Results 1 to 20 of 25
08-10-2013, 02:24 PM #1
Article by a Youtuber on the subject here, if you don't know about the whole conflict yet: http://blog.chkilroy.com/post/36918679935
What do you think?That last letter in my avatar is a P!
08-10-2013, 02:26 PM #2
08-10-2013, 02:30 PM #3
I'll say the same thing I said in the reddit thread from a few months back:
I run adblock, but I also removed all the default filters and just use it as a way to block really intrusive ads that I don't like and user images that I find stupid or offensive. And it works wonderfully.
Because here is the thing: The sites I actually visit are good sites that actually tend to advertise things related to the site. So if I am at RPS, odds are I wouldn't mind seeing the ad because it could be about a game I find interesting. And if I find a site that has ads I REALLY don't like, then I ask myself: Why am I at that site?Steam: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.
08-10-2013, 03:27 PM #4
Even though adverts are a wonderful income, I just feel like being poked through the eye sockets every time Im "forced" to watch them. So I use adblock. <-- as clarification for what I said above.
08-10-2013, 03:38 PM #5
- Join Date
- May 2013
I have adblockplus installed but disabled on sites I frequent, it's recently been activated for YouTube though.
Every single pre-roll advert i've had lately has been for the single You Wanna Know by Don Broco, great song but it gets annoying after the hundredth time of seeing it advertised.
08-10-2013, 03:40 PM #6
Generally I browse with images turned off. Put that in your aerosol and huff it.I'm failing to writing a blog, specifically about playing games the wrong way
08-10-2013, 05:36 PM #7
And if I find a site that has ads I REALLY don't like, then I ask myself: Why am I at that site?
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
08-10-2013, 05:51 PM #8
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
I disable it for the sites I like, one of them being RPS.
It is mandatory for some mainstream sites that just don't know what's enough.
09-10-2013, 12:01 AM #9
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
That article basically uses the same 'lost sale' fallacy as the piracy one.
Disclaimer: selectively disabling ads on sites you really like may be marginally beneficial.
Here's the thing, the people that block ads, generally hate ads. These people are far less likely to click on adverts, or buy anything as a result of an advert, than other users, by definition.
So if everyone stopped using AdBlock overnight (or the ad agencies developed a way around it) what would happen? Well the number of views of those adverts would go up. For the guy in that article, they'd go up from 40% to 100%, a massive increase, right? He'd be getting paid more than twice as much right? Yes, for about a week.
At which point the ad agencies would notice that the click-through rate and conversion rates were going through the floor. And so they would reduce what they were paying per view.
To look at it another way: imagine you buy advertising. You pay per impression. One month, the ad agency comes along and says "hey, we've 'solved' AdBlock, so now your adverts are getting twice as many views, so you owe us twice as much money next month". And that month goes past, and you check your leads, and they're up by only 3%. But you're paying twice as much. You probably stop buying the ads.
Adverts aren't magical things, and people buying ads don't have bottomless pockets that can magic up more money for loads more views if everyone stops AdBlocking. And punters don't have bottomless wallets that means they magically spend more money if they see more adverts.
If the ad-funded revenue model doesn't work, it's not because of AdBlock, it's because the ad funded revenue model doesn't work.
09-10-2013, 01:09 AM #10
Not once have I ever seen an ad on the Internet that I've wanted to click intentionally. I have however clicked unintentionally on massive ads that take up the sides of a website, like a freakin' malignancy pushing their way towards the content, or those ones that pop up in the middle of the screen but freeze or something so that instead of closing they register it as a click-through. I won't watch or click ads on your site. If I like you enough, I'll donate. If you're YouTube, you've got enough people watching them anyway. And if you're using Flash advertisements, you're a heretic who must be purged.
But I also agree that it's indicative that this sort of thing doesn't work - people need to be informed about new products or services but not bombarded by ads all the time. Kickstarter has become a new advertising vehicle all of its own for indies, and RPS are effectively advertising games when they mention them. The problem with YouTube is that people aren't interested in paying for short clips or sitting through advertisements - as it is people would prefer to download Breaking Bad and pay for a box set later than pay for a subscription to pay-TV. I don't know why Youtubers suddenly think that they should be able to monetise their videos and everyone should watch the ads. I'm sorry guys, but that's not realistic - the Internet isn't a magic portal to stardom with advertising revenue so you can quit your job and become a full time celebrity.Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
09-10-2013, 02:22 AM #11
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Yes, you're being 'per view with no effort'. But what the site gets paid 'per view' is based on the advertising agency working out how many views convert into a sale, how much that sale is worth paying for, and then dividing one by the other. If you suddenly add a bunch of users that rarely, if ever, convert, then your price per view is going to go down.
As a really simple example, consider a tech site with an abnormally high number of AdBlock users. Call it 50/50. The site has 10 million views a month, runs one ad a month, that therefore that ad gets 5 million views, while 5 million other views block it.
The advertiser knows that 0.1% of people that see the advert will 'convert': buy the advertised product. And they track this. So they know with 5,000,000 views they'll average out around 5,000 sales. Each sale is worth say, $3 to them, so they'll pay $15,000 to the site to run the advert.
Now, the site asks nicely that its users stop using AdBlock, and all the users agree. The following month, there are now 10,000,000 impressions. If we use the same figures, then that's 10,000 sales, each worth the same, so the site now gets $30,000.
