customers think just like them. As I've said, nobody knows for certain how far adblocking will spread, etc. Those questions are in abeyance.

the problem might solve itself without us having to do anything
because if enough of the big sites start blocking people who block ads, then plenty of people will just turn their blockers off.
facebook are already talking about the harm they are doing. maybe google will jump on board as well.
-- its not easy for people to find alternatives to the likes of facebook

if the big boys do end up blocking them, then i think a lot of the smaller sites will quickly follow suit

Is there a way to let the public access your site temporarily, to let them see what you offer, and then after a prescibed time or numbers of page views, let them know they will need to turn off adblocker to continue?

I use a forced registration on some of my sites where after they view 3 properties, they have to register to continue. Some go away, most stay. I have experimented with requiring registration before the first view and it chases all of them away. I have experimented with no registration and i make no money. Letting them see what they will be missing by going away works the best for my sites.

trebuchet:
Of course there's a definitive link. A growing proportion of my revenue in the past 18-24 months has come from CPM ads, not clicks.

Yes, ad blocking has a definite effect on CPM ads.
HOWEVER
* who made the decision to shift to CPM ads, you or the ad network?
* why is click revenue down, is it mostly due to lower quantity or quality?

The question (mostly) not being addressed in ad blocking discussions is the quality of the ad networks product over the past few years as competition has grown. In my niches the big players are still there in force, the crap is just in addition to them. However, in my wandering through other niches the historic main advertisers are less conspicuous and the crap (including lack of inventory) has a stranglehold on ad blocks.

Again, I'm not saying that blocking ad blockers is across the board wrong. It is a valid business option.
What I am saying is understand the whole and place 'blame' appropriately and consider consequences and options before deciding.

Note: whether one blocks those with ad blockers the end result on CPM is the same.

toidi:
Is there a way to let the public access your site temporarily, to let them see what you offer, and then after a prescibed time or numbers of page views, let them know they will need to turn off adblocker to continue?

Yes.
How well it works depends on the niche and to a lesser extent the site. It is certainly an option worth considering/testing.

@iamlost, I think declining ad quality is another issue. You asked if there's a causal link between adblocking and lost revenue. Clearly if a CPM ad is blocked, it does not earn.

I'm not saying that blocking ad blockers is across the board wrong. It is a valid business option.

I see it only as a temporary measure, to protect my content while I build another method of monetisation. As mentioned, it was a decision made for my sites and my situation. If I was in a different niche or had a different audience/traffic sources, I probably wouldn't have bothered.

Adblock-blocking may evolve and harden into a viable option, kind of a de facto paywall. But it's still too early to tell, and my gut feeling says otherwise.

I have few points to add.

First, I agree with iamlost's general stance. Take the user that is using ad-blocking software, if that user did not have access to such software, I doubt very much that that user would be inclined to click on ads. So the fact that the user is in fact blocking should have very little impact on earnings overall. Except of course as Trebuchet pointed out, there would be a loss in CPM revenue. So what is the cost blocking users? As the op pointed out users that block ads may still share and link to your content and generally drive more traffic to your site, which in turn will lead to more ad clicks.

So the decision, on paper, is simple, if the marginal revenue lost from allowing ad-blockers is greater than the revenue gained from not blocking ads then block users using ab-blocking. NO! NO! NO! Blocking the ad-blockers does not allow you to recover the lost revenue. Yes some may choose to switch off the ad-blocker but many more will choose to leave. In the end blocking the ad-blockers provides you almost no benefit and has the consequence of alienating users.

Back to the decision model, based on a rough calculation I estimate that last month I lost between 2.5 and 3% of my monthly revenue to ad-blockers. Say I block the ad-blockers and 10% of them decide disable the ad-blocking, so my total revenue gained from the action 0.3% (of my monthly revenue), at a cost of alienating the other 90% of the ad-blocking users. To me this seems like a very high price to pay for a 0.3% gain in revenue.

My second point.
Ad blocking exists because many publishers and advertisers abuse of the ads and the users. They bombard users with flashing obtrusive spammy ads. Big sites such as for example Forbes, block users from seeing content, unless they have first watch some useless ad. If I go to a site I want to see the content, even if you shove an ad in my face, I wont click on it, I will simply be annoyed by the ad, the brand advertised and the publisher. On the other end of the spectrum, ad sense is constantly showing spammy ads on my site. I had one recently for s3x toys. How can any user take my site seriously if such ads a running on it. So instead if saying that all publishers should block users that use ad-blockers, I say that all publishers should carefully curate the ads that appear on their sites to ensure that they reflect positively on your brand and that brand reflects positively on the advertiser's brand. If the user feels that your only "raison d'etre" is to get him to click on ad they probably wont.

My last point is to the companies that develop the ad-blocking software. They should create a software that block ads on sites based on a variety of factors, such as load time and spamminess of the ads. If the ads load quickly, don't hog resources, great show them, otherwise block. This will encourage webmasters to clean their act and then the user can blacklist sites if they like.

This is my 2 cents worth.

The solution is not to hope that enough big sites will disallow ad blockers. The solution is to 'fix' the abuse which the webmaster community has foisted on the surfing public, increasingly so in recent years.

Learn the lesson which broadcast TV is learning--screw with viewers, they will jump ship as soon as a viable alternative appears.
The lessons from ebooks and video games re DRM also point in the same direction.

In short, disimproving the customer or visitor experience is only viable while your victims have no alternative.

My first decade surfing had no need of any ad blocking. My last decade experience has led to today where I config every setting I can find to disable video, animations, Flash, HTML5, 3rd-party loaders, ads--and of course turn my PC sound off.

Not because of those of you here who advertise responsibly. Because of your colleagues on the web who have no consideration at all for their visitors. Those are who need to be 'fixed'. You responsible folks are collateral damage.

Nicely said @Lugh

Same old arguments, but they dont work
You can fix your own site so its perfect, but people will still have the adblocker turned on because of other sites. Ultimately theres nothing you can do but block them until they whitelist you

Your arguments are like saying, if you hear someone with their radio blaring loud music every day of the week and annoying the hell out of everyone, making everyone wear earmuffs, all you need to do is make sure that your own radio is turned down.

What difference will that make? Everyone will still be wearing earmuffs because of that idiot down the street!

What difference will that make? Everyone will still be wearing earmuffs because of that idiot down the street!

But would they wear them forever? When the noise decreases, people gradually remove their earmuffs. For example, I immediately install adblocking on computers that children will use. They click links, they don't understand that ads may not be genuine, they don't know why the video starting playing, they don't understand how they got on this website. Perhaps the big advertisers got too used to being able to interrupt whatever you were doing and need to turn the volume down? Adblock probably beats antivirus for safety when you look at inexperienced users.

But would they wear them forever? When the noise decreases, people gradually remove their earmuffs.

Maybe in some kind of utopian future. But how many people, when they have got used to a speedy and advert free internet, will freely go back to seeing ads again? Its not going to happen unless they are forced to (ie. If you block them)

Ask yourself this... How many sites still use pop-up ads? Or pop-unders? Hardly any, im guessing, But have you ever gone into your browser options and unticked the box that blocks them? Why would anyone want to do that?