Have ads ruined the internet?

[Mr Lucky]

If I have to see ads, I'd rather them be targeted. It's better for the viewer of the ad, it's better for the advertiser. Case and point, sometimes hulu lets you pick which ad you'd rather view. I figure if I'm going to be advertised to, which I should be, it may as well be relevant and not waste everyone's time and/or money.

This is a real double edged sword. A couple of years back I went online to buy my wife a nice garment for her birthday. But then every time I went on my computer, Victoria's Secret ads were all over the place . Then my wife walked in started wondering why 'd been looking at sexy lingerie sites.

So I either take it on the in and make up some lame excuse or tell her and ruin the surprise.

 

[Daniel Hood]

That is a good point. It happens occasionally. Retargeting pixels are cookie based in most cases, you could get away with either using the "incognito" mode of chrome, using a different browser, or clearing your cookies. Or you could have played dumb and said "thought that was from you? must be some weird targeting thing? must be random? I have no idea". Let's not get too far off topic though.

 

[Ernest L. Defoe]

I have no problem with a few ads on websites but sometimes it gets way out of hand to the point there are almost more ads than content. There is nothing wrong with webmasters making money off of their time developing the site but when it gets to the point where 50% of the things you see on the site are ads then that's too much. Put a couple of ads on the main page and in the case of forums maybe one or two in each thread on each page. Then you have the sites with the pop under and popup ads those are annoying then let's not forget the ads that show up based on words. Can't hardly leave your mouse on the center on the screen cause if you do something is going to popup.

 

[Martok]

I find it interesting that some people are very bothered about websites, TV channels, magazines and so on dare to show advertising to people. All of these do so to generate income to support the service they offer.

In the case of TV and magazines, you'd pay a heck of a lot more for them if there was no advertising (case in point in the UK, we have to pay a TV licence cost of £145.50 per year which goes to the BBC which doesn't advertise - imagine having to pay this for each additional channel that didn't advertise).

In the case of websites, they cost money to run, both in time for those putting content on them as well as hosting and other associated costs. So they get income from users via advertising and most don't charge anything else, they are completely free in that respect. I'd rather see a bit of advertising and have free websites than end up with most of the Internet behind a paywall.

 

[Ernest L. Defoe]

Like I said I have no problem with ads when done right but some people put way to many ads on their sites and there are just about as many ads as there is content.

 

[Paul B]

I'm guessing the writer of this piece is missing the word 'irony' from his dictionary.

http://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/are-you-guilty-online-advertising-overload.html

 

[Ernest L. Defoe]

I'm guessing the writer of this piece is missing the word 'irony' from his dictionary.

http://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/are-you-guilty-online-advertising-overload.html

Yeah there is quite a bit on their site. It was horrible on mobile trying to even look at that article.

 

[sbj]

All of these do so to generate income to support the service they offer.

If you can't afford your service by your own, don't offer it then.
What a logic.
Why am I forced to help to pay for your service?
In case of magazines at least I choose actively by my own to contribute to that service they offer. But in case of websites and TVs not. So I will block your ads, if I can.

 

[Paul B]

Why am I forced to help to pay for your service?

You're not.

Simply stop using the site.

 

[Sador]

How is this the same thing? You are going to their site. They're not coming to you trying to sell something. You came to them. A more comparable situation would be "when you go to a person's house and they try selling you something do you listen?" except this is their job so an even better situation would be "when you go to a person's business do they hand you an ad".. oh you know what? they do, don't they? Webmasters aren't pushing ads on YOUR site. You don't have to visit their site and see their ads. You're there for a reason, you're gaining something from your visit, why can't they?

I'm pretty sure I didn't visit their website, or buy their magazine, or watch television for the ads. They get shoved in my face. For webpages specifically you have a point to a degree (although if I visit forums, youtube, etc. I don't really come for them, but for the user uploaded content that they are making money off), but for magazines and television for example.. I already paid for them.

I agree, those ads are insane, I also can't say they exist on any site I visit regularly. You have a choice to stay away from them.

True. I also have the choice to use the technology to hide them, making my webpages load faster and have less tracking done on me as a result. While there's a moral discussion of its own about whether or not that should be allowed, it's nevertheless a choice I have.

