Jason Preston
Writing

Why I don't use Adblock Plus

Jason Preston · 3 min read ·

I’m an internet publisher’s worst nightmare. I never click on ads. I think that in the time I’ve been using Google - years - I’ve probably given them about .20 cents for all the searching they’ve provided

But I’m willing to look at them. Because that’s part of the deal between me and Google: Google will happily munch away at whatever searches I enter so long as I agree to look at these ads. Their job is to make sure I get ones that are interesting to me. If they can’t manage that, then that’s their problem.

Today I ran into this Why Firefox is Blocked site via Phil Crissman’s post about advertising as a revenue model online. On that particular point, I tend to agree with him: online advertising as it exists today will probably not survive several more years. It needs to morph (although I’m sure it will continue in some form or another).

On this, though, I disagree:

Your readers are not obligated to view your advertisements. Readers who block advertisements are not stealing, being dishonest, underhanded, sneaky, malicious, or any other such thing.

Of course your users are obligated to view the advertisements on your site. It is the business agreement you make with your readers. More than that, it’s the business agreement that internet users today have agreed to abide by.

TimesSelect didn’t work because people are unwilling to pay for content that they feel should be free to them. And I can’t think of much online content more worth paying for than New York Times columnists.

The fact of the matter is that free content doesn’t exist. Someone somewhere eats the cost. I put no ads on my blog, and I have no plans to. I think it looks crappy. I’m eating the cost of my time, energy, and hosting in order to keep this blog because I enjoy it. To rephrase: this content is not free - I’m paying for it so my readers don’t have to.

So if the business agreement is “I show you content if you look at these ads,” why should I show you content if you don’t look at these ads?

The content that many online sites produce takes time and money to create and serve. As a business these sites have essentially three options:

  1. Charge for people to view the content

  2. Get someone else to pay for people to view the content (advertising)

  3. Go out of business

We’ve all made it pretty clear that in this century charging the viewer for online content is not OK. That leaves advertising.

When a publication takes money in exchange for ad placement, they’re really paying for exposure. If I run Website A, and I charge Company X $500 to display their banner for one week, and never show the banner, have I stolen from Company X? Absolutely.

If I charge Company X $500 to display their banner for one week, and allow my viewers to block the banner ad, so that it is never displayed, have I stolen from Company X? I think the answer might still be yes.

As a website owner I also have an obligation to make sure that I display the ads I’m charging for.

So I don’t use adblock plus because I am, essentially, stealing from the content providers when I do use it (or at least forcing them to steal from advertisers). If the ads on a site are too garish, I either look for an RSS feed or I don’t visit the site.

Everybody has to eat, and I think looking at advertisements is a pretty small price for me to pay to put food on someone else’s plate. At least that’s my thinking.