Aren't ad-blockers great? If you got one, your internet experience is almost ad free. No annoying blinking windows, no in-page pup-ups that obscures part of the page, no videos suddenly playing without you asking for it. But there is a flip side to all of this, and it affects you too.
The use of ad blockers is a growing concern, not only for companies, and annoying spammers, but more so for people like you and me, running personal website, blogs, varies social applications etc. Ad-blockers make it almost impossible to do something for "free" anymore.
If you have a blog, and have put ads on it, then you know what I am talking about. My guess is that you are not making that much money; that the impressions reported by your ad company don't match the page views. The answer to this puzzle is very simple... your ads are being blocked by your visitors.
You know, the internet was very different back in the early days. Back when ad blockers where first invented.
First of all, the number of personal sites that had ads was practically zero. Text ads, like those from Google AdSense, weren't invented yet. And the internet was a terrible place.
Every time you visited a site, you where overwhelmed by annoying blinking ads. And when you closed a window, and endless stream of pop-up windows appeared. It was hell.
We had to do something. This could not go on. Since the big companies were unwilling to "get their act together", the people of the internet revolted. The ad-blocker was born. We were finally back in control.
In the years that followed, a raging war erupted between the advertisers and the people. The advertisers tried every trick to unblock the ads, and we, the people, adjusted our ad blockers. But we were winning. The advertiser's attempts prove futile.
And in the past few years even the browser manufacturers have taken our side. Building pop-up blockers into the system, and created "private browsing" modes that prevents performance tracking. The advertisers have been defeated. Yeah!!!
Today this world is very different. The internet is no longer a place solely for the big companies and their ads. Today, our internet is driven by people like you and me. Everyone can make a blog, everyone can contribute to the community, and over 200 million do.
And of all these 200 million people, most of them would like to place "non-intrusive ads" on their blog (or web application). Not to get rich, but just to pay the bills.
But they can't because the ad blockers don't care. The ad blockers will block all ads, regardless of what site it is on. So it is blocking the ads on the local quilting blog, where several people share and enjoy their hobbies. They block the ads on your site too.
The ad blockers don't care if you are a big annoying company or a great blog run by one of your friends. Everyone loses. Nobody wins.
The affect of ad-blockers are very dominant on web centric sites like this one. In December I tracked the use of ad blockers on baekdal.com. I simply recorded the number of times an ad was sent to the browser, and compared that to the amount of times it was actually displayed.
The result is that 68% use ad blockers on baekdal.com - 68%!!!
Let me put this in perspective; every time you earn $100, then $212 have been lost to ad-blockers... or... It would take you 12 months to earn enough money to buy a MacBook, but only 4 months if we didn't have ad-blockers.
Ad blockers costs me 8 extra months of hard work - every year.
Note: Not only are ads being blocked, but the latest ad-blockers also allow you to block web statistics - like Google Analytics. This means that you no longer have a reliable source of metrics. You cannot trust your own stats, because an important chunk of your visitors are not recorded at all.
Let's face it. We invented ad-blockers to get back control over the internet. And we succeeded. But in doing so we destroyed the very fabric that keeps the internet running. Nothing is free in this world, despite that some think it should be.
It costs money to sink a fiber-optic cable into the Atlantic Ocean (so that people in the US can see websites in Europe - and vice versa). It costs money to bury the cables to your DSL connection. It costs money to build WI-FI transmitters. It costs money to setup a server, buy firewalls and routers. And it costs money to employ a 24-7 hotline.
And that is just the technical side of it. It also costs money, and time, to create good content. People have to eat.
The "free" internet doesn't exist as long as the material and resources aren't free. The money has to come from somewhere.
And on the internet, the money comes from advertisements - which are being blocked.
We need to do something about this. Either we have to find another source of income, or we have to change how advertisements work and remove the ad-blockers.
