OneAndOneIs2

One of Firefox's big 'selling' points was the popup blocker, and let's face it, popups=adverts

One of the most popular extensions for FF is adblock, which makes it very simple to prevent all the big advertisers from getting their content onto your screen.

And that's all very well for you users, say the publishers, but what about us, the content providers? It's wrong for you to download our content if you won't also open the adverts that pay for it.

There are those who argue against advert-blocking technologies. If we don't allow sites to make money from their adverts, then what's the incentive for those sites to exist? they ask.

So, as a self-confessed advert-blocker, how do I justify it?

Where do I start?

Firstly, with the implication of a "social contract" that pro-ad people claim exists. If you download our page, they say, you're obliged to download anything else we may want you to see as well.

No, I'm not. There's no agreement expressed or implied on my part that I'll download anything other than the page I request, any more than there's an agreement with a TV audience that they're obliged to watch the ads that interrupt their favourite show. If you want such a contract to exist, make a page pop-up a dialogue box before the page will load. Otherwise, shut up about agreements, implied or otherwise. There aren't any. Period.

Secondly, there's the argument that I should support the people that are giving me content I like.

Fair enough, can't argue with that. So let me see, what websites do I typically visit in a day?

LinuxQuestions Slashdot Dilbert Garfield Sinfest Userfriendly

Contributing member Subscribed member Own every book Own every book Own every book Own every book & am a paid-up member

And so on. I get no actual benefits out of paying for membership to any of the above, other than (on some) the option of advert-free pages. A moot point with adblock installed, of course.

I'm happy to support worthwhile things that I get for free. What I'm not happy to do is kill popup windows and view flashing animated banners that make it difficult to view the actual content.

What is it with online advertising? Where did all that marketing experience go when businesses made the transition to the digital age? Why did they suddenly throw away tried-and-tested advertising techniques that make people want to buy their product, and opt instead to be so annoying and intrusive that people all over the world are dedicated to shutting their adverts out?

There are TV ads out there that have fan pages devoted to them. There are websites that exist purely to make TV adverts available for download because people want to watch them. There are many TV & radio adverts that people like to see/hear. Because that's what makes people remember them & buy the products.

Where are the webpages devoted to internet adverts? They're nowhere. Because instead of making adverts that we're eager, or at least willing, to look at, we get adverts pretending to be system messages, and adverts we have to click on to stop them obscuring the content, and adverts that flash with glaring, ugly colours. . .

Stop making adverts piss us off, and we'll stop blocking them. It's that simple! You'll often hear people say that they block all ads other than Google's, because Google have nice obvious, unobtrusive little boxes with relevant adverts.

Relevant adverts. What a concept. Adverts that show you something you might actually want to buy. Whatever happened to those?

When I buy a computer magazine, I get computer-based adverts. I have, in fact, bought magazines for no other reason than to read the adverts in the past. So why, exactly, do I get adverts for IM emoticons (stupid smiley graphics) on a web page devoted to meditating? What's the logic there?

I just did a search on Google.co.uk for "pizza" - over on the right, I got an advert for Domino's Pizza - a chain which, in fact, has a store just down the road. This is an intelligent, in fact downright useful, advert.

What's less useful is going to a website & seeing an advert for a pizza parlour in another country. That's a waste of both my and the advertiser's bandwidth: I'm never going to buy this product, no matter how good it is. And that's another big problem with the adverts I see on the web: They're aimed at an American audience, and I'm not in America.

So if I'm never going to click on that advert, it's a good idea to save us both some time & bandwidth, and block the advert from appearing, right?

Well, that brings us to the next point: Many years ago, long before I had Firefox or adblock options, I resolved not to click on these annoying ads that were blighting my favourite web pages. And I stuck to that resolution. So the net difference of my getting hold of adblock? Well, before, I never clicked on any adverts but I cost the providers bandwidth. Now, I never click on adverts and I don't use up any advertiser bandwidth. Overall, therefore, the advertisers are better-off now that I'm blocking their ads.

What's more, there are sites that I definitely do not support. Slashdot is a bit of a culprit here - they link to a site that's published the latest MS-sponsored bit of anti-Linux propaganda, and so naturally I want to go and see what lies are being spread.

But frequently, that site has published this garbage just so they get lots of outraged Linux users coming to their site & rewarding them with lots of advertising revenue. That's not the way to do it. Burn up their bandwidth and ensure they don't get a penny from advertisers - that's what'll make the parasites dry up.

So, all-in-all: Adverts aren't the sole means of a site getting revenue, and they're foolish if it's all they rely on. Advertisers putting obnoxious adverts have only themselves to blame for the ever-dwindling sales their adverts generate. Advert-blocking is technically simple and ethically sound, and I'll continue to do it until the advertisers get their act together and stop giving me reasons to.

So there! :P