Someone posted this on their Facebook today, I found it interesting, and thought it would be relevant to share with the community.
For those who find it too long to read right now, the gist of it is that by blocking ads when on websites, you are hurting those sites financially. The author compares the act to eating at a restaurant and not paying. The site has expenses, and those expenses go up when you use the site (sites pay for the amount of bandwidth they use), but, they are getting nothing in return if you block the ads that they put on the site to support their staff/hardware.
good point thanks for posting
I don't mind the ads except one, I'm getting really annoyed with the one that pops up and then I can't scroll down the page, my scroll bar disappears, I have to refresh the page or go back to come forward again. I guess I can't complain as I play free. If I was going to sign up to a Chess website it would be this one.
Some ads I don't get bothered by but if the busboy starts swinging breadsticks in my face I won't exactly be happy about it...
While I appreciate and fully understand the advertisment driven business model, I still object to some of the methods employed by the advertising companies. Many will deposit files on your computer and your internet activities will be tracked, then ads will be shown to you based on your behaviour. Imagine if this happened in the real world. People sneaking around following you during the day to see where you go, making notes on what you do, essentially stalking you - and then trying to sell you things based on that information. I doubt many people would feel comfortable with that.
Non-targeted advertising is fine. Targeted advertising is bodering on something a bit fishy
For the record, I have been a paying member of every chess site I've ever played on, I'm just new here.
Ahh, well, you can block cookies, and only allow ones from like chess.com itself, as that lets you get back on with out logging in every time. Blocking cookies won't hurt the site.
Here's a very relevant article about a similar problem:
" by blocking ads when on websites, you are hurting those sites financially"
that is not true; I block all ads, and not only on chess.com, but on all sites. They are simply annoying. I will not buy any products from those ads anyway, and that's for sure, so how do I hurt the site financially? That's nonsense
It's not nonsense. Whether you would buy the products or not makes no difference. Chess.com (and the other sites) get paid just for showing you the ad. Sometimes (though less and less so) they get paid MORE if you click on it, but, no one is saying you should click on it, just consider adding chess.com to your whitelist.
And remember, it actually costs those sites money every time you access their page, so, why should it cost them money and they not have any way of re-cooping those costs.
Techdirt has an insightful response
From the article:
Claiming that ad blocking is harming sites is like the recording industry claiming that piracy (or home taping) is killing music. Or it's like the newspaper industry claiming that aggregators are killing them. It's passing the blame. If you run a company, it's your responsibility to put together a business model that works. And if people are somehow figuring out ways to do what they want where you don't get paid, then it means you're doing something that needs to change. A good business model is one where everyone is happy with the transaction, not one where one party feels forced or coerced into accepting something they don't want.
Native ads are all right. If chess.com wants to deliver chess related advertising and announcements, I'll listen. When I make an HTTP request to chess.com I am giving chess.com permission to serve my browser content, and they can serve me whatever they feel like at that moment. I am not giving this permission to the highest bidder. And this is what ad networks do. 3rd party companies that I don't trust are using real estate on a website that I do trust. I have the ability and the right to protect my computer from this intrusion.
The article that you posted is full of fallacy. Banner ads are a terrible business model and it's not my fault if the websites I browse cling to them.
Blocking ads may be "Devastating to the Sites I Love" according to the article, but I wouldn't love the site (and really, the internet in general) if I couldn't eliminate the ads.
I consider my own psychological well-being as more important than the financial well-being of the sites I visit. Yes, ads do "make me grumpy" as the site accused me of today. This is not because I am a grumpy person, but because I have real objections with the practice of advertising, and in particular online advertising and data collection (see post #5 on that).
Advertising in general is designed to manufacture desires I otherwise would not have, usually with a model that tells me I'm not okay unless I buy product or service X. Research has shown that the more one is exposed to advertisement, the worse they feel about life. I'd rather feel good about life. I've chosen chess as a hobby in part because it doesn't demand the purchase of a lot of products to enjoy it and to improve at it.
Guys, my opinion might be biased, but do I am the only one very frustrated today about chess.com? I don't know why, but it seems all the games are idle. Regarding the functionality of the site it seems it suddently bacame 'purely' awful. In live games the site is barely responding. It might be because of the ads. Do they changed the management recently? How did brought these 'sparkling' ideas of trying to make more money? I might be wrong, and I appologize in that case, but if not, you will have BIG LOSS on the long run...
If you run a company, it's your responsibility to put together a business model that works.
Exactly this. Chess.com doesn't have to try to support their site with advertisements. They chose this model knowing that users have a choice about viewing ads or not. Ad blocking is not new, secret, illegal, or anything of the sort. If my use of the site is hurting them, they can ask me to stop using the site or change their business model. If they want me to stop, I will. But I'm not changing my ad blocking policy.
Let it be clear, I think most people using an adblocker are not against adds, as a way to gain revenue.
But we can no longer bear these ''flash adds'', as it slows down computers. I was on video hosting website a few months ago and simply couldn't watch any videos because the adds beside the videos were lagging my computer. How can you enjoy the internet that way?
Also, I can't remember how many times I stumbled upon websites with malicious adds and popups, that infected my computer.Since at least 80% of malwares and virurses are entering through the browser, using adblockers is actually a good complement to an antivirus software.
Adds have become annoying to the point that low-end computers have a hard time browsing the web. That's not funny.
Good points! And all the mass media and advertising, has as its broader target, the...mass, the less intellingent people, who like and use to consume, to let themselves to be lead, tricked, and have false needs created. They are definetly not the kind of people to prefer to think or even stretch their minds. If you expect that many of the media/ads consumers people are chess players just think about... It's not a good business model indeed
what should a good business model be for websites? do you prefer having to pay for news, games, social networking? just curious how you propose they should make money?
To be honest, if I couldn't block ads (particularly during live chess), there is absolutely no way I would use the site or recommend it to others.Is it selfish to only care about having a free place to play chess? Sure; and selfishness is not a bad thing. It motivates us all.
Is it selfish to only care about having a free place to play chess? Sure; and selfishness is not a bad thing. It motivates us all.
So says the guy with a paycheck and not responsible for paying employees or running a business... :)