Read an article somewhere recently all about Adblock and the effect that it's starting to have on the internet in general. Basically programs like it are going to change the way websites are monetarised in the future. Certain companies can pay Adblock to be exceptions to their blocking rules. And aren't very happy at Adblock basically being able to hold them to ransom. This was on the BBC website or something - I was surprised that this little bit of software that I've had for years is now such a big story in mainstream news. Of course once Adblock has a deal to allow ads from Nike, say, some new piece of software will pop up to block those ads and we'll all install that. Thank God for the geeks who sit around writing these programs mostly for no money at all.
But if no one earns out of it, the whole thing will die eventually. As annoying as those 30 second ads were on PNPs video, I was still glad to watch it, and if the ads weren't there, maybe it would never have been available.
Inda tries not to get too technical... There are "forks" of Adblock Plus. Such as Adblock Edge, Trueblock Plus, Adblock Lite, Adblock Plus Fork... These new versions have no paid-for options. If Adblock Plus gets all ****ty, everyone will move over to the alternatives. Monetarisation: These advert companies deserve all they get. If they hadn't decided to plaster 20 flashing adverts on one page, Adblock Plus would never have been invented. As for websites: sell something, ask for donations, go back to treating your little hobby site as a hobby, not a form of income. I've never been a big fan of the World Wide Web, but it was ten times better pre year 2000 without so many adverts. My bandwidth, my computer, my browser, my decission on what's displayed on my monitor.
The irony of the BBC writing anything about ad blockers when they do ads on youtube for their stuff. If I was in government I'd be forcing youtube to be using Geo IP ad blocking on all BBC content.
All very good points As the Internet matures, I suspect there is a middle ground. An assurance that ads will be monitored for quality, duration etc and that where content needs to be paid for before sharing, then a toleration of decent ads will make adblock superfluous. But I agree that most should be ad free.
"I suspect there is a middle ground" Not as far as the advertisers go. Any tech that disables them will be strongly lobbied against. Some companies are even trying to develop 'entanglement' tech whereby removal of ad frames will somehow affect affect the quality of 'content' frames in an A/V stream (so the ads are permanently embedded in content copied "over the air" etc) .
I have no problem with adverts in the correct context. The content has to be paid for somehow and the providers are entitled to make a profit. Plastering crap all over the stuff I'm trying to watch or sticking artificial breaks into programmes is not acceptable, though. Product placement in films and TV can **** right off, too.
You not a fan of Aston Martins, Sony Phones, Sony Laptops, BMW, Omega watches, Martini or Heineken Beer then PNP?
"Plastering crap all over the stuff I'm trying to watch" They do that because they know people like me will resize their browser so only the vid stream is visible etc. And given the match streams etc are illegal transmission anyway, that is the price one must pay. "or sticking artificial breaks into programmes is not acceptable, though." But that is the basic mode for commercial TV anyway, so no complaints there. The nonsense you see on Sky media though (2 min ads for 30 second clips etc) is the one that really makes me explode. Followed closely by ads on youtube for ANY BBC content (I have ALREADY PAID the BBC tax - so they can allegedly produce content ad-free) .
I'm not sure anyone is "entitled to make a profit". If I run a shop selling **** Sandwitches, am I entitled to make a profit? Just because I follow a link to YouTube, doesn't mean the content shown to me is worth my money, or my eyeballs, which are also sold [to other marketers]. Blasting adverts into my brain is not the only issue. There are only a handful of advertising companies and the amount of tracking they do angers me no end. I would not be happy if someone followed me around the shopping centre with a clipboard, writing down everything that I looked at. I'm not happy about the advertisors doing the same. They go far beyond that though. Why should sky.com know that I've been visiting arseticklers.com? Tesco doesn't know that I visit Asda. But, saying all that, are adverts really effective? If I want a new car, I'll look at reviews, look at technical specification and finally look at price. An advert for a car will not help my buying process. I'd go as far as to say adverts put me off brands. I will never ever visit gocompare.com because of that singing numpty.
"I'm not sure anyone is "entitled to make a profit"." Kinda the point of commercial business, no. But the match streamers etc on ads should probably be looking to be "zero sum" on the cost of their setups (as few ads as possible to cover their costs and no more) .
I know what you're saying but you're more likely to think of the car you've seen advertised when looking into cars and I'm pretty sure there's some research that was done that shows you tend to trust products and brands you see regularly advertised.
After all these years, the companies would have worked out whether their advertising models deliver on the bottom line or not. The thing that seems to be of most concern now to them is consumer irritation. The Go Compare ads, being the advertiser that appears most when the 2 min ad appears before the 30 second vid clip can be watched etc No company wants to be that advertiser.
I can't get out of my mind when this subject comes up, a picture of Maggie Blanchflower watching entire games with ads blocking half the pitch! getting rid of them should be easy and no trickery, you click the most obvious X which turns into a mistake when the real one, which isn't always there from the start either, is tucked away somewhere half hidden.
I wonder what AVB is doing with Gomes?Is he sitting out his contract or given a job cleaning out the dressing rooms.....? Nobody appears to want to sign him!
He was part of the squad which travelled to Villa on Sunday, although that was really because Jordan Archer was being saved for yesterday's under 21 game. The reality is that Gomes is now 4th choice keeper, although that may have changed after Archer's "indiscretion" yesterday.