Not for the sake of the ad-companies (whom I really do not care about), but for the sake of you and me - and people like us. For the person who runs small sites that makes a difference. For the people who invent new social web applications, and want to give it away for free (but monetized by ads).
I want an internet that allows individuals to prosper. Where people like you can make amazing things and get paid for your efforts.
We won the battle against advertisements, but we lost the war. So what should we do about it?
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
Aku, I too dislike those annoying big banner ads - or more so, those pesky videos ads that starts playing just because you happened to move your mouse over it (usually on the way to some menu item you wanted to click on).
And I am not defending those types of ads.
What I am saying is that the whole idea that the internet should be free, is probably the worst thing we can possibly do to it. If the internet has to be free, then the money has to come from somewhere else (because the work isn't free). And if that is the case then the internet is not self-sustained.
The only way we can "afford" the internet is to link it to monetization options that isn't related to the internet, and that idea, as a web developer, gives me the willies. The internet needs to be able to survive on its own.
Of course, we need to find a solution that doesn't mean turning off the ad-blockers and going back to those annoying ads. The ad-blockers needs to go, but so does those disruptive ads :)
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
Aku, about the ability to set exception, then that doesn't really change things. On baekdal.com almost 89% of my visitors are one-time visitors. And the only people who are going to add baekdal.com to their exceptions list, are "the fans". The people who stick around for a long time.
One-time visitors are not likely to unblock a site, and it will be too late even if they do (because they have to do it before the site is loaded)... and since they are one-time visitors, they are not coming back.
"Exceptions" is great in theory, but, unfortunately, not in practice :)
I block all external domains from adding content to webpages. That include any third party widgets, script, metrics, and yes advertisement.
You will not believe how fast webpages are loading in my browser without all this ‘third-party junk’. I have done this because I want to limit how much information that can be harvested about my web activities by one company.
Access logs are still the only reliable way to get accurate metrics, and I do not block ads served from the same origin as the webpage. (These ads do not slow down webpage loading responds time that much, and no third party get any information on me visiting the page.) Utilizing the access logs on the server does not slow down the page loading either, so I think it is a better approach. Even though you do not get as much information as you would with a third party tool.
For anyone interested, I am achieving this by using a combination of Opera browser, and some custom tweaks in Windows.
I am installing free wireless internet thoughout the Branson Mo Area. We are considering blocking the use of firefox simply because of the ad blocking abilities. This may seem harsh but everyone wants free internet, we have to be able to get the revenue to pay for it somewhere else. Advertising is the way that we have come up with. Right now we are ok, but we still see a large number of visitors that are not seeing ads. Again, this then makes it harder to grow the area we provide free itnernet in and we still have to feed our familys as well.
I have paid my ISP so I can connect to the internet. In turn my ISP will pay its share for the cost it requires to connect all the fibers over the world.
The same goes for the other end of the connection, to make content available one will need the same connection and pay for it. I don't see that there is a natural difference between these two.
When someone put some of their resources such as time into producing something it doesn't give any natural right to be able to redistribute it without cost. The Internet has lowered the cost of distribution but it's not free.
If one wants to finance the distribution by showing ads or tracking users behaviors it should be negotiated with the visitor, the visitor should be able to make the decision whether to accept the terms or not. Today the website owners sell their visitors without their consent. Thats the way it works today but that is not a reason anyone should accept it.
There are other options such as donations and charging for access. This probably only works for large websites such as wikipedia and nytimes.
But if the site is small the costs aren't really that big, I can get a decent webhost service for about $50/year and if I happened to be popular the price for traffic is just slightly over $1/10GB - that is quite a lot visitors.
If someone thinks that is expensive for their personal space on the internet they should look at their costs on one single Friday night.
I had no idea that ad blockers were so effective. Honestly, your article motivated me to install one and so far I've been very impressed with the results.
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
Mark, I think your example is an excellent one. You are trying to give people internet access for free, in exchange for the displaying of ads. It is a business model that would make sense if it wasn't for the ad-blockers.
