[rglullis]

The thing is, if the product is actually valuable to me, I would spend more money on them that they could ever make from me through ads.

"But wait, what about freemium? Plenty of services remove the ads for paying customers", one might ask. The problem with it is that you now a have false sense of choice:

  1) Free product + ads
  2) Paid product and no ads.

There is a third alternative: free product, adblock, no ads.

Yes, marketing is much more than advertising. But I think that the "advertising" part is what everything else is based on, when it shouldn't. To take on your example, the "press who review products" is, most of the time, dependent on eyeballs to sell ads to. This model is so broken that you either have newspapers going bankrupt or Huffington Post-style blogs, with zero actual content.

If enough people started using adblock, perhaps we would get to a point where the current model would be unsustainable, which would producers to either:

  - Get rid of ad-based services and products, and start charging directly.
  - Improve their ads to make it more relevant to consumers.

[tomkarlo]

"There is a third alternative: free product, adblock, no ads."

By that logic, it's also possible to avoid high grocery bills by sticking some things in your pocket and not paying for them. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a scalable or ethical option.

Google's core breakthrough in advertising was to close the loop and push advertisers towards ads that are relevant to customers, where they know exactly how much they're earning per dollar they spend on ads. Ads have, actually, improved quite a bit over the past 10 years. The famous line was "half of ad spending is wasted, we just don't know which half" (paraphrased)... now they know which half.

To go back to the OP's subject - the reason why retargeting has grown so popular is that it WORKS LIKE A MOFO. Retargeted ads are usually an order of magnitude more relevant and are immensely cost effective in terms of spend versus conversions. The best indicator that someone's interested in buying a Ford? They visited the Ford site.

[rglullis]

If using adblock is unethical, so is torrenting TV shows; and I thought you agreed with me that the MPAA claim is bullshit.

Google is better than the alternatives, sure. It doesn't mean that it is any good. The ads I get on my cell phone are still awful, to the point of discouraging me to use it more.

[storborg]

It's not contradictory to agree that the MPAA's "every pirate is a stolen sale" claim is bullshit, but still think that torrenting TV shows is unethical.

Some may believe that the ethical choice is just to not watch that TV show.

[niels_olson]

> Some may believe that the ethical choice is just to not watch that TV show.

Here's my dilemma: I don't own a TV, I can't be bothered to even try to download, let alone watch. I tried with The Wire, it became a suffering labor to t trough it, no matter how interesting. Mad Men? Good luck. I have no time.

[elithrar]

> There is a third alternative: free product, adblock, no ads.

You're absolutely allowed to do this if you choose, but you should also be aware that it's harming the sites/app that you're obviously visiting. If a site has incredibly intrusive ads, I just choose not to visit it. Most sites I visit respect the user enough to not have crazy pop-over/roll-over ads; as a result, I don't use AdBlock extensions and they get their CPM $.

FYI, here's the Arstechnica article RE: Ars vs. AdBlock, for those interested: http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-d...

[rglullis]

I addressed this in another comment. I have zero tolerance for ads, no matter how "un-intrusive" they are.

Also, it is a matter of signaling: I don't want to reward sites that have a business model reliant on ads. That would give them a very strong incentive to go to the lowest common denominator and just optimize all their work to increase page views.

Ten years ago, we used to complain about the state of "mainstream media" and thought that blogs would be our salvation. But instead of rewarding quality work of bloggers, we decided that it was okay to accept ads. When you get that, you get a popularity contest, and this is why we end up with crap like Techcrunch and Engadget and other AOL-owned "properties".

Ars provides the "premium" service, but what they offer for it? Full-text RSS? It is not worth $5/month. I will just adblock + readability the hell out of their articles.

To sum up: I don't want to hurt the sites, but I do want to hurt the business model. If the websites rely on this failed business model? I'm sorry, but it is just collateral.

[earl]

Dude, were you arsed to see what Ars offers for their $5/month? Because IN GIANT BOLD TYPE, they offer -- and I'm quoting -- "Ad free, premier page layouts."

http://arstechnica.com/subscriptions/

So, to summarize:

(1) You don't want to "reward" sites that have a business model reliant on ads

(2) you want their content anyway

(3) when they offer you a trade: pay us $5 and we won't show you ads, you ignore them

Conclusion: you're a cheap dick.

[beeneto]

Please read this http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

[klez]

This is a ransom, not a business model...

[acdha]

Ransom would be if Ars editors stormed your house and forced you to watch their ads. Business models don't get much more textbook than offering free and premium versions.

[rglullis]

We both looked at the same page. But what is the point of "premier page layouts" if my preferred means of consumption is the RSS feed?

Full-text RSS is the only thing that would interest me, but not $5/month worth of interest.

Conclusion: yo mama is fat.

[acdha]

Conclusion: you don't actually intend to pay anything but somehow think freeloading should be respected. Quality content doesn't come for free: if you valued Ars' content either unobtrusive ads or $5/month are good options for ensuring that they'll be there next year.

[rglullis]

Really? They seemed to be doing just fine without my 5 bucks.

But let's put aside the whole Ars debate: which part of the "I want to hurt the business model" you guys haven't read? I will not support any site that relies on ads, even if there is the "freemium" alternative. I want ad-based anything to die, and to die fast.

Much like subsidized agriculture, any ad-based economy is inefficient and produces incredible unknown side-effects.

And I hate to have to keep justifying myself, but I put about $15/month on flattr. Whenever I see anyone using it with any remotely good content, I am more than happy to pay. I keep a subscription to Ubuntu One even though I barely use it. One of the features that I liked the most about github and disappeared: the link to pledgie.com. One of the YC companies that really got me excited, I participated some, but unfortunately didn't take off: micropledge.

I want to consume things of quality, but I don't see any quality coming from any business that is ad-based. If they want to see my money, first they need to get rid of ads and commit to excellence, not the other way around.

[dubya]

It's technically possible for sites to not serve content to those who use adblock. I remember arstechnica.com did this once to make a point. I guess if this was widespread, it would turn into an arms race though.

[throw_away]

I'm pretty sure that washingtonpost.com does this now. This URL, for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-governments-ou... serves content if you have adblock plus turned off, but a registration page if you have it turned on.

[floomp]

I have ABP and could view the article for a few times, then I tried again and I got the registration page. Disabling ABP didn't change that. I have a feeling it's based on how many times you've viewed their site rather than ad blockers.

[zmj]

What makes you think that you're qualified to judge what's relevant to you?

[rglullis]

I hope you are joking.

I am me. I guess that is a pretty strong credential.