Tuesday, January 9, 2018

If net neutrality repeal worries you, ad-blockers should too

In 2015, App developer Marco Arment pulled his wildly popular ad-blocking app from the Apple app store for this reason.
"Ad blockers come with an important asterisk: while they do benefit a ton of people in major ways, they also hurt some, including many who don’t deserve the hit."
Many people who use ad-blockers may not even consider the fact that someone is getting hurt. They may just think ads are annoying, and possibly harmful, and here's a handy app or browser extension that will get rid of them. They may never consider the ramifications for content creators, especially smaller creators. When people put content, written or video, on the web whether that's news articles, educational tutorials, how-to's, or entertainment, they often do so with an expectation of being able to make money. Writing and researching an article, or making and editing a video, can take several hours. Creators put in time and money to provide something of value (and it is something of value if large numbers of people consume it) with the expectation they will get paid for their investment. Many, especially independent creators, get paid from ad revenue. When people use ad-blockers they are in a sense robbing a creator of potential income. 

Some compare it to music or movie pirating in the sense that people are trying to get something for nothing. And if people want content for nothing, we could reach a point where creators have no incentive to create. A counter-argument is that many people don't click on ads anyway. If someone wouldn't click on ads, how are they stealing from a creator? It's a little like the argument that a record label doesn't lose money if someone downloads an album they wouldn't have bought. Of course, a counter-argument to that argument is that many people who would have clicked ads will never see them if they're using ad-blockers. And ad revenue isn't always based on clicks. Many websites make revenue based on impressions. So even if someone doesn't click on an ad or even look at it, the creator is still getting paid just because the ad is there when the page loads. 

There are some valid criticisms of advertisers in this. Some use very intrusive methods like pop up ads to get people's attention. Or video ads that slow page loading times. Even worse, some ads engage in phishing or spoofing. Some may argue that it's not immoral to use an ad-blocker because intrusive ads are themselves immoral. An advertiser is opening up content on someone else's computer that they didn't ask for. Or an ad is trying to deceive them in some way. Still non-intrusive or legitimate ads can fall victim when these "immoral" or "unethical" ads are blocked by frustrated website users.

The Investopedia article "This Is How Adblocker Hurts Your Favorite Websites" points out some valid reasons to be wary of ad-blocking. 
"Ads are the bread and butter for websites. They pay for the website’s infrastructure, operations, content and the payments to associated staff."
The article states that there's an implicit deal between the website and the visitor. The website provides free content. The visitor sees ads in exchange for getting access to that free content. When a visitor uses an ad-blocker they aren't living up to their side of the deal. Just like if a customer at a restaurant doesn't pay their waiter or waitress a tip. Legally they don't have to but that's how the waitstaff make their living. They're hurt financially when customers refuse to live up to their side of the deal. Big businesses can afford to pay ad-blocking companies to ensure their ads continue to show up on the web. But smaller independent operations may have no choice but to shut down. Big companies can afford to beat the system, while smaller players get hurt.

Ad-blockers can go beyond harming creators. Take music blogs as an example. Indie artists or musicians trying to get their careers off the ground have a hard time getting into major publications like Rolling Stone and Billboard. They often depend on smaller websites or blogs that focus on the indie music scene to get exposure. If these sites can't afford to operate due to a lack of ad revenue, these lesser known musicians may have a difficult time reaching listeners.

Appealing to morality or ethics may not be the best way to get users of ad-blockers to reconsider their decision. Appealing to common sense and practicality might. Your favorite musicians will have no incentive to make music if fans don't buy their music in some form, your favorite authors will have no incentive to write books if readers aren't willing to pay for them, and movies studios will have little incentive to make the movies you watch if people won't buy movie theater tickets, DVDs, or digital movies. More people are becoming aware of this simple fact. Wanting something for nothing may lead to a situation where nothing they want will be available. The same could happen with the Internet. 

According to a 2017 survey by PageFair "US ad-blocking usage is 40 percent on laptops, 15 percent on mobile." Think about all the advertising revenue that is lost to creators. Some critics of ad-blockers fear that if they become too widespread, they could lead to creators finding other lines of work. Websites and forums may have no choice but to shut down or put their content behind paywalls. Bigger websites will likely survive by charging for access. Advertisers will also resort to deceptive methods like advertising “dressed up” as news content. People will think they are reading an objective news article when they are in fact reading an ad. Sure, some people who read this may respond by saying "It's my computer. I can do what I want with it. Websites need to change, not me." But the reality is any change will likely end up costing that user more money to access the content they want to see. Most people would prefer to deal with ads that cost them nothing than subscription fees. As consumers of content, we may at some point be forced to choose between seeing ads or paying to access our favorite websites.

Many Americans were riled up when the FCC repealed Net Neutrality, fearing that repeal could be the end of a free and open Internet. Yet many who protested that decision likely use ad-blockers, unaware that they could also lead to the end of a free and open Internet. So, what can be done about this? 

Creators should be making as much noise about this as the music industry did about piracy. Most users of ad-blockers have no idea this is a problem because no one is telling them. YouTube creators have been outspoken about YouTube ‘Adpocalypse’ and some of their fans have responded by supporting them through Patreon. Many people will try to help if they know there’s a problem. 

Websites can deal with this problem by using ad-blocker detection and only allow access to content if ad-blocker is disabled. Or they can ask visitors to white-list their site to gain access to it. If you're concerned about this issue but also feel there are legitimate reasons to keep your ad-blocker, consider white-listing sites you frequently visit and trust. If you find an article, tutorial, or video that you thought was useful, white-list it to support the creator.

No comments:

Post a Comment

One reason to avoid CreateSpace's Expanded Distribution

When you publish your book on CreateSpace, you have the option to choose up to five distribution channels versus just using Amazon. &quo...