Which leads me to Peter's comment, where he wrote "if one wants to finance the distribution by showing ads or tracking users behaviors it should be negotiated with the visitor, the visitor should be able to make the decision whether to accept the terms or not."
I think this is exactly what this is all about. We, the website owners, have a product to "sell". The price, in the case of baekdal.com, is to allow ads to be displayed (you don't have to click or buy them, though).
The visitor can then make the decision whether to accept that price or not. If they don't want to pay the price (if they do not accept the terms), then they are essentially not allowed to read the content.
If they then do read the content, and install ad blockers to remove the ads, isn't that then a form of theft? They didn't want to pay the price, but they took the product anyway.
Peter, about the cost of running a site: You right about the cost of hosting plans. But the real costs are not the equipment, but the people involved. Since baekdal.com is a one-man show, I rarely have this problem, because my salary is covered by my "real job", so I don't have to earn money to run baekdal.com.
But I run a number of other sites where many people are involved, and those people have to get paid for their efforts - around $60-80/hour.
Now, I just want to point out again that I do understand why people have installed ad-blockers. I remember the history; I remember why they were invented.
What I want to illustrate is that there is a flip-side to ad-blocking. Today ad-blocker takes from everyone. They block ads on your blog, on your sister's blog, on your friend's social web application.
In the past, before the forming of the long tail, the ad-blocker was primarily blocking the big sites. Today, due to the long tail, they are primarily blocking the little sites, the personal sites - your site.
It is indeed some very interesting times.... and from our current standpoint, it'll be very hard to predict exactly how all of this is going to evolve.
One possible evolution would be community-driven, user-rated adblocking in the form of a browser extension... if your site has a good rating, your ads will be shown, otherwise not. ... or maybe such a thing will never happen.
The internet is constantly evolving, and running a business is also all about evolution (if you zoom out a bit) ... running a business mostly on the internet, is very much about evolution, adapting to constantly changing conditions.
Personally, I don't block ads anymore, as I do most of my reading in an RSS reader. Few feeds have ads in them, but they're usually just one ad per story, which is acceptable. Others only publish teasers in their feeds, and then provide links back to the website with the full story (and ads), which is also acceptable.
Sites with heavy ads and gimped feeds just don't deserve my attention, and I spend it elsewhere.
Perhaps the real evolution, would be in figuring out, how to attract a high quality audience?
I agree it can be shocking to find out how many people use ad blocking software. But I think you've made a bad assumption: that people using ad blockers would have either clicked or "taken action" on the product or service being offered.
In other words, I think it's likely that the people who are using ad blockers would never click on ads or buy the products or services in those ads anyway.
In the case of CPC ads, that means your ad revenue is unaffected. With CPM ads you will lose some money but this is a *good thing* for the advertiser who shouldn't want to waste an impression on someone who has no intention of buying. And if the advertiser saves money, he'll have more money in his budget for additional buys and/or higher prices.
Put another way, if ads are only shown to people who *want to see them* then the click-through and sell-through ratios will be much higher and fewer ads could be sold at a much higher price.
Maybe all advertising should be opt-in.
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
John, you wrote: "But I think you've made a bad assumption: that people using ad blockers would have either clicked or "taken action" on the product or service being offered."
I did not make that assumption. I really don't care if people click on the ads on baekdal.com or not, simply because I am not being paid based on clicks.
Nor would the advertiser get a higher price, simply because the price is the same.
Put it this way. The effectiveness of the ads is the advertiser's problem. Advertise for a boring/bad product and the effectiveness would be low (especially for the people who block ads). If they instead advertise for something that is both relevant to the other content on baekdal.com, and is very interesting, then I think that the effectiveness would be much higher - and I do not think that one group of people would be less interested based on the ad-blocker preferences.
There is one thing I have learned about advertising, and that is: Ads for bad product never works, regardless of how many times you advertise. Ads for good products do work, and if it is really good, then people will start talking about it - even to the point where they share the ad themselves.