Collecting information is a different discussion but I also view that as less of a problem. I don't mind that they collect vague data on me and advertise based on my browsing history and social profiles and what I habitually click. If I have to see ads, I'd rather them be targeted. It's better for the viewer of the ad, it's better for the advertiser. Case and point, sometimes hulu lets you pick which ad you'd rather view. I figure if I'm going to be advertised to, which I should be, it may as well be relevant and not waste everyone's time and/or money.

You're certainly free to feel that way. But if you think all those sites are storing is "vague data", I think you might not realize just how much they store about you.

Steam (the gaming platform) does advertising in a great way. When I visit their store, they show me the games which they think I'll like based on the games I play. They show me recommendations, they show me what my friends like and play, they show new titles, they give me ways to customize it, all in a non-intrusive way. It doesn't feel like advertisement, even though it is. Still, I visit it often and with pleasure, as they're giving me what I was looking for. When I see random candy commercial X on a news site, or car type y on Youtube, they're a) effectively reducing my experience with them / their website and b) not offering me the thing I'm looking for anyway. Because if I had wanted information on that car, I wouldn't be on Youtube in the first place.

So yes, I'm all for them making money, just not in ways that take away from the experience, because all visitors are to them are ways to earn more money.

 

[Daniel Hood]

If you can't afford your service by your own, don't offer it then.

It's a catch-22. Their service is providing information (most sites seem to be content oriented, news or opinions or guides). The only way to afford it is by generating income, there's two choices: ads (most common) or subscriptions (less common -- harder to get).

 

[Sador]

It's a catch-22. Their service is providing information (most sites seem to be content oriented, news or opinions or guides). The only way to afford it is by generating income, there's two choices: ads (most common) or subscriptions (less common -- harder to get).

Or donations. Or funding from investors.

 

[Daniel Hood]

I'm pretty sure I didn't visit their website, or buy their magazine, or watch television for the ads. They get shoved in my face. For webpages specifically you have a point to a degree (although if I visit forums, youtube, etc. I don't really come for them, but for the user uploaded content that they are making money off), but for magazines and television for example.. I already paid for them.

I'm confused, if you didn't visit the website, how are they showing you ads? Or are you talking about like on facebook where I target you to try to get you to view my site or like my page by targeting your interests? I can to a small degree see this. Although I thought you were more complaining about the site showing the ads, not the advertiser.

True. I also have the choice to use the technology to hide them, making my webpages load faster and have less tracking done on me as a result. While there's a moral discussion of its own about whether or not that should be allowed, it's nevertheless a choice I have.

So by all means do what you do. I may have misunderstood the point of this thread but that doesn't seem to be the discussion here. We're discussing whether ads are bad. Not whether or not you should be able to block them. Personally I don't think you should because you're choosing to be there, you should accept it for what it is, that's neither here nor there though.

You're certainly free to feel that way. But if you think all those sites are storing is "vague data", I think you might not realize just how much they store about you.

Steam (the gaming platform) does advertising in a great way. When I visit their store, they show me the games which they think I'll like based on the games I play. They show me recommendations, they show me what my friends like and play, they show new titles, they give me ways to customize it, all in a non-intrusive way. It doesn't feel like advertisement, even though it is. Still, I visit it often and with pleasure, as they're giving me what I was looking for. When I see random candy commercial X on a news site, or car type y on Youtube, they're a) effectively reducing my experience with them / their website and b) not offering me the thing I'm looking for anyway. Because if I had wanted information on that car, I wouldn't be on Youtube in the first place.

So yes, I'm all for them making money, just not in ways that take away from the experience, because all visitors are to them are ways to earn more money.

Youtube provides a hell of a service. They don't even show ads as much as they could. They also share it with the people that are uploading their videos (despite the fact they're providing them a service as well).

Steam does that based on your data. I think targeting and showing relevant ads is important. That's what most ad platforms want to do. Steam also doesn't have the traditional problems of a lot of sites. They're advertising their own products which is great. If you blog about a steam game though, you can't advertise your own products, you have to advertise someone else's products, here we are again.

Or donations. Or funding from investors.

Sure donations. Not funding from investors. Investors only want to make money. They want to either see revenue or they want to advertise (oh no!) their products to your viewers.

 

[sbj]

You're not.

Simply stop using the site.

But with landing on their page, I already contributed to them, I am forced to contribute because my landing on the site created a revenue. Without asking my permission. I didn't say I am using the site. Even visiting without using it creates a revenue. So it is a force without permission. It is like when websites sell my data without my permission. It doesn't matter if I use that site or not, they make money off of me.

