Marketing pilgrim’s Andy Beal has floated an interesting issue here, on page ad’s and a plugin to the FireFox browser specifically to block ad’s.
While i accept some ad’s may be irrelevant (and even annoying to some folk), do people have the right to filter out and take the content and leave the advertising that in all likely hood supports and funds the content?
In my humble opinion, quite simply NO they don’t. the equation is simple, if you want the diverse and fresh content that is delivered on the Internet today then some of it will by default be funded by or supported by advertising.
What a ‘vocal minority’ as they have been described, have failed to grasp is that many blogs exist to provide links and advertising and that the content is a vehicle for gaining those links. Would so many folk blog so regularly if there was no incentive to do so? hmmm i doubt it.
Comments have been quoted (in the original article) in Andy Beal’s post on the subject like
“I use Ad Block Plus because I don’t want to see adverts, any adverts at any
time. I will never click on them, I will always be annoyed by them.”
and….
“I use Adblock because I don’t want to see ads. Ever. Seeing ads is a bug, getting content is a feature.”
And do the ‘vocal minority’ think web site creators place ad’s on their webpages for the fun of it? Do they feel they have a god given right to anything and everything for free? given the only price attached to many web pages is a little advertising its hardly a world shattering, bank busting price is it?
The bottom line is that those ad’s are placed by the author of the page for a reason, and that reason is that displaying ad’s probably supports the content of the page.
My advice to those who dont like online advertising is move on to a page that doesnt advertise if it bothers you that much and leave the authors page and advertising behind, your NOT entitled to read it if you cant handle a few ad’s supporting the web page.
rant over…..