Is Ad Blocking Stealing?

August 5th, 2007

Adblock Plus is currently the one of a number of Firefox add-on recommended by mozilla.org and it’s not difficult to see why. As well as being faced with potentially thousands of advertisements in their daily lives, website visitors also face an increasing amount of distraction from core content as more websites become monetised.

Using some form of ad blocking software can make for a more pleasant browsing experience, but there are those who take issue with having the ads on their websites being blocked whilst their content is freely consumed. Whilst I’ve participated in discussions about visitors viewing ads as recompense for the webmaster’s efforts, I hadn’t seen anyone actually take action to discourage it until now.

Danny Carlton has taken a very active stance against ads on his websites being blocked by users of the Adblock Plus plugin. In fact, Danny has taken it even further than just blocking these users and blocked all Firefox users completely from his websites.

If you’re an Adblock Plus user, how would you feel about being blocked from a website that opposed your blocking of their ads?

Try www.articlewagon.com in your Adblocking Firefox browser and you’ll be presented with the following instead of the regular website content.

This page cannot be displayed because ad blocking software has been detected.

I can appreciate the argument against ad blockers, but I also appreciate how much they can improve user experience. I’ll admit that I use the Adblock Plus Firefox add-on. Not only do I find it improves my general browsing experience by removing the more annoying ads, but it also prevents me from accidentally clicking on my own ads. There are even a few websites for which if it wasn’t for Adblock Plus I wouldn’t be able to bear them at all.

As an ad publisher, does it bother me that people might be evading ads shown on my websites? No, because I don’t rely on ads being seen in any way. I am a Google AdSense publisher, but I’m not dependent upon the income it brings in.

Let’s not forget that there are other forms of advertising that aren’t as intrusive, aren’t as easily blocked and aren’t rendered useless if they were to be blocked. Take Text Link Ads for example, the ‘ads’ are simply text-based links with no reference made to any central website (such as the TLA website itself) so they can’t be blocked by looking for a common denominator unless all links are blocked. Even if they were able to be blocked, they would still be visible to search engine spiders and still provide value to the advertisers in the form of link popularity.

Since the AdBlock detection process relies on JavaScript, simply disabling JavaScript using the Web Developer add-on for Firefox renders the blocking harmless and allows the visitor to view any pages that use such countermeasures.

So is ad blocking akin to stealing? Are people whose browsers are unable to render adverts (e.g. they use a screen reader because they’re disabled in some way) thieves because they consume content without ads?

I understand the concept of going into a shop and paying for goods, but if a website doesn’t make it clear that the non-blocking of ads is a requirement for usage then what’s a visitor to do? If visitors aren’t first made to agree to view ads as compensation for content consumption, are they really stealing when they don’t?

Personally, I think that preventing people who use adblocking software from visiting a website is short-sighted. Webmasters should be looking to diversify their website monetisation methods so that they withstand the shortcomings of each individual method and bolster each other.

Do you use an ad blocker? How do you feel about stealing from people? If you’re an advertiser or an ad publisher, how do you feel about people deliberately blocking your ads?

Technorati Tags: , , ,

6 Responses to “Is Ad Blocking Stealing?”

  1. As a publisher I don’t like ad blockers, but if someone is intent on blocking ads they were probably not going to look at your ads anyway.

    The middle ground concerns me. Those users of ad blocking software that do not realise sites need ad revenue to exist.

  2. I use Adblock but I only use it to block distracting adverts eg. those lovely flashing ones Channel 4 uses. I can’t read a page if something is flashing in the corner of my eye, it’s hard enough reading as it is!

    I wouldn’t block AdSense ads as I don’t think they’re distracting or annoying, unless they’re the animated banner type ones which I rarely see anyhow.

  3. I think I’ve just developed an aversion to clicking on Google AdSense from all of the past experience I’ve had in making money from them.

    Always being weary about the dangers of clicking on my own ads just meant it was easier to block them all.

    I don’t mind all ads, but there are those that really take it too far. One animated vertical banner in particular is for a fairly big company and it sits right-hand side of a website, animates for a bit and then stretches out into the middle of the screen!

  4. Obviously this douchebag Danny Carlton has nothing valuable to say if he will not allow the use of firefox.

  5. Danny Carlton and people like him are taking a very bad approach to solve the issue of ad blocking by blocking all Firefox users. They will will eventually regret it.

    Clearly there can be nothing of value on a site that purposely block by the browser being used. This is below even Microsoft standards of throwing HTML at Firefox which it cannot handle.

    RIP Danny Carlton.

  6. BTW, the script in use to block browsers blocking ad-sense ads assumes the user using Adblock with Firefox when that is not the case.

    If I am using IE 8.0 and I go to …

    http://home.deds.nl/~rapiddownload/

    … I am blocked with this message …

    “This page cannot be displayed, you have Adblock active.”

    WRONG!!!!!!

    You can modify your hosts file to block ad sites too. That’s what I have done. So, these people are not just blocking Firefox users with Adblock. They are blocking ANYONE that blocks ads through various means.

    These in-DUH-viduals do not realize what they are doing.

Leave a reply