Just look at the Mac & PC guy ads from Apple...
Morgan, thank you for a good and interesting comment. I generally agree with you.
I like the idea of user-rated ad-blocking. But it doesn't solve the fundamental problem, that people can decide if they want to "pay" or not. Look at it this way. Imagine if we had user-rated cars, and that people could simply take all the cars that weren't rated high-enough.
I am sure a lot of people would like this (if you don't think the car manufacturers should get any money, you just take the car), but I am not so sure that the car manufacturers see it that way. Especially not because 80% of all new cars are in the low-end of the scale.
This is, however, much worse on the internet. Because out here, everyone can take all the "cars" they want, and never pay for any of them... and somehow people think that is "natural".
I've been watching the development of ad-blocking software and privacy-mode features in browsers with great concern the last couple of years.
As you, I understand the history. I too was very annoyed back when we had to learn the keyboard shortcut for closing windows faster then the browser could open them (good thing JavaScript execution was slower back then).
I'm very alarmed to read that some of the new ad-blocking software also block statistics-services. This is even more "damaging" then always deleting the cookies or always surfing using the browsers privacy-mode.
The real problem is that people are scared of what they don't know. People seem to think that bad guys can steal their identity if they surf a website just by the statistics gathered. Google Analytics for instance don't store data that can pinpoint a specific person - and even if they wanted they couldn't find your name cause that kind of personal information simply isn't there. It is kind of the same fear people have of cookies. For some reason anti-virus software companies have convinced people that cookies are dangerous. Some people think that you can get a virus if you don't clear out your cookies often.
If we forget about ad-blocking for a second, then think of this scenario: If you browse a website while blocking cookies (or even worse, blocking statistics services). Then chances are that the ads displayed to you are irrelevant because the ad-company don't know about your browsing habits. What do you rather want to see? Relevant ads or irrelevant ads?
Anyway... I'm getting a bid of-topic here. I know this is about ad-blocking software and in that case you wouldn't see neither. I guess you just touched a subject close to my hart. I think I'm just as frustrated as you are Thomas.
[end of rant]
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
Thomas, I know the feeling and I enjoyed reading your "rant". I fully agree with you.
I think I am going to perform another test. I want to see just how many people block Google Statistics. I am experience an ever increasing difference between the visitors recorded by my internal system, and Google Analytics. It is definitely a growing problem.
I think it's a huge leap to say 28% ad blocking = 28% less revenue. Even if you don't care about the clicks, the advertiser does. And if your visitors don't convert well then that makes the conversion ratio (the ad effectiveness) your problem as well. That matters because not all of the ads you run are going to be the kind that everyone wants to share with their friends. Most of your ads are boring. But even the boring ads pay your bills.
Here's a scenario: assume ad blocking software didn't exist. But assume that those people who would have used ad blockers decided instead to just ignore all your ads (anecdotally I know people who do this, on principle, generally). Your advertisers might have been disappointed by the conversion ratio and decided to not make a repeat buy from you which also cost you money.
I don't deny that ad blocking could be a problem but I doubt that it's as large a problem as you say. To know for sure, we need actual data obtained scientifically over a long period of time (say a year) and ideally over a broad spectrum of sites.
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
John,
First of all, it isn't 28%, but 68% (there is a bit of difference) :)
And, 68% less impressions does mean 68% less income.
But, I do agree, that in the long run, poor ad targeting and low conversion rates is a problem. Not just for baekdal.com, but internet advertising as a whole. But do not forget that internet advertising is, by far, the cheapest way to get exposure for your products - even when it doesn't work.
What most companies forget, is that traditional advertising (in print medias, billboards etc), doesn't work either. But it is far more expensive to show an ad on a billboard, than a banner on a website. And more importantly, you have no exact way to measure the effect of a billboard - so "marketing departments" often think it works much better than it really does.
