And I thought it would be the Firefox zealots blocking IE users.
Here's a website that is used to redirect Firefox users to for sites that have paid ads. The idea being that if Firefox users have Ad Block on then the site owners don't get the revenue they need to continue running the site - so the result is that they're closing off the site to Firefox.
It makes sense on one hand, but then there's the possibility of alienating readers altogether, and Firefox users would probably be the more technologically minded audience (lets face it, most people wouldn't bother installing another browser).
So hey Tristan, about that thing last year about blocking IE users, uhhh... sorry? :)
Similar Posts
- Is Blog Advertising a Necessary Evil?
- Code Camp Oz 2008
- Del.icio.us and Improving Search Through Users
Comments
tristan on on 8.17.2007 at 12:25 PM
Oh this is awesome!
I love that website. "... ad blocking in general is still theft"! Gold. Oh no, I am robbing the television companies by muting the ads! I'm robbing people by not looking at the billboards while I drive! I'm robbing websites with Google Ads by not clicking on the ads! Where does it stop? Am I robbing websites by not buying from their advertisements? If I'm pissed off enough to block ads, what are the chances of me clicking on one?
While I'm at it (and let's face it there's so many holes in this that it's pretty easy to tear down), why just Firefox? Most other browsers (even IE? From deep in the settings?) can block images/ads/flash too.
I had better tell my mum, I think she's robbing the supermarket by not buying things because they are on special!
Andrew I'm sorry I have FlashBlock on at the moment, and so your last.fm radio isn't showing up until I decide I want to see it. D'you need compensation?
Okay, I'm gonna stop now. But the world needs more of this sort of entertainment.
andrew on on 8.17.2007 at 12:35 PM
I kind of agree with that sentiment and disagree.
The whole idea that I am stealing because I am blocking ads is wrong, but at the same time I get the point that I am not supporting the sites if I block ads, y'know?
And lets face it, the television stations are in a state over things like PVR meaning that people can skip ads, and therefore they're not getting the same revenue for shows that they might have.
In the states it's called the Neilsen boxes, I don't know what it is here, but a mate of mine had one at his house and when I visited if I watched TV I'd have to log myself in a book.
The Supermarket example falls apart because she's already buying from them.
Y'know, I get where they're coming from, but lets face it - if I read something I like and link to it, then I am driving more people there and concievably increasing their revenue - if I was a Firefox user then that wouldn't happen anymore, right?
So there's a bit of shooting themselves in their foot.
TV has found a way to subsidise by putting advertising and product placement in the forefront of TV - did you watch Heroes with the Nissan Versa stuff?
There was an episode of Studio 60 that I found so clever because it was talking about how awful tv advertising was, but mentioning so many products that you know they got plenty of revenue out of that one episode that they got through the rest of their season off it.
Websites, I guess it's going to be a lot harder for them to gain revenue if people block ads, but what is the alternative, Pay Per Post?
tristan on on 8.17.2007 at 1:49 PM
Heh, yeah. Of course, the examples never stick either way. The problem is inherent in the process. And it's amplified on the Internet, because nothing on the net is enforceable, one can do as they please.