darksoul Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 I believe there are real ethical issues with using a pop up blocker. Neowin for instance spends a good deal of time and money to run this website and as far as i can tell their main if not only avenue of revenue is through advertising on the site. So the site is free to view but with that comes the assumption if not understanding that you will be viewing the ads on the site. So by using a ad/popup blocker you are preventing neowin from making money and in my mind stealing the content. Now i know a lot of people are going to say, yes but i can just turn the channel on tv or flip past the add in a magazine but that is not an appropriate comparison. TV and web ads are prepaid and whether or not you looked at the ad they can use you as a viewer in their attempts to sell the advertising. In (most) web advertising the advertisers pay per impression or per click through so if you are blocking that ad the site is not getting paid. A better comparison would be that you are getting a free copy of the newspaper without their knowledge so they can't use you as a viewer in their attempts to secure future advertising. Yes one person makes little difference in this matter but when 50% or more of your viewers can't be used it can be a fatal blow to many struggling websites. Now with XP service pack 2 coming with a pop up blocker that is on by default it will be a huge percentage of your viewership not receiving the advertising and therefore getting the content for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowimnothing Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Definitely an interesting dilemma. I'm certain alot of people just have the attitude of "oh well, they're annoying" and won't ever think about it beyond that. This is another item in a long list of things that were sort of taken for granted before computers - people just couldn't do anything about them, so they became a part of life. Now with technology, a circular pattern of prevention followed by circumvention and back again makes things interesting. You're definitely right about XP SP2 with the popup blocker (and currently MSN's popup blocker, and in the more longterm, IE for longhorn's pop up blocker). Its going to force the popup blocking concept down people's throats (which will make them happy, even if they don't have a clue) and its going to cause some sort of change in the web advertising industry. Should be interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing what other people think about it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kongit Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 If people can disable them, then if the website wants to show ads they need to find another means. If ads were so annoying most likely they wouldn't be blocked. Popup blocking is important as some sites abuse popups. Beyond the fact they are about the most annoying ad, they can be very troublesome and time consuming. I personally don't see anything wrong with adblocking. It is no worse than tivo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Is it unethical to put the phone down on telemarketers? Afterall, if enough people did that they will lose their jobs. Why don't I let companies call me 24 hours a day to sell me things I don't want... just so a student can get a pay check? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted March 18, 2004 Veteran Share Posted March 18, 2004 Unethical? Are you serious? That is like saying if don't buy the products advertised on a TV show you're a thief. If the methods can't make them money, they need different methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyder Veteran Posted March 18, 2004 Veteran Share Posted March 18, 2004 Now with XP service pack 2 coming with a pop up blocker that is on by default it will be a huge percentage of your viewership not receiving the advertising and therefore getting the content for free. I definately can appreciate your post as your heart is in the right place, but unless I'm wrong, the XP2 popup blocker blocks just that.. pop ups. Not ads themselves. Since Neowin doesn't use popup ads, we'll be unaffected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoMayhem Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Its all about control. Do you want them to control what you see, or do you want control? I want control over the webpages I see, and same with TV and stuff. This is why I have used ad blockers for a few years and download TV shows, Commercial free and I can watch them when I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 I fear that the end of popup ad blocking is near. I fear it because popup ads could always be ignored. There is one type of net advert worse than the popup. That is the unclosable DHTML advert. I'm sure you all know what I mean. I fear that we'll see many more of those types of ads, which will mean disabling Javascript so things like menu systems, etc will no longer work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Neowin's ad never bother me, but some sites are just rediculous (why I stopped going to IGN/Gamespot, and the like and go to gamefaqs, who has less than annoying advertising). The internet is getting as bad as print media these days, which is almost as bad as television advertising - IMO, any way to get rid of them is fine by me, if they are truly taking away from the content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksoul Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 Is it unethical to put the phone down on telemarketers? Afterall, if enough people did that they will lose their jobs. Why don't I let companies call me 24 hours a day to sell me things I don't want... just so a student can get a pay check? I think not. You are not getting a service from those telemarketers, you are getting a service from the website. That is a bad analogy. You go to the website and pop ups they don't come to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksoul Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 I definately can appreciate your post as your heart is in the right place, but unless I'm wrong, the XP2 popup blocker blocks just that.. pop ups. Not ads themselves. Since Neowin doesn't use popup ads, we'll be unaffected. I was using neowin as an example, many sites do use pop up ads and many pop up blockers also block inpage ads. Do you think banner ad blockers are bad but pop ups blockers are ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksoul Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 Its all about control. Do you want them to control what you see, or do you want control?I want control over the webpages I see, and same with TV and stuff. This is why I have used ad blockers for a few years and download TV shows, Commercial free and I can watch them when I want. again they arn't forcing anything on you, you choose to go to the site and if you don't like the advertising you can choose not to go back. But by going to the site and gaining utility from the site while blocking they way they make money off people who gain such utility from their work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mm3h Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 i dont block the banners i block the