By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Website Topics - Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love

Fumanchu on 07 March 2010

ioi could you please talk a little bit about the selection process of the ad networks and processes in place currently to ensure their content is safe?

I acknowledge the inability to offer a 100% guarantee but please tell me there's more going on in the backgrounds with preventative measures than waiting for someone to scream 'fire!' with a virus infection.



Around the Network
Hapimeses on 07 March 2010
ioi said:
Hapimeses said:
ioi said:

Absolutely.

As you correctly point out it is a balancing act.

If we had just text ads it would annoy some people. Banner ads will annoy more people, animated ads will annoy more still. Ads that expand as you roll over them will annoy even more, ads that appear on a full page between content (called prestitials) annoy more people still but less so if capped (as they are - 1 per 48 hours), ads that take over the entire page would annoy a lot more people and that is where we've drawn the line. We need to search for better paying ads but not so much as to annoy the people using the site - that I understand and that is my responsibility.

That all said, the issue here is still the use of adblockers. If a user doesn't like the ads and decides to leave then that's a shame but fine. If they use an adblocker to continue to make use of site content but deny the ability to earn revenue then that's not fine which is where this debate comes from (malware issues aside).

So yes, please trust me that we do everything we can to keep the ads tasteful and try not to put up ads that will annoy users but at the end of the day if we get an offer for an ad that will pay well and only annoy a small amount of users then we have to go for it. If it pays twice as well but 5% less users visit the site that week then we'd be stupid not to go for it.

For me, the line should be drawn under two points (and this is without too much thought, I'll admit):

1) Adverts that impede site navigation.

2) Adverts that make noises without user input.

1 makes the site feel like it is more about adverts than the content, and cheapens the experience. Further, I would suggest the cost is far greater than a simple 5% loss for a week (to use your suggestion). The cost is to your image. Slowly, you become less the site about console sales and gaming, and more the site about grubbing your users for money.

2 is just a crime for more reasons than I can list.

So, to counter your: 'but at the end of the day if we get an offer for an ad that will pay well and only annoy a small amount of users then we have to go for it': I would have to say that no, you don't have to. Your reputation can and will be affected by poor choices of adverts, and that won't show in a simple check of the number of visits in a week. What do you want this site to be known as? The site of adverts where getting money is the primary concern? Or the site that is a centre for gaming and gaming sales? Of course, you are running a business, but most businesses don't like thrusting their drive for money into their customers' faces, as it tends to get a very poor response. I truly believe that if you focus too much on the adverts, your image will suffer for it in the long term. There is a reason advertisers offer more money for the bloody annoying adverts, after all.

That said, if money is more important than an overall reputation for your site, then it really won't matter in the slightest how I or others feel about the adverts. Your core users will presumably be happy with matters as they stand, and others will troll away (probably elsewhere), claiming VGC is little more than an excuse to generate advert revenue, but that won't matter as the money will be rolling in, albeit at the cost of an easy to navigate site and a generally positive reputation.

In short: very intrusive ads makes it appear that you're only in it for the money, no matter if it is the case or not, and makes the site a pain to navigate. The costs of this are unlikely to be felt in the short-term, however.

But the key point here is that what you find annoying isn't necessarily what everyone else finds annoying, hence the need to strike a balance. You evidently feel inconvenienced by ads whereas I accept them as part of browsing the Internet just like I expect to see them in a magazine or on radio. I know you've previously said you don't mind ads but you are now effectively saying "I don't mind ads that I can ignore but when they reach out to me and I have to interact or they impact my browsing I don't like them" not realising that it is because of people like yourself that these ads exist in the first place why will an advertiser pay to place an ad that people will just ignore? They are paying for access to your attention at the end of the day and this is where the balance comes in as to what I think is acceptable.

It's not a case of being in it for the money rather that the site needs money to function. We have no choice but to be in it for the money just like every other site. There have been many articles about how Digg, Facebook and Youtube are not profitable (I think Digg is now but FB and certainly Youtube are not) - there is only so long that capital firms or parent companies can sink money into companies like these before they pull the plug. We don't even have that luxury being and independent website.

I totally agree with everything about cheapening the experience - the same goes for site content. You have to balance articles that bring users in with articles that have great content but don't appeal to many people. It is all a balancing act. It's not as black and white as block these ads but not these.

From my experience after 5 years of running a website i think we have the balance just right. Some people won't like certain things but the majority will and that is really what matters in the long run.

Case in point - the release of VGC2.0 caused uproar. Many said they'd leave the site and how we'll see users drop as a result and claimed we had no idea what we were doing. What happened in reality? Hits went up 50% in the 6 months following. Why? Mainly down to the refocus of the site on news and the game database (which are the areas that saw the growth). So overall the changes worked. Is the current VGChartz perfect? Far from it. Are we working on loads of changes? Yes. Will lots of people hate them? Yes. Do we feel that based on our research it will be a positive step overall? Of course or else we wouldn't go down the road we are.

Whatever you do some people won't like it - you can't please everyone. As you rightly say, most people don't have a strong problem with the ads on this site or any other, if they did then these sites wouldn't exist. Please go and visit GamePro, IGN, 1up and GameSpot - of the four (assuming it is your first visit in a few days), how many greeted you with a prestitial (full-page with a skip button) ad? Does it stop them from being four of the top 6-7 videogame sites on the web in terms of hits? Do people feel it cheapens the site? I'm sure some do but the overwhelming majority obviously does not.

I personally don't think that one prestitial ad every 48 hours cheapens VGChartz - it's such a minor, insignificant and common (amongst gaming sites in particuar) thing that it will just wash over most people.

We are getting a little off-topic with all of this though really.

Yup, off-topic, but a conversation certainly worth having, I feel.

My counter points are largely irrelevant as they are purely anecdotal. For example, you suggest that I wish to ignore the adverts. That isn't the case; I often click adverts if they are directly relevant to me. All I want is to be able to browse your site without having to click on adverts to do it. I feel that's not much to ask for; however, I'm not the one having to balance the books.

As I mentioned much earlier, I'm not the sort to complain, normally. However, I like this site, and although I don't contribute as much as others (anymore, at least), I do value it as one of my many stops on my daily internet tour. None of other the sites I visit use prestitial adverts (or, indeed, adverts that scroll onto the screen), and I visit a wide array of sites, both for my work and for general browsing fun. However, some do offer dynamic adverts such as the Bioshock advert, but as these don't impede browsing of the site, and only activate by my movements or click (thus, psychologically, vaguely feeling like my fault if they start), I have no real issue with them.As long as I can browse freely, I'm happy.

However, as you say, I'm almost certain to be in a minority here. I don't see a list of peeps posting in a similar vein to me, for example; I'm the only one chatting about this. So, with that in mind, I'm probably best to bow out and let others get back to discussing the article you posted.

So, erm, sorry for dragging this off-topic a bit.



Hapimeses.com

 

Fumanchu on 07 March 2010

Thanks - I had no idea how all this stuff works. I guess I should be asking this more towards the ad networks - specifically Tribal and Valueclick.



Clavelle on 07 March 2010

If keeping the ads up, allows you guys to enhance vgchartz even further than Im happy to do so...



Recon1O1 on 07 March 2010

44 p and growing. You make Job look kind of cranky. Seems to me you have a right to point out an obvious obstacle to your site's growth. Ad block plus is off on my FFox and I'll ditch the old pop-up blocker when I'm here. I appreciate the news, the league and most of all the numbers.



Around the Network
chriscox1121 on 07 March 2010

i could care less about the ads, but that evony one with the boobs in my face gets on my nerves. I hope there is a replacement soon!




Thechalkblock on 07 March 2010

Didn't know that's how it works. Good to know.



Max20 on 07 March 2010

Automatic-Audio ads are unacceptable.



mrstickball on 07 March 2010

I think there are a lot of people on this thread that have no idea about advertising, or have ever tried to make a website profitable.

I wonder (for those here that are complaining): If your boss asked you to work the same, but cut your salary by 40% just because clients didn't feel like paying, you would be upset in the least?

I mean, Brett could always go back to working on VGC part time, and find a job. The site could go back to sales being updated about 4 weeks too late. I'm sure the readership would love that



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Mendicate Bias on 07 March 2010

The most frustrating thing about this thread is that ioi and his staff do not see or refuse to see what the major problem is.

Go read through the thread, the overwhelming majority of people are running ad block because of malicious ads on this website that cause their computers to get viruses or trojans, not because their some internet vagabond that like sticking it to the big guy.

Yet repeatedly ioi has said that the majority of users don't experience these malicious ads or that the level of threat from their ads is just the same as any other gaming website when this is so painfully not true. Just a quick read through this and many other threads shows you that these problems are affecting large numbers of the community.

I don't know what the problem is or why you can't find whats causing these ads but to blame your community for trying to protect their own personal property from harm is foolish to say the least.

Most people don't go out of their way to install ad block unless something is seriously wrong. Fix the problems people are clearly experiencing with malicious ads and people will stop using ad block and your problems are solved. Simply block people who have disabled ads without understanding the reason why and you will kill a large part of the community that keeps the forums alive and in doing so destroy one of the biggest draws to this website, the relatively level headed discussions about gaming.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers