Whether you should be forced to view ads in online content is a brewing controversy you may have not known existed (a recent description). Think of it as similar to the issue of whether you should record television programs and then fast forward through the commercials. The companies producing the content want you to see the ads. You might prefer to not take your time to do so. A similar issue applied with online content and has become more prominent with the update to Apple software. There have been ways to block ads in content for some time, but Apple has made the practice easier by kind of accepting the practice as the default.
Most of us, including me, seldom consciously consider the role that ads play. We may know, but fail to give the motives of those who include ads much thought. For example, we may accept ads in newspapers and magazines and accept the presence of the ads because we can do nothing about them. We may not consciously acknowledge that the presence of the ads subsidizes the production of those publications and “buys down” the cost of the publications to us. What about those content sources we can access at no cost – say television and Internet content? To some extent, the ads do the same thing but to an even greater degree with these forms of content. The revenue from the ads is what the content providers receive in compensation for their work.
This issue has become a cause for me. You might wonder why. I do include ads in my blogs (you may see one of these ads in the side bar). Just for the record, I receive no money unless someone clicks on one of these ads. The appearance of a Google ad alone brings no revenue to the content provider. Also, for the record, I have never made enough in a month of offering content (since 2002) to cover my expenses for renting server space. So, on average, whether my ads appear or not, makes about one McDonald’s coffee a month difference to me.
What has begun to bother me is the principle of ad-supported content and public willingness to avoid thinking about how this works. I wonder if most folks consciously consider the work of content providers. Part of my concern is that this apathy will ruin what I think was part of the original vision for the Internet. This vision was the Internet would reduce the barriers for content generation and allow more folks to participate and possibly “profit”. My concern is that a technical battle here will squeeze out the small players.
Here is what I mean. I have the background and technical skills to block the blockers if I choose to do so. I am presently experimenting with ways to do this and the consequences to my traffic flow should I decide to take certain courses of action. For a demonstration, take a look at one of my other blogs. If you look near the top of the page in the left-hand side bar, you will see a message related to ads and ad blocking. I can tell if you are employing an ad blocker or not.
Instead of sending these messages, I could have my software take an action. I could send anyone using ad blocking software to an error page instead of allowing access to content. This is a version of what “pay wall” sites such as the New York Times already do. You go along with the revenue generation model of the site or you are not allowed access. Those who depend on the ad revenue or can implement such software strategies and lose their viewers as a consequence will likely move on to spend their time in other ways. As an example of a site heavily dependent on ads, I would point people to the Free Technology for Teachers site.
My purpose in this post is one of raising awareness. Understand the consequences of your actions and consider the position of those who take the time to generate the content you consume.