From AdBlock Plus to TiVo - is blocking the ads stealing?

Adam Turner
Monday, 24 September 2007 19:18

Opinion and Analysis

Blocking all Firefox users, just because of the AdBlock Plus plugin, is a sure-fire way to put your website out of business.

For a community that is relatively pro-choice when it comes to new technologies, the internet is full of double standards when it comes to ad-blocking. Many tech-savvy people seem to think it's their god-given right to skip televisions advertisements with their TiVos, but then get up in arms when people use AdBlock Plus in Firefox to block ads on their blogs. Apparently it's okay for me to skip the ads which support the free-to-air commercial television model, but I'll burn in hell if I block the ads supporting the pro-blogging model.

The ad-blocking debate has be fanned by the fact some sites are now blocking all Firefox users because of the AdBlock Plus plugin. Any site silly enough to do this should expect a massive user backlash that will shut them down much faster than lost revenues from a little ad-blocking.

I use Firefox and I use AdBlock Plus - even through a large chuck of my income comes courtesy of advertising on the sites I write for. So why do I block ads, when they help put food on my table? Because web advertising is so bloody intrusive and because it chews up precious bandwidth. I don't have a problem with standard ads, but I'm sick to death of Flash-based crap covering up what I'm trying to read. Flash is the curse of the internet - it's like trying to watch television while some idiot keeps standing up in front of you. If you're on an expensive wireless connection, like Australia's "Next G" HSDPA network, that dancing idiot can cost you a lot of money.

Some people would say that tolerating the dancing idiot is the price you pay for free content. In a perfect world, if I don't want to pay the price I shouldn't consume the content. I'll stop using AdBlock Plus the day everyone hands back their TiVos on moral grounds.

If advertising is the price you pay for "free" content, are you stealing if you avert your eyes during the ads? Is it a crime to go to the toilet during the commercials? If the answer is no, then it's not a crime to use AdBlock Plus.

There are plenty of people trying to stop you skip television ads - Microsoft has even patented the TiVo concept for commericials. Unfortunately the introduction of ad-skipping has had a terrible side effect on television. Just like on the web, television advertising now intrudes into the content where you can't ignore it. From product placement to annoying crap scrolling across the bottom of the screen, the line between content and advertising has now blurred. If someone can invent a way to block that kind of advertising, they'll be worshipped as a god - until they're burned at the stake by publishers and advertisers.

As a freelance content monkey rather than a publisher, it's easy for me to attack the online advertising model. I've got nothing against advertising, when it's done well. Advertising doesn't have to be intrusive and annoying to be successful. Just look at Google. Google has proven that the key to successful advertising is not to annoy the crap of out people, but simply to be relevant.

Rather than block Firefox users, websites should aim to offer their readers relevant, non-intrusive advertising. AdBlock Plus users have the choice of exempting individual websites. If you can convince your readers that your advertising isn't trying to usurp your content, and helps support your site, you might be able to convince many of them to stop blocking ads on your site. There will always be a few diehards who "steal" your content regardless. This happens in all industries - retail stores call it "shrinkage" - but companies still survive. The Digital Rights Management debate is proving that treating all your customers like criminals eventually backfires. Website owners shouldn't make the same mistake.