Twitter/Tumblr both had investors with a final goal of selling out or heavy monetization in a similar fashion. YouTube was very slim on advertising for quite some time in the beginning.

Because i have adblocker installed?Lol.
I said in post before how i dont use standard ads which can be blocked,and even if i will start to put classic ads on them,i can simply use adblock bypasser which i have i made.But somehow i have feeling that wont increase CTR on banners much as such people dont click on ads anyway.

Interesting you say that. It has to be actually years -- certainly more than 1 year -- since I have clicked on any banner ad. Not sure why, but I hardly notice them on sites and just scroll or scan past them by default reaction. However, I find myself following text links rather frequently.

I wonder when was the last time everyone here honestly clicked on a banner ad out of genuine personal interest and NOT to see what a competitor was doing/advertising.

I though that too,but twitter is still having same model from start,they didn't suddenly start adding ads to user accounts,so i dont think they could be on investment pipe for so long.

I like text ads because text is far more descriptive then banners,and that is why i have sigs enabled here since you can find good stuff in it.

Hi Jel,

You don't understand what I mean. I'm a consumer and ads affect what I buy for sure. But I also know what I'm not interested in, and so do you.

The advertiser that forces the consumer to watch an ad that he has zero interest in is gaining absolutely nothing. Youtube is not TV. The consumer should be able to skip the commercial after a few seconds which is what youtube allows on some ads.

If the advertiser was smart enough, he should demand that youtube target the ads better, and track when customers opt-out of watching the entire ad.

This will tell the advertiser which ads are working and which are not, in what parts of the world, in what demographic, age range, etc. AND, it will make for a better experience for the end user, and Youtube can gain back some of the cool points it has been losing lately.


Adblocking software will never be sued away, DavieVegas. What Advertisers have to do is COMPETE for your end user attention. Be more creative. Allow opt-out. Collect and learn from the data.

peace.

Nah, because of that way of thinking - it's more and more "give me free, with zero limitations or hoops of any kind, because, well, it's the internet, and everything is free!" that we are seeing with the younger generation already, and spreading. Not you personally, but that whole mindset of the freeloader calling the shots on a content provider.

ps people do click on ads, just not the 2003 type banner ads. Stick a play button over a pic and see how many clicks you then get to tours, or not, if they have adblocker installed, and rely on text only, because as we all know the first thing our eyes are drawn to when we want to jack off is the text :winkwink:

Not to cherry pick the context of your entire message -- but this is the kind of thing I personally flat out refuse to accept on our sites. I consider this untruthful advertising if it does not actually play or perform as expected on click. At that point, it's nothing short of a blind click on a deceptive advertisement. I am of the belief that this sort of advertising calls a site's integrity into question.

Obviously differing opinions here, but I personally believe that deceptive advertising and invasive advertising, and certainly popups/unders, have all contributed to the widespread adoption of adblockers.

l o l :thumbsup

Hehe, laugh all you want, but consider this... we've been making money using predominantly contextual based advertising without any blind clicks, trading, skimming, etc for more than 15 years. It works just fine. :)

That said, we've certainly left money on the table. I have turned away an awful lot of popunder and mobile redirect money. Same with fake IM ads.

Like I said, different strokes for different folks. It's just two different approaches.

50 hobbyists.

lol I know mate I know, I couldn't resist though :winkwink: horses for courses, but calling that type of banner blind or deceptive is a bit overkill to me - the click takes the surfer to the site, and 1 click is required to play the vid. Exactly the same as saying 'click here to watch all the videos at blahblah.com', just 4 as likely to get the actual click. If I make a surfer 'suffer' by having him click once more to see a video clip start playing, well, let's just say I lose zero sleep, and I highly doubt I just gave him a bad surfing experience anyway :)

I don't really care if you use adblockers or not, I didn't mean to single you out... but I find it pathetic that on a webmaster message board there are threads like "Adblocker is awesome", instead of threads like: "Lets discuss Adblocker counter-measures"... it wouldn't even be so bad if it was just OP that is a fool that didn't ponder the whole thing through, but this thread is filled with adblocker supporters... crazy shit... :1orglaugh

As usual some people here miss the point entirely, just more arguing for the sake of arguing.

Twitter probably does 1/1000th the bandwidth youtube does so the costs are far lower. Especially before they hosted photos. They don't need to make as much as Youtube thus reduced ads. But they have made money from other things such as a $25 million deal with Google and Microsoft to allow their tweets to be shown in the search engines. Imagine Google paying us to index on our sites. :)

https://www.nydailynews.com/2.1353/t...ticle-1.436297

Hi Woj,

That was the entire point of starting this thread. But saying "Lets discuss Adblocker counter-measures" isn't really what we should do. Smarter ads, with consumer friendly controls and lots metrics that companies use is the best way to advertise and make money.

That is like the people that say they would never pay for porn so stealing it is not wrong. Or better yet, if they were to say that they're just saving the producers money by downloading the video off a file locker.

It doesn't add up.

On sites that you do not pay for it is the ads that pay for the site.

In many ways, ad blocking is just as bad as hidden cross sales.

A site that supports itself through advertising expects the visitors to be honorable. Blocking ads is pulling money directly out of the site owners pocket without their knowledge.

A customer joins a site and expects the site owner to be honorable. A hidden cross sale pulls money directly out of the customers pocket without their knowledge.

How are they different? Both are getting shortchanged.