Ad Blocking From a Reader’s Perspective
21. Sep, 2007 
4 Comments - Leave your comment
When it comes to readers on a site, what is the reader typically after? The quick answer is the website’s content.
A blogger typically churns out content in hopes of gaining more readers. To be compensated, the blogger places advertisements so that some of the readers will click on the ads. If the readers do not click on the ads, the compensation doesn’t materialize, and the free content goes away (theoretically). This is, of course, assuming that the content producers expect to be compensated monetarily in the first place.
With the recent controversy over blocking ads, I’ve been forced to ask myself some tough questions. As a reader, all I want is the content. I don’t care about the ads. I really don’t. But, as a reader, what rights (if any) do I have?
Is a Reader Obligated to view the Blogger’s Advertisements?
In short, no. But neither is a blogger obligated to keep producing content.
A reader shouldn’t be taken for granted by a blogger, but the road works both ways. A blogger shouldn’t be taken for granted by his reader as well.
Bloggers put considerable effort into producing content, and a blogger tries to be compensated for this effort by making a little bit of money. And it would be awfully hard to make any money if the readers weren’t around linking to the posts and clicking on the ads.
A reader isn’t obligated to really do anything. The reader doesn’t have to comment. The reader doesn’t have to subscribe.
And the reader doesn’t have to come back. And from the comments I’ve read on the controversy, it’s a shame that some bloggers are happy with this conclusion.
Is the Reader Freeloading by Blocking Ads?
Mark Evans writes that everything has a price on the web, even free content.
Readers pay for content indirectly by viewing ads and clicking advertisements. But readers also pay for content indirectly by linking to said content, and viewing the site (increasing the blogger’s traffic for statistical purposes).
Now is a reader who blocks adverts freeloading on the labors of the blogger? In most cases, my opinion is no.
The reader, upon visiting a site, didn’t sign (or agree to) any contract that informed him or her that the content came with conditions. Perhaps it’s some kind of implied contract, but I think that’s a stretch.
Could a blogger get away with telling his readers up front, “Hey, if you’re going to block ads, I don’t want you here”? Of course. At least a reader knows what’s expected of him or her up front. But to call readers who block ads freeloaders is just name calling.
Is it Assumed that Only Blogs With Ads Produce Valuable Content?
Another misconception I see in many of the comments is that only blogs with advertisements serve valuable content — that if ads go away, all the good (and free) content goes away with it.
I read many blogs with good content, some have ads, some don’t. But it’s wrong to assume that the only sites with the good and valuable content have advertisements.
Say, for example, that I go to a superb and top-notch site laced with ads. Theoretically, if all readers blocked ads on this site, the content would go away or move to a paid model. If the content is that good to be able to sustain a paid model that readers are willing to pay for, then so be it.
Are Readers Stealing by Blocking Ads?
This question is based on the assumption that a blogger is providing something that ordinarily would be sold at a price, but is being given away as a gimmick in order to solicit ad clicks/views.
If a reader was obligated to pay for the content in the first place, but didn’t, then it is stealing. But in the case of content being freely available with no price placed on the content ahead of time, it’s hardly justifiable to call a reader a thief for disabling advertisements.
Is the Content Producer Simply Greedy for Placing Ads?
It depends on how intrusive the content producer is. If the blogger has partial feeds to encourage page views and ad-clicks, then I feel the blogger is being a little greedy. If the blogger splits blog posts over several pages to encourage more ad views and/or clicks, then yes, I do feel the blogger is being greedy. But a blogger placing an ad here or there, in my opinion, isn’t being greedy.
Blogger’s who go out of their way to force readers to view ads are the greedy ones. Are these the same bloggers who denounce ad blocking?
Do Readers Have the Ultimate Choice?
Yes. Readers choose to disable or enable ad-blocking software. Readers choose whether or not to come back to a site. Readers choose whether to subscribe or unsubscribe from a blog. Readers choose whether the content is worth paying for.
It’s the readers who have the ultimate choice. Plain and simple. If the blogger decides to switch to a paid model, that’s fine. But if no readers jump on board, then what?
Conclusion
The controversy is less about blocking ads and more about readers getting the ultimate choice in the way they view content. If a reader wants styles, images, flash, JavaScript, or a host of other web behaviors disabled, the reader can easily do that. The reader wants the content and how they view that content is up to them, whether it’s in a feed reader, on a mobile device, or on a browser with stripped down capabilities.
It’s a misconception that content producers can force readers to view the content on their terms without requiring some form of paid subscription. And if blog content starts moving towards the paid model, I predict that only a select few bloggers will be able to sustain a profitable reader subscription base.
Calling readers names will not get them to turn back on adverts. In the end, it’s how the content producer views the reader and how the reader views the content. It’s regrettable that some are content to conclude that readers are only as valuable as the ads they see.
Other RA Project Articles
Author Info
Fairly recently there was a site that directed all firefox users to a different page because there was a firefox plugin that would block their adverts. They decided that all firefox users should recieve the same treatment as a result, despite the fact that most of them had never heard of the ad-blocker.
I wrote about it, and my feelings about it here http://www.arickmann.co.uk/2007/08/28/stop-stealing-my-content/
On my sites with adverts I don’t really mind if someone decides to block them. I just hope they like the site anyway.
Andrew,
That is just crazy! Blocking an entire browser? Thanks for the link btw, I added it to the content theft section of this article.
it is crazy to blog the entire browser.
I just commented on Andrew’s post about it, but for the lack of time I just use the same argument here:
Some people are disabling images on the site to get them load fast – they’re not interested in seeing any images, they came only for the content and they have no time waiting for those images to load to read the text. Can you blame them? Of course, not. Can you blame readers for blocking the Popups, of course not. So why ad-blocking should be any different?
Ultimately, it is readers’ choice. Of course bloggers have a choice to offer paid-only posts (and some sites do that already). But like you said – very few will be able to get away with it.
We cannot blame readers for anything. If they choose to see only a part of the content I’m making available for them, it’s fully their choice.