8 years ago
8
What media companies don’t want you to know about ad blockers
New York Times CEO Mark Thompson caused a minor stir a couple weeks ago when he gave a speech at an advertising conference declaring that “No one who refuses to contribute to the creation of high quality journalism has the right to consume it.” By Trevor Timm.
Continue Reading
http://www.cjr.org
Join the Discussion
I don't understand what would be so impossible about in-house advertising. Yes, it's a bit more work. But it's not like The New York Times livestreams its print ads from some shady third party. Someone at the paper reviews the ads, manually inserts them into the paper, and the paper goes to print. It's really not that hard.
Obviously, blogs and online news magazines have the ability to deliver text and pictures, and that's all you need to do to show your readers ads. None of this malware-injecting javascript from a country you've never heard of nonsense. That's the easy way to do it. The right way would be a lot more work--they might even have to hire an editor tor two--but readers would be much more willing to disable their adblocking if there were no longer screamers, performance-hindering flash animation, and totally valid security concerns.
You really don't need to see my ad rant yet again but this sums things up very well indeed.
Trevor, Trevor, I'm a tech journalist. I know that ad blockers can be helpful. So does Thompson. Here's the problem. Ad-blockers are Killing journalism. It would be great if there was another business model for online publishing. After over 20-years of the Web, we still don't have one. For better, or worse, we have to use ads.
What we should do in our business is use ads correctly so they're not shouting in everyone's faces--but that's another story.
Lets face it. In the last 20 years we have gone from picture ads on the side bars, popup ads, to ads that collect your information and can infect your pc. There was never any intent to use ads wisely, only ways to make ads worse. There is definetly a bussiness model and it has nothing to do with the readers enjoyment. Sadly it has everything to do with getting information. Saying companies need to use ads correctly is a phrase companies use to placate the users fears.
If the physical world was just as susceptible to invasive advertising as the internet is, we would have to watch a 30 second ad before starting a car, or any other device for that matter. :D
This is true..And I honestly think this is what will indeed happen with TIOT.
Want to turn on your oven?
Watch this ad.
Answer questions about this ad on this virtual keyboard.
DING!
You now have permission from the ad gods to turn on your oven.
Imagine having to do this on every appliance in the house and having ads running on every one of them 24/7. Won't that be fun!? As a bonus,you won't be able to mute them, or turn them off.
Once they control your computers and hand held devices, nothing will stop them from doing the same to every thing in your house.
They think they own us and our computers. We are showing them they don't and they don't like it.
If they could beam ads into your brain 24/7 they would. For me,the buck stops here and it stops now.
I control what I see on my machine, end of discussion..They can take their ads and shove um. I'm not here to help them make money.
End of rant (till next time,cause there is always a next time.)
If that happened I think I'd start a fire in the middle of the kitchen and cook on it.
Now that would be fun to watch!