Ministry of Innovation / Business of Technology

Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love








An experiment gone wrong




Expand full story

2031 Reader Comments

  1. i ♥ Ars .. :D
    It satisfies the inner-geek in me ...
    Thank you for such great content. (:
    1 post | registered
  2. I've whitelisted Ars in my ad blocker. I'm willing to do so because of your dedication to maintain non-intrusive ads. Remember, the bad old days where excessive pop-ups, and eye-melting flashing bits of animated gifs/flash animations would totally make a visited site almost unbearable to read, and you would understand why ad blockers came to be as popular as they are now.

    I'll whitelist sites that I visit as and when they declare a sane advertisement policy.
    4 posts | registered
  3. Spam deleted.
    2 posts | registered
  4. shaunld wrote:
    Whitelisted, and installed Flashblock. There, done. =)

    One company I would never ever ever whitelist is! Sorry.
    24 posts | registered
  5. slck0001 wrote:
    I whitelisted Ars based on little guilt-trip from the artcle until I got to Clintology's comments. I am not sure he/she is a good spokesperson for Ars. Ad-block is back on.

    4597 posts | registered
  6. I Adblock Plus.

    If one of the sites I frequent specifically requests that I do not, then I will turn it off, but only if the ads prove to be unobtrusive and not a hindrance to my experience.

    If I get a pop up, whether in a new window, tab, or especially a flash pop up, then the blocker goes right back on.

    If an ad starts playing sound, then the blocker goes right back on.

    I don't mind ads that are there on the side. I don't even mind having to scroll past one in the middle of an article, but they have to be passive.
    1 post | registered
  7. Wow, what a crazy wacky roller coaster!

    I hope this goes on for another...21 pages!
    395 posts | registered
  8. For me, AdBlock is one of those apps that I install immediately after a fresh OS install. Surfing the web without blocking ads is simply too distracting without it. Remember how the web looked before all those ads? A nice, clean layout without blinking, moving crap that follows you as the page scrolls down. That is how it should be. In all my years of web surfing, I have NEVER willingly clicked on an ad. And I never will. I am reading an article to learn about something, I am not shopping. In summary, do what you will to block the blockers, but there are other places to get the news.
    1 post | registered
  9. I'm happy to see adds for quality site such as Ars, but for me that involves two issues.

    One - Whitelisting in AddBlock - Pretty easy and is done.
    Two - Whitelisting the addservers in NoScript. This is where I have a problem.

    The first problem - White-listing the addservers here white-lists them globally, however NoScript could be enhanced so that it only whitelisted in a similar way to AddBlock, and...

    The second problem - By allowing addservers to run javascript they have this little habit of wanting to track you around the net. I may be happy to see the adds, but I'm not happy to be tracked. While I have nothing to hide, I don't subscribe to the premise that if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be bothered by being tracked. Addservers should serve adds, not try to profile users. If they address this, then I'll be a lot happier.
    138 posts | registered
  10. I decided to turn disable my ad blocker for Ars Technica, out of fairness. I hit refresh, and what was the first thing I saw? A big, obnoxious Flash ad. The kind that eats your CPU.

    You say that if we disagree with the advertising, we should not go to the site. I guess you're losing a reader who's been coming here for 10 years, then.
    573 posts | registered
  11. Hey Ars,

    I apologize for posting without reading the 21 pages of comments and I realize that this post may get lost somewhere in the shuffle as well. I have a few ideas I'd like to get out there though so that, maybe, someone will stumble across them and go "hey, that ain't half bad" sometime when they're bored enough to read through 20+ pages of comments :D.

    First, I absolutely understand the need to make money off ads. Welcome to the whitelist and, perhaps temporarily, my flashblock whitelist. Laptop + Flash = No Battery + Burnt Lap + Security Vulnerabilities (Thanks, Adobe)

    Second, If you have the technology in place to detect running of even a few adblocking tools, why not use that technology to display a conditional script docked to either the very left or right of the browser to let people know what exactly they're doing by blocking ads. I don't think most users are malicious. Most users have, however, clicked on a wrong link and, after fighting through the sludge of popups, flash banner ads, notices that their "computer is infected and to CLICK HERE NOW TO GET RID OF IT", and dismissing the 50 warnings by antivirus software that a site wants to install a trojan , installed adblock / flashblock because sites like that are just unacceptable. I know that if I was browsing a site, and they detected I had flashblock / adblock enabled, and used that knowledge to show me a small but prominent request to turn them off on the site, I might consider it. Hey, after reading this article, I turned off ad and flashblock for here.

    Thirdly, for people who do have flash/adblock disabled, why not show another floating box on the right/left mentioning that by signing up they could help support ars for a while? As much as it's not fun to feel like you're 'pushing' stuff on your readers, there's nothing wrong with making your primary means of generating a consistent, predictable stream of revenue (unobtrusively) visible while people enjoy your content. That's just good business.