But still, lack of relevance is a problem in the long run.
I, however, am not the one who can fix it. I cannot make people's ads look better. I cannot "cheat" people into clicking on them (well... I could, but I am not going to cheat on my valued audience for a cheap buck).
I provide relatively narrow market-audience, and provide a clearly visible space for ads to be displayed.
To put it simply... if the ads isn't working, then they have to make a more interesting product (not a better ad).
Is it harder to sell a product to people who use ad-blockers? Yes, it is. People don't like ads, are going to be very annoyed with ads of little relevance.
This was actually why I decided to drop Google Adsense. Google was increasingly showing irrelevant spam like ads - and even adult ads at times.
So I decided to remove Google Adsense, because I didn't want to annoy my readers. I didn't think that you (my visitors) deserved to see ads that were that bad.
Today I only accept ads for serious companies, targeted my site. For instance, I am currently running ads for HP Home Media Server, which is something that my audience is very likely to be interested in. I also run an ad for Sci-Fi Channel, which again fits well with the technology minded people who dominates this site.
So I am actually trying to shows ads that might be relevant to my visitors - but still... 68% block them.
But I do not blame my visitors, because I remember the history of ad-blockers. But the internet has changed.
While ad-blockers, in the past, blocked ads from the big annoying companies who had utter disrespect for its visitors. Today ad-blockers are largely blocking ads from the small sites, who many people do care about, and that have a lot of respect for its visitors.
Sites like this one, where I have spent a lot of time finding the best advertising platform, which is both relevant and non-intrusive.
[Whew... that was a long comment :o)]
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
Hi Diana, Thanks :)
I like to stumble a lot and I see lots of ads for the sex industry and it helps if i can just avoid all that.
If it were not for that an ad blocker would be unnecessary . I know we are actually missing out on a lot of good links to sites or products. ; (
One possible course of action, if you really feel like one-time visitors to your blog using ad blockers are "stealing" the content: deliver your content in a form that is blocked by the default settings of ad blockers, and leave only an informative text saying "If you wish to view the content on this web site, you must allow ads in your ad blocker. This ensures that all visitors share in funding the content on this web site." People are then completely free to choose whether they view your content, and genuinely to opt in or opt out of the terms you wish to set.
Robin, that is actually a pretty good idea. I came across a page today http://www.usairnet.com/cgi-bin/launch/code.cgi?Submit=Go&;sta=KCRP&state=TX
Go there with ad blocker plus installed and it will limit the web site unless you open up the ad blocker to allow ads from there site.
Thomas, maybe look at adding code like that to your site.
Mark Spencer
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
Robin/Mark, The problem with that approach is that people have to "opt-in" on something that they do not know what is - kinda like buying a product you have never seen.
With an infinite amount of choices, people would simply leave the site. Especially considering that 89% of my visitors are one-time visitors.
BTW: Although I am strongly advocating against the culture of using ad-blockers, I have no plans to change baekdal.com to "require" ads from being displayed. I do not run this site for money.
The point of the article is the highlight the ethics (or lack thereof), that the world has changed, and that people behavior towards blocking the greedy sites, is now hurting your friends.
I am advocating that we need to change the nature and our views of ad-blockers. And in return the website owners needs to respect their visitors, and stop annoying them.
Thomas, you do have to opt in if you are running an ad blocker. but if you are not, then you do not have to opt in. I'm not saying it is the best solutions and I would like to see them gone myself, but, I have one installed myself (for research, swear) but have not configured it to block anything yet. When I went to the website I referenced earlier, it blocked me until I allowed it through. Maybe too harsh, but I am considering running something like this on my project in Branson.
I am enjoying reading the different opinions about the ad blockers your article had brought up.
Thanks
Mark Spencer
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
Mark, blocking ad-blockers would be a good idea for your project (in my opinion).
