[robertlaing]

You're right to ask the question. But (a) the site isn't optimized for you, and (b) Forbes is trying to make money. So your blog post comes across as (I'm sorry to say) naive.

If you want to find out these kinds of answers for yourself, try running an advertising-supported website for a few months — it could be genuinely interesting.

[kirillzubovsky]

I completely understand that Forbes is trying to make money and I hope they do. I assure you that I don't expect to read content for free, even if it's free. However, I believe that by encouraging me to read more of their content, in ways that would actually keep me on their site, overall would increase the number of ads that I get to see. Right now I came and I left because I was so put off by the clutter, but like I said at the end of the post, whenever I visit qz.com , I always read a lot more because I don't feel interrupted. If Forbes gave me more content and fewer ads, I would read more and would thereby see more ads. Maybe I am just not in the target audience, since I very very rarely click on the ads.

[robertlaing]

I don't know qz.com's financials, but the ad:content ratio of a profitable publication is normally a lot higher than what they have. Which suggests they're either strategically de-prioritizing advertising for the short term in order to build up audience, or they are struggling to sell space.

In the long-term, I would expect that for you to continue to enjoy quality content on qz.com, you'll probably be disappointed by an increasing amount of advertising. Whether it's in-between scrolling articles, or in the form of advertorial, or a banner at the top of the screen, it will come :( Such is the way of the world.