Except then the advertiser checks. It's not 10,000 sales. It's 6,000. Why? Because those 5 million views came from people that hate ads so much they previously used AdBlock. They're much less likely to click the ads. Sure, some will, just like some pirates will buy a game if they can't get it any other way, but just like a pirate is much less likely to buy your game, an AdBlock user, even white-listing, is much less likely to click your ad.
So the company realise that their conversion rate is now actually 0.06% rather than the 0.1% it was before the AdBlock users joined in, and they adjust what they pay accordingly. Sure, the site still gets more money, but they don't get twice as much. Just like how if you have working DRM, you'll get extra sales. But you won't get a sale for everyone who would have otherwise pirated it.
Now, this is all hugely complicated by advertising networks, where the value of a user is averaged over multiple, perhaps 100s or 1000s of sites, and sold to the advertiser in bulk. And so a single small site convincing users not to AdBlock can benefit a lot, as they get the increased revenue without having a big impact on the stats. But once you get to RPS-size, it's more than just the number of users you have, it's the value of each user that matters. Add a bunch of ad-haters to the pool and that value drops hugely.
09-10-2013, 08:38 AM #12
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
Uhm, who is really clicking ads?
OK, forget it, judging about how many friends "like" some shity malware pages because there's hedline like "After These Photos Leaked She Killed Herself... Watch Now!" I can see that some people will click these ads, lol.
Also - "buhuhu, he have AdBlock and I will not get any money from him" is just stupid. If you're walking into grocery shop and doesn't buy anything the clerk can't stop you and shout "hey, If you came here you must buy something before you leave!".
Fuck off, I'm just watching.
09-10-2013, 09:40 AM #13
Has anyone in this thread ever actually clicked an online advert on purpose and then bought the product? I adblock on my home pc (though I do quite a lot of browsing etc from a tablet without it) and can't ever recall an online ad leading to a direct sale (possible exception being google priority of place in search).
At best an advert on a site like RPS could remind me of the existence of a product I already intended to buy, but I don't think many online ads lead to direct sales.
It's why games journalism is a struggling underpaid industry, a lot of gaming sites generate a shit-tonne of pageviews, unique users etc and then pay their staff basically minimum wage or farm out work to freelancers at an even lower rate. I suspect it hurts industries like gaming particularly hard because their audience is younger and more tech-savvy and less likely to click an advert - we know that a direct link from an advert is not gonna give us the best deal even if we do intend to buy the product advertised.
It's easy to say that adblock is the problem, I think the problem is that the vast majority of internet advertising is extremely ineffective and using it to sustain websites isn't really working - it's why more sites are turning to pay-walls, crowd-funding, sponsorship deals or merchandise etc to sustain themselves - ads alone won't do it. I'd be very interested to know the inner workings of a site like RPS and how it generates revenue - either the Eurogamer chaps are better than most at converting adverts to clicks and sales (quite possibly something in this), or we PC gamer types are generous with our subscription.
09-10-2013, 02:54 PM #14
deano2099 I hereby award you the ultra-rare "hey that post made my mind think a new thing" award. brb, thinking about that new thing.Support for my all-pepperjack-cheese food bank charity drive has been lukewarm at best.
09-10-2013, 03:12 PM #15
Yeah, sorry, I'm not going to feel guilty because I block ads. They're just wasted bandwidth. I'll pay you directly if I like your content, but I'm not going to suffer through ads if I can help it.
09-10-2013, 03:32 PM #16
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Ads are fine.
People turning on ads for short youtube videos turn me off. Unless you are a well known commercial channel, leave the ads off.
Audio ads are the worst. They made me stop reading 1up.com before it went under... new company and management added them. I wonder how many readers they lost because of the new ads.
Seeing the same ads twitch.tv drives me insane. Hearing the same ads over a two week period with Slacker.com drives me insane. Maybe that is how they want you to subscribe. Both offer $5-$7 subscription, which takes out ads among other features.
Thinking on that more and more larger community sites offer some sort of optional subscription for $5-$10/month. This is kinda of the fear people have is that all news sites may eventually go towards to all being behind a paywall. Sites want to make up revenue but would rather not limit access to attract new visitors. Its a delicate thing to balance out. I think the free with ads and optional subscription is the best thing to do right now, as long as the ads are done poorly and turn people off from coming to your site.
09-10-2013, 11:34 PM #17
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
Hyperbole aside, I have nothing against adds and have AdBlock diabled on several sites (including RPS), but it would be nice if those adds didn't actively try to annoy you with their obnoxiousness and/or stupidity, and I often can't grasp who's supposed to be the target audience for them.
10-10-2013, 11:52 AM #18
"not a capitalist".
Anyway, I've never understood the online ad market. When has it ever thrown up something you are actually interested in? Even Amazon, who knows just about every book I read, and thanks to Kindle even knows when I stop reading, has never given me a particularly interesting suggestion. The best thing it's managed to find was the third instalment of a series of which I had purchased the first two books. Billion dollar industry, indeed.
Last edited by Tritagonist; 10-10-2013 at 11:55 AM."He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free". ~ Luke 4:18
11-10-2013, 05:15 PM #19
11-10-2013, 09:51 PM #20
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
Advertising is mental pollution. No-one deserves to live off ad money.