And I too enjoy reading the different point of views, although I have a strong personal bias :)
Thomas, I do understand your point. But when you wrote
"I think this is exactly what this is all about. We, the website owners, have a product to "sell". The price, in the case of baekdal.com, is to allow ads to be displayed (you don't have to click or buy them, though).
The visitor can then make the decision whether to accept that price or not. If they don't want to pay the price (if they do not accept the terms), then they are essentially not allowed to read the content. "
I'm not really with you. If your price is "allow ads" then you need to tell me, your visitor. To hide the price and then be "not happy" when the visitor don't pay seems a bit childish. Please, get me right I have nothing against paying for things (do it for both music and soft ware) but I want to know the price.
Why don't web sites display the price opened? I mean this is nothing new and has been discussed for a while. Is it because they want to be the good guy who give things for free? Or would it look like the site is only to bring audience to the companies ads? Do the want to hide their dependency on ads - seeing ads as something similar to STD? Lots of questions but there seems to be something on this part too - not only on the visitors part.
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
Karen, I partly agree with you.
The "visitor" is not exactly innocent. Everyone knows that if people block ads, then they are preventing the site from getting any income from ads. They know this, but do it anyway.
That is taking something without accepting the circumstances of how it is presented.
The problem is that, in a way, ad-driven sites are free. You don't have to give anything, you don't have to look at the ads, you don't have to click on them, and you don't have to buy anything.
There are a lot of "services" in the world where you do pay via ads. Ones where companies say e.g. if you allow us to send you ads every week, then we will give you free mobile call plans etc.
Then you "pay" with ads. But that is not what ad-driven sites are about. It is the other way around. Ad-driven sites say; here is a good article (with ads displayed in the sidebar), as opposed to "look at this ad, then you can read the article".
I sounds similar, but it is very different. One is "see the ad, and in return you get content", and in the other it is "see the content, and then maybe you will get tempted by the ad".
Baekdal.com, and many other ad-driven sites, do not require people to see the ads, but it does require that you might get tempted to see them.
I have not yet found a good way of saying. This site is free, as in, you don't have to pay anything, but you do have to display the ads, not because you have to see them, or act on them, but because you might want to get tempted to look at them from time to time.
Anyway, the main point of this article is to illustrate the real effect of ad-blockers. That what used to be a tool to fight the greedy and obnoxious companies who didn't care about anyone, is now a tool that is fighting us little people.
The ad-blockers is like this big killer robot that, once it has defeated the enemy tanks, turns on its creators and starts attacking everyone.
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
A good example...
Imagine that a new highway is built, and instead of turning it into a toll-highway, where you have to pay before you enter it, the road is instead being "paid" via billboards placed every 2 miles.
People who drive on this road don't actually have to look at these billboards, they are there, but you should actually be paying attention to the road. So you are still allowed to drive on this highway, even if you decide not to look at the billboards.
But if you where to install "ad-blockers" in your car, which will automatically paint any billboard black (via a head-up display technology), then you are suddenly no longer contributing to paying for the road.
In this case, you are no longer allowed to drive on this particular stretch of highway. You don't have to look at the billboards, but you may not block them either. The road is free to drive on, but you have to take to as it is presented to you.
This is the problem we face on ad-driven websites. People don't have to look at the ads, but they do have to be there. The content is free, but people have to take it they way it is presented to them.
Ad-Blocking is a big issue, for instance, my dad has a slow computer. I put in some host files and he is now very happy because he can now browse the web a lot faster. But the main thing I like about Ad-blocking is that my spyware software only returns results of clean scans when I have my host file activated. If i turn it off, I get 70 medium and high threats after just browsing for a couple of hours. I know this hurts the little guy, but for someone that never buys anything online, i consider it unnecessary to have ads in my computer, Because I will definitely not buy anything advertised to me.