It's a catch-22. Their service is providing information (most sites seem to be content oriented, news or opinions or guides). The only way to afford it is by generating income, there's two choices: ads (most common) or subscriptions (less common -- harder to get).

It is not a catch-22. With that logic, you can justify everything, and I mean everything.
"Oh, I have to pay my bills, so I have to go stealing." Same logic as above. How about not having the bills in first place? If you can't afford your bills, don't make them. But if you do, you can't go stealing and justify it with "but I have to pay my bills".
If you can't afford your website, don't do it then. Nobody forced you to open a website. But if you do, then take care of it by yourself and don't justify it with "but I have to pay my website bills, so I must put ads".

 

[Paul B]

But with landing on their page, I already contributed to them, I am forced to contribute because my landing on the site created a revenue. Without asking my permission. I didn't say I am using the site. Even visiting without using it creates a revenue.

Don't visit it.

 

[sbj]

Don't visit it.

Correct.
Or I visit and use adblockers.

 

[Daniel Hood]

It is like when websites sell my data without my permission. It doesn't matter if I use that site or not, they make money off of me.

To be fair, if they have any data worth selling of yours.. you probably used the site?

But with landing on their page, I already contributed to them

If you're blocking ads, all you did was cost them bandwidth. Great contribution.

It is not a catch-22. With that logic, you can justify everything, and I mean everything.
"Oh, I have to pay my bills, so I have to go stealing." Same logic as above. How about not having the bills in first place? If you can't afford your bills, don't make them. But if you do, you can't go stealing and justify it with "but I have to pay my bills".
If you can't afford your website, don't do it then. Nobody forced you to open a website. But if you do, then take care of it by yourself and don't justify it with "but I have to pay my website bills, so I must put ads".

That's a heck of a jump you made there bud. Who are they stealing from? They took nothing from you. They showed you something in addition to the other stuff you wanted to see. You lost nothing.

 

[Martok]

If you can't afford your service by your own, don't offer it then.
What a logic.

Yours is the failed logic.

Take a site like Eurogamer. It provides news, reviews and a lot more besides on video games and the gaming industry. They employ staff to write the reviews and the site content. To expect them and other commercial sites to just fund this out of their own pocket is illogical and naive. They need to earn income in some way. The choice is charge customers to use the site or provide it to customers for free via advertising. They choose the latter, as do many sites.

IMO using adblockers is tantamount to theft. I'm sure many on here will disagree strongly with my views but I'm sure some agree. After all, you are depriving owners of their income, you are using something without paying for it through its intended pay method which is viewing adverts.

 

[HannahP]

I'm guessing the writer of this piece is missing the word 'irony' from his dictionary.

Oh, he knows what irony is. Look at his beard.

The question here should be, "Are websites ruining the Internet?"

The answer, obviously, is yes. There are far too many websites. What can be done about it? Boy, if I could answer that I'd be a multimillionaire genius! Or more of a multimillionaire and genius than I already am. Six of one, half dozen of the other, am I right?

I'm in favor of the harsh and punitive website tax that I read about on Facebook. It's coming as soon as the socialists win the election (you know who I'm talking about). Sound economic solutions to social problems should be something each of us strives to find in trying times such as these. Instead we loll around eating grilled cheese and watching Lilyhammer on Netflix for the third time.

Is it any wonder there are so many ads on websites? Exactly. Logic wins again.

 

[sbj]

To be fair, if they have any data worth selling of yours.. you probably used the site?

Maybe, maybe not. Those trackers (you as a web developer should know it better than me) can find out many things just by landing on a page. But even if you have used the website, I didn't agree with selling my data to some other place.

If you're blocking ads, all you did was cost them bandwidth. Great contribution.

So, website owner can put ads how they like it and cost me bandwith (as I have to load that pages), but I am not allowed to act like how I want?
And who says that I want to contribute to every site I visit or use? Don't make it publicly accessible then. You can't tell me what I want to do or not as a website owner. You put ads, I'll block them. Your right, my right.

That's a heck of a jump you made there bud. Who are they stealing from? They took nothing from you. They showed you something in addition to the other stuff you wanted to see. You lost nothing.

That is a false logic. They took something from me. The authorization of using stuff related to my person. In Europe it is not allowed for example to use images created by other people. Or you are not allowed to take a picture of my person.
For all that you need my permission, my authorization. If you don't have that, you are stealing something. My right of authorization. This is not a case of money, it is a principle.