I wonder when publishers are finally going to realize that not a lot of people are willing to pay for content. At least that is my personal impression. They should instead fix the online advertising system.
I was originally going to say something similar but was feeling to lazy to articulate it at the time. These sites need to understand that the problem with payment and advertising systems is not the end user. They treat everyone like a bunch of thieves when they don't seem to know how to market these sites.
They all tried to impose their profit making business models on a media that was set up to promote the free sharing of information and revealed a lot about themselves in the process.
Yes, there would be no need to charge to view sites if sensible non-intrusive advertising had been employed initially. But that's asking too much isn't it? The temptation to monetise a site and squeeze the maximum out of it is irresistible, inevitably leading to users just avoiding them. Lose, lose for the constantly whinging media giants. My heart bleeds lol.
Exactly, most popular sites will attract enough viewers and that will make it more interesting for advertisers. There is no need to block ads if they are non-tracking and non-intrusive. On the other hand, I really don't know how many online subscribers all of these sites have, perhaps I'm wrong about people not willing to pay?
Maybe the philosophy is to annoy people so much with intrusive advertising that they'll eventually become subscribers? lol
BTW, I just saw ads on this page, but they were static so it didn't bother me. I assume they are using some kind of system to bypass ad-blockers, perhaps similar to the method that Facebook is using. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...nt-nsa-spying-defense-tools-article-1.3543436
Maybe business will start to realise they need to dump the internet advertising model altogether because they are wasting their money. We don't look at them, we don't click on them, we dont even let our browsers load them! Give it up and buy a bill board!!
Ads are beyond irritating. PERIOD. If one gets through on me, I don't even want to see it let alone be clicking on it. So sad they have to rely on sly tactics like psycho analytics or flat out pestering to get people to cave.
I don't see what's wrong with static ads? The problem is that content providers will eventually be unable to attract advertisers, they need to eat too. But seems like instead of fixing the problem of annoying animated ads, they rather annoy people even more with anti adblocking solutions, it's crazy. The problem is that there is already so much great content for free so why would I pay for let's say The Wall Street Journal? I would advice them to make most online content available for for free and to rely on non-intrusive ads. The problem is that a lot of people are now already used to ad-blockers. I guess AdGuard is a bit more aggressive.
Holy crap, looks like companies are really starting to believe in the subscription model: https://www.wired.com/story/ads-dont-work-can-publishers-strike-subscription-gold/