popups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowimnothing Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Unethical?Are you serious? That is like saying if don't buy the products advertised on a TV show you're a thief. If the methods can't make them money, they need different methods. I think the implication is that viewing ads is the "understood" payment (non-monetary) for receiving the service you get from the website, tv show, whatever. By taking that away, you're removing the "payment" you've been making, and getting the service for free. If they want to come up with another way of making money, then by all means. But the question dealt with the intentional avoidance of "payment" for what you receive. Its definitely a kind of sketchy area, but i think its a valid point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoRandomDragon Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 It is my computer. Companies have abused ads so that they place tracking cookies on my computer. It is because of this abuse that I have ads blocked by ZAP. If they don't like me blocking ads, all they can do is disallow me access to the web site. I have the right to block ads, they have the right to disallow me access to their site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowimnothing Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 It is my computer. Companies have abused ads so that they place tracking cookies on my computer. It is because of this abuse that I have ads blocked by ZAP.If they don't like me blocking ads, all they can do is disallow me access to the web site. I have the right to block ads, they have the right to disallow me access to their site. My initial reaction to that is just that i doubt alot of people would agree that they should be restricted from a site because they're blocking ads/popups... just a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted March 18, 2004 Veteran Share Posted March 18, 2004 I think the implication is that viewing ads is the "understood" payment (non-monetary) for receiving the service you get from the website, tv show, whatever. By taking that away, you're removing the "payment" you've been making, and getting the service for free. If they want to come up with another way of making money, then by all means. But the question dealt with the intentional avoidance of "payment" for what you receive. Its definitely a kind of sketchy area, but i think its a valid point. I disagree, they essentially put free entertainment up with the assumption that people had to view their ads (TV and Websites, etc.) When this isn't the case it isn't the fault of the viewer for avoiding something with was at one point imposed on them. I don't agree that there is some understanding that existed. When someone would get up during commercials on their favorite television show, I don't remember anybody crying foul. How did commercials combat the bathroom/fridge run, during a show? They gave commercials higher production values, and tried to make them entertaining. Sounds like web adds simply need to rise to the current challenge or be buried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoRandomDragon Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 My initial reaction to that is just that i doubt alot of people would agree that they should be restricted from a site because they're blocking ads/popups... just a guess. Indeed, a site that forces ads will be very unpopular. I am not saying they should, but it is certainly in their right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyder Veteran Posted March 18, 2004 Veteran Share Posted March 18, 2004 Do you think banner ad blockers are bad but pop ups blockers are ok? yes. simply because a site can suddenly open 7 different IE windows without my authorization. Then when you attempt to close the popup, 3 more pop up to replace it. popups are out of control. simple page ads however are fine by me. I don't even notice them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isomer Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 yes. simply because a site can suddenly open 7 different IE windows without my authorization. Then when you attempt to close the popup, 3 more pop up to replace it.popups are out of control. simple page ads however are fine by me. I don't even notice them. Agreed! :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eevoo Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 I think that a important point is being missed here, I'll bet that almost 100% of the people that use a pop-up blocker of some type would not even click on the add in the first place. Now if I understand adds right you have to click on them for the website that uses them to get their cut, or maybe they do it on views? I don't know. But if it is done by clicking on the add, how is blocking it alltogether and worse than not clicking on it? Just because it pops up dos not mean they click on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destian Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Popup ads are just so wrong. Keep the ads on the pages. Salon.com does something kind of creative. In order to visit the site sometimes you need to watch a short 20 secondish video ad, but then after you watch you're free to view the entire site for a full day. Then if you want to view the site the next day, you watch another short clip. I think more sites should look into that. (I'm a premium member now, so I'm not sure if they still do it, but, yeah...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isomer Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 I think that a important point is being missed here, I'll bet that almost 100% of the people that use a pop-up blocker of some typewould not even click on the add in the first place. Now if I understand adds right you have to click on them for the website that uses them to get their cut, or maybe they do it on views? I don't know. But if it is done by clicking on the add, how is blocking it alltogether and worse than not clicking on it? Just because it pops up dos not mean they click on it. well it depends on the deal... some are click some are view... if the ad is for something i like i will click it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rell Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Well, I think pop-ups are overly intrusive, so, i think it is okay to try and block those... banner ads should be left alone though ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyder Veteran Posted March 18, 2004 Veteran Share Posted March 18, 2004 Popup ads are just so wrong. Keep the ads on the pages.Salon.com does something kind of creative. In order to visit the site sometimes you need to watch a short 20 secondish video ad, but then after you watch you're free to view the entire site for a full day. Then if you want to view the site the next day, you watch another short clip. I think more sites should look into that. (I'm a premium member now, so I'm not sure if they still do it, but, yeah...) I'm guessing neowin gets paid by impression (views) as well as clicks. click is likely more than impression though. i guess that because it seems logical if it gets on admin's ###### when people block the simple display of our ads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts