To the pro-advertisers reading this, I feel your pain.
To the pro-advertisers reading this, I feel your pain. I have long standing clients who depend on ad revenue, such as print publications that early on successfully transition to the web, who are now really struggling. However, I aggressively use ad blockers. Here is why: * the majority of the ads I see on the Internet are of the sort that I use to find in the back of magazines. Crap I would never read is now force feed to me front and center * nearly every single web page is OVERLOADED with ads. Take a look at a print copy of the New Yorker, Sports Illustrated, etc. Feature articles often have few or even NO ads. In fact, feature articles often start with two pages of JUST content. * the way the ads work often kills my battery life. NOT COOL. You have no right to kill my battery life. * You track us with no way to really opt out with out using ad blockers. * You use the tracking info to target people. Including targeting children and at-risk (mentally impaired) adults. It is very different to have a scam artist with a small ad in the back of a magazine, compared to a phishing web ad that is trying to take advantage of an elderly grandma whose bank account is a click away. * you burn my bandwidth. this is bad on WiFi, evil on cell data. You have no right to rack up cellular charges on my behalf. * I don't trust the Kirby vacuum sales person in my home, I don't trust your javascript laden ads on my computer. While I blanket block ads on the Internet, I do allow ads on sites that only use simple graphics and text for ads. And who demonstrate that they respect me as a reader and potential client. edit: clarified I was referring to the "print" editions of the New Yorker & SI
Posted by leejoramo on May 28, 2015, 2:01 PM
Tags
Related issues
- Congrats on the move to Google!
- The federal government hasn't even lifted a finger to control undergrad education costs.
- Nice to see someone addressing this annoying problem, I'm seeing first hand bot traffic go up as they are just gobbling up data.
- Why is there no standardized e-ID in the US?
- There's an unmet need in social networks for "identity verified and protected", wherein the social network proves to a reasonable^ degree...
- The reason to create a new category is because the current categories don't solve the problem for a specific target audience.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,500 issues0 comments
hackernews (FinTech)
Congrats on the move to Google!
The federal government hasn't even lifted a finger to control undergrad education costs.
Nice to see someone addressing this annoying problem, I'm seeing first hand bot traffic go up as they are just gobbling up data.
Why is there no standardized e-ID in the US?
There's an unmet need in social networks for "identity verified and protected", wherein the social network proves to a reasonable^ degree...
The reason to create a new category is because the current categories don't solve the problem for a specific target audience.
Unfortunately in the enterprise, the purchasing decision maker is usually not the user, and may not even use the invoice screen before de...
To take a slightly different example, when I lived in Canada I was a member of a group trying to remove barriers to FLOSS in the Canadian...
To the pro-advertisers reading this, I feel your pain.
To the pro-advertisers reading this, I feel your pain. I have long standing clients who depend on ad revenue, such as print publications that early on successfully transition to the web, who are now really struggling. However, I aggressively use ad blockers. Here is why: * the majority of the ads I see on the Internet are of the sort that I use to find in the back of magazines. Crap I would never read is now force feed to me front and center * nearly every single web page is OVERLOADED with ads. Take a look at a print copy of the New Yorker, Sports Illustrated, etc. Feature articles often have few or even NO ads. In fact, feature articles often start with two pages of JUST content. * the way the ads work often kills my battery life. NOT COOL. You have no right to kill my battery life. * You track us with no way to really opt out with out using ad blockers. * You use the tracking info to target people. Including targeting children and at-risk (mentally impaired) adults. It is very different to have a scam artist with a small ad in the back of a magazine, compared to a phishing web ad that is trying to take advantage of an elderly grandma whose bank account is a click away. * you burn my bandwidth. this is bad on WiFi, evil on cell data. You have no right to rack up cellular charges on my behalf. * I don't trust the Kirby vacuum sales person in my home, I don't trust your javascript laden ads on my computer. While I blanket block ads on the Internet, I do allow ads on sites that only use simple graphics and text for ads. And who demonstrate that they respect me as a reader and potential client. edit: clarified I was referring to the "print" editions of the New Yorker & SI
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.