I think that your high rate (68%!) of people who block ads is because the orientation of your site. I wish there were statistics.. for example, how many people that go to msn.com have ad-blockers.. I actually started blocking ads for 2 main reasons. All related to MSN. Everytime you log off your windows live account it takes you to msn.com and displays a bunch of flash ads that take forever to load. And the other day I got a Clipboard hijacker from an Ad. After that day, 4 months ago I have installed and recommended ad blocking software to all my friends, family, and people everywhere I meet. Most people hate those youtube.com ads. That is also one of the main reasons I block ads. But, for some reason, windows Vista doesn't like ads being blocked with the host file, so I blocked most of them using my router's firewall. I have since become a loyal ad-blocker and I would join the ABAA (ad blocker association of america) if it existed. Everyone should block ads for a few months, specially since youtube.com came out with those ads that go over your video. ITs so annoying. and for those with personal webpages.. try selling caps, or shirts or something. Specially because your visitors are techies that know how to block ads, and want to do it.. make it another topic and your rate will be much lower. I know the ads support the internet and stuff. But it has always been my dream since I was a little kid watching tv. I always wanted to block those horrible, repetitive ads. if they had thousands of different ads running it wouldn't be that bad. but getting the same thing over and over and over just makes you want to throw up. I find TV and PC ads entertaining the first time I see them, but after a couple times i detest them and I block them. Specially after what youtube did, its just so annoying have to click that "collapse ad" button. There has to be other ways to make money, sell stuff of provide premium services.
Anyway, whatever anyone does or says, i will keep blocking and recommending blocking ads for PC health and speed reasons. those host files are just too good, they even protect you from sites that have other malware. if you have that, antivirus, and other form of ad-blocker, you will have the most pleasurable internet experience in your life, webpages will look clean, the way your house looks, no magazines or newspapers laying around (because that is what ads look like to me, TRASH, everywhere,)
I am probably responsible for over 1 50 PCs with ad blocking tools, and I plan to make that number grow, because I pay for the internet access, and anti virus software. And I personally know some people that make 40,000 a year running a website, so i have to admit. I am jealous of that and I want that to end. I will continue to promote ad blockers. I want that guy to get an honest job.
You dismissed the comment about people who would not be likely to click on ads or purchase items.
I NEVER click on an ad and I NEVER buy an item, or even look into an item, based upon an ad displayed on a website.
Therefore, if I did not use ad blocking software and you (or some other provider) earned money based upon my seeing an ad, in effect YOU (or that other provider) would be taking money "for nothing" from the advertiser.
Watch the video about World Wide Rave by David Meerman Scott. We all need to get out of the "spam ads to everyone, in the hopes that someone interested in it might buy" mentality.
Frankly, like another person wrote, I pay a high fee to Time Warner for my internet access at home. My place of employment also pays for access. I pay AT&T another sum so that I can access the 'Net with my iPhone. Don't tell me I'm not already paying for it.
Let's re-examine the premise - why should it be "free" in the first place?
I have no obligation to provide you with any opportunity of remuneration at all. You've thrown your hat in the air and hope someone will pay to see it fall, and maybe stetson has given you a free hat for the throwing.
If you have something of interest to offer, that's very nice. If your site never existed it's not clear the world would be the worse for it.
Your arguments sound a little bit like artists (and scientists) who believe the state should support their hobby.
Baekdal.com is (nearly) everywhere. Check out our social profiles:
Published: January 11, 2009 
FaceBook
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
FriendFeed
Delicious
Aku
I admit to using an ad-blocker.
However, the ad-blocker that I'm using allows individual websites to be set as exceptions, so that the blogs that I often visit still get their ad revenue.
Still, this is an incomplete solution as I simply can't bother to add every single blog I visit, since some of them are just short, one-time visits.
The reason I use ad-blockers in the first place is because I hate the big banner type of ads. They get my attention off the actual content of the website way too easily.
Thanks for the post though, that has made me reconsider the ethics of ad-blocking. I think I'll look over the settings and find something that gives me some peace of mind.