Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love

By Ken Fisher
| Last updated a day ago

Did you know that blocking ads truly hurts the websites you visit? We recently learned that many of our readers did not know this, so I’m going to explain why.

There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won’t hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis. If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue. Because we are a technology site, we have a very large base of ad blockers. Imagine running a restaurant where 40% of the people who came and ate didn’t pay. In a way, that’s what ad blocking is doing to us. Just like a restaurant, we have to pay to staff, we have to pay for resources, and we have to pay when people consume those resources. The difference, of course, is that our visitors don’t pay us directly but indirectly by viewing advertising. (Although a few thousand of you are subscribers, and we thank you all very, very much!)

My argument is simple: blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love. I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, or makes someone the son of the devil. It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content. It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin. As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature. We’ve all seen it happen. I am very proud of the fact that we routinely talk to you guys in our feedback forum about the quality of our ads. I have proven over 12 years that we will fight on the behalf of readers whenever we can. Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that? Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads. But any of you reading this site for any significant period of time know that these are few and far between. We turn down offers every month for advertising like that out of respect for you guys. We simply ask that you return the favor and not block ads.

If you read a site and care about its well being, then you should not block ads (or you subscribe to sites like Ars that offer ads-free versions of the site). If a site has advertising you don’t agree with, don’t go there. I think it is far better to vote with page views than to show up and consume resources without giving anything in return. I think in some ways the Internet and its vast anonymity feeds into a culture where many people do not think about the people, the families, the careers that go into producing a website. People talk about how annoying advertisments are, but I’ll tell you what: it’s a lot more annoying and frustrating to have to cut staff and cut benefits because a huge portion of readers block ads. Yet I’ve seen that happen at dozens of great sites over the last few years, Ars included.

Invariably someone always pops into a discussion like this and brings up some analogy with television advertising, radio, or somesuch. It is not in any way the same; advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences, and not for results. They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching, Y will likely see the ad (and it even varies by ad position, show type, etc!). But they really have no true idea who sees what ad, and that’s why it’s a medium based on potential and not provable results. On the Internet everything is 100% trackable and is billed and sold as such. Comparing a website to TiVo is comparing apples to asparagus. And anyway, my point still stands: if you like this site you shouldn’t block ads. Invariably someone else will pop in and tell me that it’s not their fault that our business model sucks. My response is simple: you either care about the site’s well-being, or you don’t. As for our business model sucking, we’ve been here for 12 years, online-only. Not many sites can say that.

Let me stop and clarify quickly that I am not saying that we are on the verge of vanishing from the Internet. But we, like many, many sites are greatly affected by ad blocking, and it is a very worrisome trend.

So I’ll end this part of the discussion by just reiterating my point: blocking ads hurts the sites you love. Please consider not blocking ads on those sites.

Interesting take and very rightly said.

I am not a frequent reader of Arstechnica.com but I am definitely a reader of a lot of other sites where there are ads and are blocked by Adblocker on my browser [Most of the time I never notice that there are ads on those sites whatsoever because of Adblocker].

I understand and I sympathize. I might think on whitelisting some sites that I visit but in the short and long terms, editors should start thinking of a business model less intrusive without loosing their readers. What are those? Think about it.

Recently I got this email, I do not know the source but thought of sharing it on the blog :

George Phillips , an elderly man, from Meridian , Mississippi , was
going up to bed, when his wife told him that he’d left the light on in
the garden shed, which she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the back door to go turn off the light, but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things.

He phoned the police, who asked “Is someone in your house?”
He said “No,” but some people are breaking into my garden shed and stealing from me.

Then the police dispatcher said “All patrols are busy. You should
lock your doors and an officer will be along when one is available.”

George said, “Okay.”

He hung up the phone and counted to 30. Then he phoned the police again.

“Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people stealing things from my shed. Well, you don’t have to worry about them now because I just shot them.” and he hung up.

Within five minutes, six Police Cars, a SWAT Team, a Helicopter, two Fire Trucks, a Paramedic, and an Ambulance showed up at the Phillips’
residence, and caught the burglars red-handed.

One of the Policemen said to George , “I thought you said that you’d shot them!”
George said, “I thought you said there was nobody available!”

MORAL :

Innovation pays when emergency arises

Innovation brings in good results.

The fact is, people don’t just buy art for its inherent artistic merit. They also buy it as advertisement for themselves.

When you buy a work of art, you’re not just trying to get it to match the sofa. You’re buying it to help you express and reinforce your own worldview. Ergo, the art is there to assert something unrelated to the artist or the work.

The above sentences from Hugh Mcleod are so self explanatory but we forget about them very much often. A lot of time when we buy things [ I did not wanted to say ‘all the time’ by generalising it], we just don’t buy them because we liked it, but also because those things will help in further representing the image we have created for ourselves or trying to create.

And may be we like it in first place, because those things align with our image and what we want to be perceived as by the rest of the world.

Why did you buy that thing? Does it align for what you stand for as well?