    Fourth, and this is only speculation, but is there any way to detect whether or not users are running flashblock? I know that you said it was impossible to do so upfront, but perhaps there's some way to detect what flash elements were rendered after the page has loaded? If there is, setting a tiny cookie to say "hey, looks like this user has flashblock. static ads only." might be a good idea. That, or you could even have something in the user preferences that asks whether they run flashblock. I don't know whether that affects your revenue too much, but I'm sure it's better than not serving ads at all.

    And as a sidenote, while I used to pirate music (broke college student + copying is not 100% stealing, maybe 2% stealing), I purchase it now that I'm making enough money to. Internet ads, however, don't cost me anything, so if the site is proactive about protecting its users from malicious ads, I think that I and many other readers would have no problem unblocking ars. Flashblock is a tough sell to get rid of, but adblock, I can afford that.
    1 post | registered
  12. Game_Ender wrote:
    stylemessiah wrote:
    Svlad Cjelli wrote:
    If I don't have a flash enabled browser, does that make me a bad person?

    youre just the kind of free thinking neo hippy they are targetting :)

    Actually Ars just servers up static ads instead, so everything is cool.

    Well, it is and it isn't. Somewhere back up thread Ken mentions that flash based ads generate more revenue than the static ads do. Assuming (my assumption, not Ken's) that everyone blocked flash, but allowed static, the ad revenue would fall precipitously. So blocking ads, ipso-facto, is the not the entire issue here.

    The issue, based on various remarks, is that flash has acquired a rather nasty rep, but the advertisers pay more for flash than for other ad mediums. There needs to be a viable advertising medium other than flash, that provides some of the needed capabilities, and revenue stream, without the problems.

    Ars is trying to cover both sides of the argument, and I applaud them for doing so, but flash needs to fade out.

    P.S. What is going to happen when a numerically significant share of the target audience is on no-flash platforms ?
    4183 posts | registered
  13. I use clicktoflash and make no apology. If you would like me to accept what you are offering then select a format that is not so abusive/abused. Flash is definitely useful in some contexts but not in many others where it is applied. Are you going to object if I use lynx to browse your site? I want your content but you go away without my eyes. You offer, I accept (or not); I offer, you accept (or not). This interaction is a continuing dialogue. I don't like being shouted at so I don't generally go to the places where I have come to expect shouting. Flash is not the only annoyance but it generates bulk of my negative experience while browsing.

    Last edited by mykleh on Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:42 am

    8 posts | registered
  14. While I do block ads, on sites I like I occasionally go in without an adblocker and click on an ad or two, figuring that my clicks should hopefully offset any lost revenue from ads I didn't view.

    You mentioned Ars is paid on a per-view basis. I expect (or rather, hope) you also get paid per-click. What I'd like to know is on average how many views is a single click worth? In other words, since I don't plan on changing my habits or whitelisting sites like Ars anytime soon, after how many page views should I load and click on an ad to provide you with an equivalent stream of revenue?
    2 posts | registered
  15. Sure, I like the sites I visit and don't want them to fail, but not enough to go against my own principles and not use adblocking software.
    1 post | registered
  16. charleski wrote:
    Ken, you need to do some corporate head-knocking. Some of the replies on this thread and the earlier (and now hidden) DOI thread were seriously unprofessional. Yes, people get emotional, yes, this is an issue that affects their livelihoods. But if you can't work out how the attitude displayed by some of your staff seriously harmed your pitch then I can only feel sorry for you.

    4597 posts | registered
  17. When I first started using Firefox I used AdBlock because I wanted to protect myself from popups and against potentially malicious advertisements. But, when I gave it some thought I realized that I was doing exactly what the article talks about. So, I switched to running the NoScript addon and white-listing sites that I frequent a lot. I would hope that this does not block too many ads (it doesn't on Ars) but I do have to protect myself against websites that have been hacked. I see the ads on Ars and they are not intrusive and so I hope all readers would not block Ars' ads.
    1221 posts | registered
  18. nephilim7 wrote:
    where would you like the corporate welfare check sent to?

    this is the saddest thing I have ever seen from a content site I have (had) any respect for.

    What you are basically saying is 'help us sell useless imprints'. If people block ads, they usually have enough customer savvy to never click a single one.

    Find a new business model, not my problem.


    -the internet

    Holy fuck, Amen!
    4597 posts | registered
  19. I read this with ad blocker on.

    ..Yes, i am a moran
    1 post | registered
  20. darmok wrote:

    Spoke to one of my clients this afternoon - she read this article and some of the comments. Her take: Ars is in bed with the devil -- doubleclick. That block will never be removed (blocked at her business' network's gateway), period.

    I then went surfing around, and took a look at the code behind the grody animated ads, and almost all of them came thru Doubleclick.

