This is particularly interesting because it strongly mirrors the AdBlock extension for Firefox (an equivalent exists for Chrome) and functions in a similar manner: as the page is being loaded, specific elements belonging to Facebook are dynamically removed. Both extensions are free to use and install.What I found interesting about this is how much power is returned to the user/browser and it makes me wonder about the implications of a mass roll-out or upscale of such a practice. Imagine if Firefox or Chrome came bundled with these extensions; are extensions like these, especially those which block ads, detrimental in the long run? What good will it be for a company to pay Google for advertising space if their ads are largely eliminated from web pages? Will Google suffer and need to move to a new revenue model? Or will this foster a need to innovate new methods of ensuring content delivery? I remember when adblockers first debuted, they simply removed images (banner ads were quite popular at the time). As a result, many advertisers shifted to using Flash or pop-up ads which were harder to identify/block at the time. What will happen now that the geeks have caught up?
Companies from whom we consume goods and services use ads like that to generate revenue. If more and more people prevent those ads from being displayed, those same companies are forced to generate revenue in other ways (which may result in trying to charge us more through an alternative, more direct revenue stream) or in the worst case scenario, going out of business.
ReplyDeleteAs a consumer, I find neither of those options attractive, so I'm quite content to let other people click on web ads and subsidize my consumption. Is that bad? It seems kind of like a company buying the naming rights to a football stadium, or a concert venue. If places still had names like Foxboro Stadium or Great Woods, wouldn't the prices be even higher to compensate?
What do you think? Where do we draw the line on sacrificing a pleasant experience in order to subsidize our consumption? One could argue there's far worse places to sacrifice than the side of a webpage.
I think that the more we try to block ads like this, the more creative advertisers are going to have to get in order to catch our attention. I know that many of us are pretty immune to ads on the edges of the webpage. That is why they now have ads that expand across the entire page to catch your attention.
ReplyDeleteLook back in advertising history and we see this again and again. As people watched fewer commericals because of DVRs, we started seeing more product placement.
As Scott said, companies need to make money from ad revenue. The more we (and browsers) try to block ads, the more creative they will have to get. In a few years, we might start wishing we all would have just paid more attention to those simple ads on the sides of pages.
I think Nate's right, it's an ongoing push and pull. You may invent a better mousetrap, but those damn mice keep getting smarter... :)
ReplyDeleteNever underestimate the resourcefulness of your fellow hackers, however. What one programmer creates another can easily circumvent/tear down/etc... :)
ReplyDelete