More and more pages want to ransom you into disabling your AdBlocker. They can feel free to do whatever they want, but I as well. I just go to another page to get my information.
Of course the journalists need to be paid when they provide quality content, however, I’ve found myself supporting only those magazines and networks with my hard-earned money which are not blocking the Adblockers.
The reason for that is that in order to get an impression on a news network, not wanting to turn your AdBlock off, there’s no way to do that when the content itself is blocked. Why would I subscribe to something I hadn’t had an impression on beforehand? It just doesn’t make sense.
Also, why not just serve ads that are unobtrusive and are not tracking you til Alaska. From what I’ve read in the last few months, these tracking techniques don’t yield much profit anyway. In the end, ads won’t change the fact that you are a customer in no need of the product offered (with a few exceptions).
What many companies haven’t noticed yet is the paradigm-shift of the Internet: It’s much more important to show up at the top in the search results if searched for in a certain category than having a shitload of lousy ads scattered across the internet.
I used to whitelist sites that I frequented that provided high-quality content. I no longer do that because even if I trust a publication, I can’t necessarily trust its ad network. In fact, even very legitimate and trustworthy publications may not even know which ad network their corporate parent has chosen at any given time, so they can’t even offer me “soft” assurances. So now nothing gets whitelisted, ever, and if a publication hides its content, I just go without it.
Interestingly, I now subscribe to three print publications that rely solely or primarily on subscription fees for revenue. The web has become such a mess that print is now a superior experience for me, and I would rather pay more to avoid seeing any ads at all, so it works out in the end.
More and more pages want to ransom you into disabling your AdBlocker. They can feel free to do whatever they want, but I as well. I just go to another page to get my information. Of course the journalists need to be paid when they provide quality content, however, I’ve found myself supporting only those magazines and networks with my hard-earned money which are not blocking the Adblockers.
The reason for that is that in order to get an impression on a news network, not wanting to turn your AdBlock off, there’s no way to do that when the content itself is blocked. Why would I subscribe to something I hadn’t had an impression on beforehand? It just doesn’t make sense.
Also, why not just serve ads that are unobtrusive and are not tracking you til Alaska. From what I’ve read in the last few months, these tracking techniques don’t yield much profit anyway. In the end, ads won’t change the fact that you are a customer in no need of the product offered (with a few exceptions). What many companies haven’t noticed yet is the paradigm-shift of the Internet: It’s much more important to show up at the top in the search results if searched for in a certain category than having a shitload of lousy ads scattered across the internet.
I used to whitelist sites that I frequented that provided high-quality content. I no longer do that because even if I trust a publication, I can’t necessarily trust its ad network. In fact, even very legitimate and trustworthy publications may not even know which ad network their corporate parent has chosen at any given time, so they can’t even offer me “soft” assurances. So now nothing gets whitelisted, ever, and if a publication hides its content, I just go without it.
Interestingly, I now subscribe to three print publications that rely solely or primarily on subscription fees for revenue. The web has become such a mess that print is now a superior experience for me, and I would rather pay more to avoid seeing any ads at all, so it works out in the end.