    While I would want to reward Ars for their great content, I don't like the idea that doing so also pets the devil.

    I was operating under a similar assumption until it was pointed out that DoubleClick = Google since April 2007, nearly 3 years ago.
    10742 posts | registered
  21. I actually work for an advertising technology vendor (one of those "rich media vendors")

    For people who don't like ads, here's some steps to take:

    1. If an ad is annoying, contact the website
    2. If an ad is broken, contact the website
    3. If an ad is anything other than perfect, contact the website.

    Why do you ask? The website gets in touch with the ad vendor (or ad agency depending, who then gets in touch with the ad vendor) and complains. Once that happens, things get fixed.

    For instance, here's some of the things we do to be proactive.

    1. We use a high speed content delivery network, powered by Limelight and Akamai for serving all of our content. A lot of times, our ads will load much quickly than the site's content.
    2. We do not load the ad until after the page has completed loading (the "onload" event of window)
    3. We enforce a 40 KB "on start" file size unless (A) the website allows it and (B) we allow it (since it costs us money to serve ads)
    4. We do not allow audio on start without a lot of approvals taking place.
    5. Animation is limited and must eventually stop without user interaction.
    6. All ads pass a strict quality assurance process. One of the things is to not use more than 20% CPU on a Pentium 3 1.2 GHz with 256 MB of RAM running Windows XP. If it does, it gets rejected.
    13 posts | registered
  22. I hope you enjoy alienating your users. Oh and have fun trying to block-the-blockers. You'd have to be blind not to see that you are the real losers in this battle. I wasn't blocking before, but because of your attitudes now I am. If you can't pay your bandwidth and staff, that's your problem not mine. I didn't hire them. I've got an idea, please subsidize my bandwidth, CPU and computer bills so that I can afford to visit your site, otherwise I might be forced to stop, oh the horrors. Ars might be the first site in history to go under because of popularity.
    3 posts | registered
  23. mitpianoman wrote:


    Most sites are only paid on a CPM basis, aka cost per 1,000 views. Clicking generates no revenue for the vast majority of websites. In fact, only text ads like Google AdSense and Yahoo!'s equivalent and other smaller company's equivalents also pay on a CPC basis.
    13 posts | registered
  24. Why do people use ad blocking? Because the advertisers are known have some very nasty habits many of which are security hazards (especially flash) to the reader, some just very annoying (flash) or resource hungry (flash).

    If Ars were to keep advertisers to a code of conduct to reduce these security problems (cookie tracking and flash) and made sure they kept to it I'm sure that many more people may be willing to take more risk for this site.

    Advertisers need to learn you reap what you sow. Readers of this site are likely to be of above average technical ability and knowledge so are unlikely to tollerate spammer level adverts and are evidently able to take the simple steps necessary to avoid the annoyance.
    36 posts | registered
  25. me187 wrote:
    I read this with ad blocker on.

    ..Yes, i am a moran

    Get a brian.
    4597 posts | registered
  26. Years ago I blocked ads, but I got tired of whitelisting sites I like, so I uninstalled my ad blocker. I was content without blocking ads until last weekend, when a normally okay site had a pop up window which initiated a drive-by download of the XP Antivirus 2010 "rogue". Now the ad blocker is back on and I'm rethinking the idea of even whitelisting sites I like.

    This discussion has made me wonder, though. I'd imagine it is technically feasible for an ad blocker to load the page as if it wasn't there and only manipulate or hide what is displayed. If I download an ad, but don't see it, it is win-win right? I'm even okay with using my bandwidth for ads I don't see as long as my ad blocker logs what it is doing so I can check on it now and then.
    1 post | registered
  27. JustinS wrote:

    It's the editorial contempt Ars has heaped over the years on those other media for the steps they take to protect their business that makes the whole thing seem very hypocritical, not whether the technologies or business models are directly analogous in one way or another.

    (it seems to me ad blockers would probably hurt you guys even if the advertisers were paying for potential rather than site views, since ad blockers damage that potential in a presumably quantifiable way)

    I have to agree - considering how heavily the likes of Nate have gone pro-piracy and anti 'big content', this comes off as kind of hypocritical.

    I don't turn off the ads. Quite frankly, it hasn't been burdensome, and the ads that come off of Wired are sometimes interesting enough that I follow them. I have never found the ads here intrusive, so I'm not certain why so many here find them annoying.
    737 posts | registered
  28. Fine with unblocking on request, especially with Ars, but given how many ads are intrusive, annoying, and/or carry malicious content... I can't see doing this everywhere.

    As some slashdot readers pointed out, this is also my CPU and my bandwidth, and I should have a veto option if more than 50% of the content is not the story I asked for.
    1 post | registered
  29. I totally understand your need for advertising and I do not fault you for it. However, you face the same dilemma that radio and television broadcasters face. I can either channel surf or simply walk away. Just because the advertising code is transmitted doesn't mean that I'm actually viewing it.

    The reason I blocked ads is they slow down my connection and computer. I despise sites that have Flash home pages and I despise rich content advertising. I no longer own the latest hardware and it really shows on some web sites. I'm going to do what I can (short of purchasing the latest multi-core double digit gigabyte system) to make my browsing experience more pleasant. Ars should work with the advertising companies to accomplish this goal as well.
    1 post | registered
  30. A bit of a defensive article in tone, but I was unaware that your ads work on a 'per view' rather than 'per click' basis. I ad-block because I run a Linux netbook, and Flash ad banners simply grind my computer to a halt. However, Ars has now been whitelisted and I will just have to put up with sluggish scrolling for some free, excellent and thought-provoking tech news coverage. I think it's worth the trade-off!

    Your approach in the article was rather confrontational - an article presenting the problem and asking us what we thought instead of deciding on our motivations and casting judgement on them would have been better, but everyone enjoys a rant once in a while!
    1 post | registered
  31. Thank you for the article. I will harm you no more. Whitelisted!
    2 posts | registered
  32. Do you know that firewall of 60% of the companies block ads without the knowledge of user. So while the user is able to view the content, it sees a firewall block page instead of an ad. so i guess only home users who do not block ads can be your targets
    1 post | registered
  33. SoupIsGoodFood wrote:
    Have you guys ever tried talking to advertising firms about this and tried to back it up with traffic stats and surveys?
    Yes! We actually conducted a survey in the Fall for IT people on the site, asking about this very thing. The centralization of the ad business though is a big hurdle.

    darmok wrote:
    Caesar wrote:
    We get rid of Flash, we are out of business in two months.

    Please explain that. How could it possibly be that ads that anger users are going to pay your way whereas ads that attract users are bad?
    Those are the ads the agencies use. You don't support their ad creative, they move on and go elsewhere and you get nothing. These ads may not be loved by all, but on most sites they work really well. It has been very hard for us to tell agencies "look, this isn't going to work on Ars, try something like this" and have them not just walk away. Say an agency gets $200,000 to run a campaign for ACME. Say they spend 35k on making the ads that will run on 12 different sites. Then we say "no, do this instead." Now they can either take the same ad somewhere else, or they can spend another 10k just to make it work on Ars. You run that agency. What are you going to do?
    19231 posts | registered
  34. I've unblocked ads on Arstechnica and a few other sites I like. I'm happy to say that this has not affected my browsing, and so far I have not found any of the ad content on Arstechnica to be be objectionable or overly intrusive. I think if you support a site, then you should whitelist it on your ad blocker, this just makes sense, if you care about that site's survival.

    Perhaps you should have mentioned in your story that it's really easy to block/unblock a site, for people who are unsure how to do it, or just lazy.

    I use AdBlock on Chrome 4.0, and the short cut is CTRL-SHIFT-L. That's all it takes. When on any Ars Technica page, simply press CTRL-SHIFT-L to whitelist Ars Technica.

    If, for some reason, you need to black list it again, you can easily blacklist it with CTRL-SHIFT-K. But I would urge anyone who enjoys the articles here not to do that. These guys have a pretty benign ad policy. If, by chance, some nasty ad gets through, just drop them an email and tell them about it.
    26 posts | registered
  35. I respect your article. I have added to my whitelist.
    13 posts | registered
  36. I don't use any ad blockers but I detest flash adds. They are fucking annoying. If you are going to want to place adds to sell products for additional revenue - fine - I don't begrudge you until you start using those annoying fucking flash adds. They are an abomination. Any website that uses them that should wise up because all they do is irritate people and make them say words like "Fuck or Fucking". Seriously stop using them whoever you are.
    4913 posts | registered
  37. I would not use ad-blocking software if admakers and websites would not allow ads to become so intrusive. It can be very annoying to be reading a paragraph and then have it suddenly covered up by an ad that if you click on the option to close will simply open up anyway.
    1 post | registered
  38. Kanuck wrote:
    I doubt anyone from Ars will read this far, but if you do:

    I think it's *awesome* that you had the stones to block the people who block your ads. Even if it was only for 12 hours. Bravo.

    I'm still reading ;)
    15588 posts | registered
  39. mfluch wrote:
    shaunld wrote:
    Whitelisted, and installed Flashblock. There, done. =)

    One company I would never ever ever whitelist is! Sorry.

    Would you whitelist Google? They're the same company :)
    15588 posts | registered
  40. I don't know if I've ever clicked on an ad, and isn't clicking on them what gets you your money? I reserve the right to use my browser how I want, and how I want is without ads and flash popping up all over the place and annoying the shit out of me.
    4735 posts | registered

You must to comment.