Supporting websites, ads, security and what it costs.

[Rob_B]

Hi all,

I've been thinking recently more about the support I give to websites I visit via ad viewing, now I'll get right out and say I use an adblocker, it started as a bandwidth saver when it was tight but now it has evolved into a security measure and I'm sure many here do the same.

What is like to do is support the sites I visit often however the charges some put in place to avoid ads (and that give some other, probably less important to me features) seem to me at least, to be crazy expensive.

For example, I read Ars Technica sometimes, they have articles on a range of subjects that interest me and I'd like to subscribe however it's $50 for a year, so about £40 and I think thats too high, I don't imagine for a single second that if I turned off my adblocker and browsed for a year that they'd make close to thay amount from me.
To be fair I have no idea how much a site gets from an impression or a click but I know it isn't much so what's with the disparity here? If Ars went ad free what would I pay? Probably not a massive amount, partly because it would be easy to find content elsewhere but mainly because I don't think it's a fair price vs the alternative (again I admit I cannot back any of that up with actual facts!)

Another example is the Guardian, £5 a month to subscribe? Really?

Am I being unreasonable to think these costs are too high? I'm not sure of any other way to support the sites I visit but I'm not willing to forgo security so they can earn 0.5p by showing me an advert.

So does anyone know what sort of income ads provide vs the costs, I'm interested to know !

Rob

[kalniel]

Regarding a paper like the Guardian, £49 a year isn't that much for a journalistic paper producing the amount of content they do every day. Certainly it's a lot cheaper than a paper version subscription! But it's also still optional.

But yes, you're right, it's probably not equal to the amount they get from advertising - put simply, they couldn't afford to continue if they relied on advertising income alone. To do so they'd need to have outside investment, lots more adverts, and/or a far reduced cost base. There are plenty of other papers out there that go that route if you prefer

[Rob_B]

Oh I wouldnt mind paying more than they'd get from advertising alone but is the difference really that much? I know there isnt a perfect answer, companies have been trying to find that for ages but in my mind it doesnt help when the options are pay nothing or pay more than (I think ) the content is worth.

[virtuo]

I honestly don't mind some adverts if they don't flash, make noise or take up half the page. I've run websites that have relied on ad revenue to operate and they were never that obtrusive.

I don't like sites that refuse to display content because they have "detected an ad blocker", sometimes incorrectly. I'll go elsewhere.

The worst ones at the moment seem to be mobile targeted advertising - the most annoying ones I've seen recently were on a cooking site that had a recipe I was following. Had my phone open on the page and after 5 minutes or so it just redirected to an advert that was setting off the vibrate on the device and telling me it had found viruses after dismissing the alert message it then tried downloading an "antivirus" APK.


Edit: I went off on a tangent without reading the OP fully, sorry.

For me, the sites I ran on ad revenue were not my job, I worked alone and had fairly minimal costs. The "content" was automatically generated so I just had my time in developing and maintaining the site, the servers, databases, SSL and domain registrations as costs. I ran google ads for a while, but unless you are hitting hundreds of thousands, or even millions of impressions the return is pitiful (didn't cover my costs). I switched to referral schemes and they paid much more. I could design my own advertising, and the ads were targeted to my audience (offering a useful product/service). I went from getting $30-$40 a week from blockable google ads to 4-figures a week using relevant adverting and referrals.

For online publications, there are more costs that I didn't have - staff being the main one. I can understand putting up a paywall to access professionally written content by knowledgeable people, who aren't going to do it for free.

Some of the costs do seem high, but sadly a lot of online consumers have had the benefit of being able to get pretty much everything for free (legitimately or not), and it's incredibly hard to get them to start handing over cash for words on a screen.

Won't be long before there are paywall "packages" so you pay a monthly fee for access to a selection of publications, like a satellite/cable TV package.

[kalniel]

but in my mind it doesnt help when the options are pay nothing or pay more than (I think ) the content is worth.

That's the way of 99% of the world though - except in a few cases, we don't pay what we think the content/product is worth to us, we pay what the seller wants to charge and don't consume/use it if that's too much.

[Rob_B]

That's the way of 99% of the world though - except in a few cases, we don't pay what we think the content/product is worth to us, we pay what the seller wants to charge and don't consume/use it if that's too much.

Absolutely, it just seems all or nothing though and I dont think most sites are in a position to be so binary when it comes to revenue, I assume they thought of all this of course but it seems like they are limiting the population of people willing to pay, then again I don't run a website so what do I know? Im just the consumer

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I would expect any half decent site not to compromise your security if you just temporarily disabled adblocking for that visit,otherwise if they are that dodgy its best to not visit them!!

[cptwhite_uk]

Must admit - I'd be happy to subscribe to Hexus for £3 a month, if voluntary and it disabled ads.

Why not give people an option

£3 a month - pay for no ads
Free - with ads

It shouldn't be too hard to implement?

[Rob_B]

Cat - I trust no site that does not vet all ads
https://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2...to-ransomware/

Cpt - I wonder how that £3 compares to a) the ad revenue by the same browsing habits or b) the actual cost to serve you the content. Thats the difference I'd be interested to find out.

[kalniel]

Absolutely, it just seems all or nothing though and I dont think most sites are in a position to be so binary when it comes to revenue, I assume they thought of all this of course but it seems like they are limiting the population of people willing to pay, then again I don't run a website so what do I know? Im just the consumer

Seems we're both wrong, the Grauniad also have a one-off contribution option:

https://contribute.theguardian.com/u...ok_non_regular

So you can do the 'pay what you want' model

[badass]

I would expect any half decent site not to compromise your security if you just temporarily disabled adblocking for that visit,otherwise if they are that dodgy its best to not visit them!!

Then you should trust no site on the internet. They all have little to no control over the ads that appear on their pages. The space is just rented out effectively to the highest bidder.

This is an oversimplification but sites such as the BBC and Washington post have been service malware in the past.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Then you should trust no site on the internet. They all have little to no control over the ads that appear on their pages. The space is just rented out effectively to the highest bidder.

This is an oversimplification but sites such as the BBC and Washington post have been service malware in the past.

TBH, just connecting your computer to the internet massively increases the chance of getting malware in the first place,so its a gain-risk kind of thing!! Having said that at least for tech stuff,traditional tech websites seem to be getting less and less traffic now,and its shifting towards things like YouTube so I think this is part of the reason they are trying to make people watch the ads now.

Having said that what is more concerning is that ISPs now can sell your usage data to advertisers in the US(which means we have a good chance of following this at some point),which means it might be harder to block ads in the future. Remember when BT tried doing something similar a while back??

[Rob_B]

Phorm, that went down a treat didnt it!