SCN: hmmm

[Steve]

x-no-archive: yes

==========================


(David Coursey, ZDNet AnchorDesk)---An email I recently received 
from my radio colleague David Lawrence brought up a topic near to 
my heart: why people who filter out Internet advertising by using ad 
blocking software may be too clever for their - and our - own good.  

Lawrence, who hosts the "Online Tonight" program on CNET Radio,  
was mentioning this in the context of a column he recently wrote for 
a broadcasting trade mag, in which he essentially told his fellow 
radio people who supported ad blocking that they were cutting their 
own throats.  

I think it is even simpler: Blocking ads kills free Internet content. And 
it also subjects readers to companies willing to sell their integrity  
and your privacy - for a few bucks.  

Up front, let me first remind you of the obvious: Both Lawrence and I 
derive our incomes from advertising revenue collected by our 
companies. So I am talking from self-interest here.  

People who use ad blocking software - and there is a lot of it out 
there - reduce the number of impressions ad-supported Web sites 
have to sell, thus reducing our revenue. And it's not like this 
industry is doing exceedingly well and won't notice even a small 
revenue hit. Rather, we look at the number of page views we get 
every day and fret, sometimes excessively, when they go down.  

Yes, advertising can be obnoxious. I find even some of the ads we 
run to be a tad grating, although I also recently found a really useful 
piece of software as a free download from one of our banner 
advertisers. And, yes, when blockers first arrived on the scene I had 
a lot of fun freaking out the advertising salespeople by showing 
them pages sans their clients' messages.  

And if I were a truly evil person, I might use ad blocking against all 
our competitors' sites (or, worse, suggest that you should). But the 
truth is that there is a much easier and less dangerous way of 
dealing with obnoxious ads: Ignore them and they will go away. But 
they will be less likely to take your favorite free content with them 
than if you block all ads indiscriminately.  

If, perhaps, you'd like to actually support what we do, then give the 
ads a chance and click the ones that interest you. You might even 
buy something. These companies aren't paying for your online 
content fix because they like you; they are doing it to drive sales.  

The alternative to advertising support is less free content and more 
sites demanding membership fees. Some sites are already offering 
"ad free" versions to people willing to pay a subscription fee. I see 
this as a growing trend.  

As a passing comment: Have you looked at what a daily newspaper 
costs these days? The New York Times charges me over $10 a 
week for home delivery - and I still get all the ads. (Of course, I like 
the ads.) And a metro daily isn't that much cheaper. By comparison, 
what readers get online for free, thanks to ad support, is quite a deal 
and worth protecting, I'd say.  

I mentioned before that a loss of advertising revenue could lead 
some companies to earn money in "devious" ways. CNET Networks 
(parent of ZDNet) is a highly ethical media company - minor or even 
potential transgressions are taken quite seriously - but there are 
always companies willing to sell editorial coverage in exchange for 
advertising purchases. Or to sell their mailing lists. Or, well, you get 
the idea.  

So if you want to block ads, go ahead; I can't stop you. But if you do, 
know that the amount and quality of the free content you enjoy will 
go down accordingly. It's your choice.  

Copyright 2001 ZD Inc.





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *