Prohibiting Admuncher Users From Browsing Site

[Rich]

Well, first, removing ad content from a page before displaying it isn't stealing anything. It also doesn't affect your ad revenue since the ad has still been served. Although it could affect your click-through percentages, I doubt it since most people that would use something like admuncher aren't going to click on an add anyway.

And, no, there is no way to detect that this type of technology is being used because it takes place client side after your content has been delivered.

Rich

[PaulKroll]

Redirecting folks to a page telling them it's wrong to steal may be a release for you, but it's not going to win any friends. Is it stealing when you mute the TV when an ad starts? Or leave the room? Or change the channel?

If the referrers coming in, per page, had admuncher references in them, you could block them: I'm not sure from your message if that's the case or not.[nbsp][nbsp]Anyhow, if you do block them, be ready for software to fake the referer field and for there to be nothing to do about it.

[jimbo]

I really don't care about making friends.[nbsp][nbsp]I care about getting credit for pages that are served.[nbsp][nbsp]FQuest isn't cheap, you know.[nbsp][nbsp]Esp since my main revenue is CPC, if they never even see the ad, ct's go way down.

And according to the admuncher docs, it strips coding out of pages before they are downloaded to the client, so I'm not getting credit for that ad being served.

And yes, I do consider it stealing.[nbsp][nbsp]If I were on Geocities I wouldn't mind.

Whatever, I wouldn't put ads on my pages if I didn't need to earn the revenue.

-jim

[Rich]

Jimbo, from your description it appears that admuncher.com is pre-processing the pages *before* they are delivered to the end-user.

IF the admuncher software just resides on the user's PC and processes the pages before they get to the browser, there would be little you could do.

However, if admuncher.com is, in fact pre-processing your content, then you may have a copyright infringement case/argument since admuncher.com is now modifying and "publishing" your content.

Rich

[Maynard]

in the spirit of FQ Community, I'll shed a bit of light on the matter.

When any browser loads a page full of advertizements etc., all it really loads is the text document of the .html file. If the .html source calls for an image, the browser will set out to fetch it. It is not delivered upon first contact.

Junk Busting, Ad Crunching, proxies intercept my outbound requests for content, and compare them with a local blacklist, and don't even make the request.

So if I were to hit jimbo's site and pick up a page which had an ad image from doubleclick or any other in my locally configurable blacklist, I would never make a request for the image (or other content), and it would not show up in my browser display.

I wouldn't click on it if it did appear, so there's no good reason to transfer it from hither to here.

If jimbo's revenue comes from click-throughs, he's lost nothing in this process; if the revenue comes from displays, then he doesn't get the revenue; which is the right thing anyway; if they're going to pay you to display their ads, they or you should pay me to download and view them; which neither of you are willing to do; and so I'm not willing to view them as useless content.

For more information, see junkbusters.com or that other ad crunching thing which you're concerned about.

As to JunkBusters, it reads a local blacklist of content providers, a local whitelist of cookie setters, has configurable user-agent, referrer, etc., and much more. It's the next best thing to disabling javascript ;)

[Jeff]

...if the revenue comes from displays, then he doesn't get the revenue; which is the right thing anyway; if they're going to pay you to display their ads, they or you should pay me to download and view them; which neither of you are willing to do; and so I'm not willing to view them as useless content.
As long as you're paying Jimbo to look at his site.[nbsp][nbsp]Why should he provide you with information for free?

A while back I used to hate banners.[nbsp][nbsp]Then, with the new search engine models, I found that sites which are setup for informational or directory purposes (i.e. not selling their own physical product, like a clothing store) have to make money one of three ways:
1.) advertising revenue
2.) subscription revenue
3.) "fake" information, that is, more and more paid listings which appear with the other information as if it was not paid so you won't block it.

Since I'm not rich, I can't subscribe to every site I want to visit.[nbsp][nbsp]Now in light of more and more sites such as search engines having to "hide" or "mix-in" their advertising with the real unbiased content, I really don't think blatent honest advertising was all that bad.
[This message has been edited by Jeff (edited 04-06-01@10:56 pm)]

[PaulKroll]

Now in light of more and more sites such as search engines having to "hide" or "mix-in" their advertising with the real unbiased content, I really don't think blatent honest advertising was all that bad.
Well, as more and more advertisers tire of the ads not working, there'll be less advertising and less of the advertisers. So ultimately whether you look at them and don't mind, or actively block them, they're just not doing what the advertisers seem to want.

On TV, of course, most ads are there to build awareness or brand: only the Ronco style ads expect you to "go to the phone now!" to order. Why that hasn't been acceptable for web ads, I don't know, but it's probably too late for them now.

Google's test results while searching for Application Service Providers (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=application+service+provider ) include a primary sponsored link at the top, and a couple of lower-level sponsored links to the right. They're clearly delineated, and since they are in fact related to what I was searching for, they might actually be a resource. That's the only ad model I've seen so far that I think has a chance, and obviously, there are limited places it can be used.

Why should he provide you with information for free?
Maybe he shouldn't. Or maybe not all of it. (And of course we're picking on Jimbo, but sites with advertising in general are having a hard time this year...) I don't think advertising is gonna hold up even if we don't end up in a recession: other revenue models, subscriptions or using the site as a marketing tool for a physical product, are going to either work, or a lot of sites are going to go away. Wish I had something more positive to add.

[Maverick]

if they're going to pay you to display their ads, they or you should pay me to download and view them; which neither of you are willing to do; and so I'm not willing to view them as useless content.

Yeah, and while you're waiting for that to happen, feel free to sleep by your mail box waiting for the checks to come in from the TV networks, magazines, newspapers and roadside billboards for the ads you so graciously view. And while you're blocking out those ads, just keep in mind that you're hurting the sites you visit and are helping to put them out of business. You'll probably be the 1st one whining when you can't find some specific content you wanted because the site that had it went out of business due to lack of ad income. As a site owner you should have enough common courtesy to at least allow the ads to load even if you ignore them.

[jimbo]

I was just going through my stats, and there were some referalls from www.admuncher.com (http://www.admuncher.com).[nbsp][nbsp]This gives me reason to believe there are some members on my forum who use this software.

I'd like to prohibit admuncher users from browsing my site.[nbsp][nbsp]I'd like to redirect them to a page about how stealing is wrong, yadda, yadda.

Is there a way to do this w/ JS that is similar to a Flash detection type of thing?

-jim

[Rich]

Well, as more and more advertisers tire of the ads not working, there'll be less advertising and less of the advertisers. Actually, banner advertising works quite well. A properly designed ad can garner 1%-3% click-through rate--some higher. This is hardly "not working".

What IS happening is that as more and more sites come on board, there is more ad inventories which drives down the price paid for advertising. The advertisers aren't complaining, they just are continually only willing to pay less and less. Advertising *volume* isn't down, only ad *revenues* which makes the advertising agents and site publishers complain about the "deteriorating state of advertising."

Rich

[Rich]

Although I belive that this is currently an "advertisers market" right now, I do agree with Paul that advertising as a means of supporting a Web site is on its way out. However, it's not because advertisers do not want the space but rather because site owners eventually will not be able to survive by serving 1 million pages per month for a few hundred dollars in revenue.

By the way, I also believe TV advertising is on its way out as tivo-like devices begin cutting into the broadcasters budgets. Broadcasters are already investigating possible subscription rates to replace ad revenues if, and when, needed.

This all won't happen quickly, however. This transition may well take 10-20 years to unfold.

This should be considered a "wake up call" for all site owners. If you have a high-traffic site and rely solely on advertising for funding your site, you should be actively considering other alternatives to provide possible revenue streams.

If you are a low-traffic site and don't care about any of this, you should consider what you are going to do if and when your site begins generating high traffic volume. You need to begin now to determine how to produce a revenue stream to pay for the operation of your Web site. A little creative thinking now and planning and experimenting can keep your site alive and prevent you from having to shut it down simply because you could no longer afford the costs.

Rich

[Maynard]

Website owners come in a variety of flavors; from the hobbiest, who has another income stream; to one who is planning to pay the mortgage off the site revenues.

The hobbiest can pay from 10 to 30 $US/mo. for the site; can earn this much in roughly an hour; can spend this much on a couple twelve packs, dinner and a movie, a round of golf, a trip to local MLB or NBA, a concert, whatever.

The hobbiest who generates more than 10GB of traffic and maintains more than 50MB of site content probably ought to consider a subscription service or product sales, in order to justify the required management time.

I've absolutely no idea what site owners derive from advertizers; but I would be surprised to discover tht it pays the mortgage. As has been mentioned here, the amount is diminishing due to the increase of sites willing to advertize. While users are on the increase, so are site hosts; so I'd expect a rational business model to avoid the expectation that they currently or will continue to provide[nbsp][nbsp]something new and unique without competition.

As to my blocking of banner ads; I don't feel the least bit of guilt or shame about that. If a site is selling subscription for content, or product, or service, I feel no guilt or shame about not paying for something I don't want.

To the contrary, for me to willingly download advertizements which I've no intention of even reading, no less clicking-through, contributes to a false sense of reality for both the site owner and the advertizer.

If 50% of your site visitors disable ad content as I do; and 2% of the other visitors click-through, you and the advertizer see a 2% click-through rate. If my 50% go ahead and let the ads come through without clicking through, you and the advertizer see a 1% click-through rate, which doesn't fit a 1.5% threshold, and pull the plug or drop the rates paid to site owner.

Sincerely,

[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] `~Maynard

[Justin]

I normally stay away from this type of discussion, but I need some way to stay awake ;)

My thoughts on the subject are on all sides. I don't really have a strong opinion in either direction, because I see valid points on both sides.

First, if I want to view only certain parts of your web page, I have every right to do so. I could do this using a variety of methods:

- I could use an Ad Buster/Cruncher program
- I could simply disable images in my browser
- I could use a text-only browser

And who knows what else. I could just disable JavaScript to avoid popups, or (and I have done this) disable animations (IE shows just the first frame of the image) since they are so distracting. Since doing that I have found that most graphic people had not considered this, as usually the first frame in an animated GIF makes no sense by itself. But that's not the point here...

Advertising on the internet is nowhere near as effective as it was just a short year ago, from what I keep reading. I hear a lot of theories as to why this is, but I think it's mostly that the majority of internet users are so used to banner ads. They are no longer worried about why their internet connection is not optimized, and they don't care what happens if they punch the monkey. They pay less attention to banner ads than they do TV/radio commercials.

However, think about this: TV commercials (as was mentioned earlier) often times are selling nothing but name recognition. I have a Tivo, and I rarely watch TV, and when I do I even more rarely watch commercials. But if you say car insurance, the first thing I think about is that darned lizard, and Geico comes immediately to mind.

But more importantly is the fact that once in a while, a commercial (speeding by at 90 MPH) cathes my attention, and I'll actually back up and watch it. Not becuase it's flashy, but because either it looks humorous (always a favorite) or it appears to advertise something I am interested in.

The same can apply to banner ads. I personally feel that the search engine's have it right. They have a large advantage over TV and radio -- while TV can target by the type of audience that might watch a certain show or at certain times (toy commercials during cartoons, etc), they can't get that kind of granularity. The search engine knows exactly what you are looking for at the moment, and can "suggest" some sponsored links.

I've actually clicked an ad or two from a Google search. Often times it truly was something I was looking for, and if Google gets a commission for that, I have no problem with that at all. They provided me with a great service.

On the other hand, some sites are going about this whole thing the wrong way. They are panicking, realizing that internet advertising isn't the goldmine it was a year or two ago...

I read a couple of months ago about how some (large) sites want to standardize on larger advertisements. Sure enough, while reading an article somewhere (I can't find it now, but it was either CNet or CNN), there was a large Flash advertisement in the middle of the article. On each page of the (3 page) article. Very intrusive... I certainly hope this does not become the new standard.

I'm not really sure what my point was going to be in all of this, other than this summary:

1) I don't necessarily agree with "Ad Buster" type software. One good example is this:

ReplayTV (a Tivo competitor) has a feature that the Tivo does not: a button that skips ahead 30 seconds. This one little feature cost them a lot in the form of relationships with TV networks. Tivo chose not to add this feature. While it's still easy enough to skip commercials, it does take a tiny bit of effort (and timing), as opposed to a one-click-per-commercial setup.

2) I am glad that there has been a bit of a shakedown on internet advertising. A reality check if you will. While I don't care for the idea of having to subscribe to web sites, at least the advertisers have to be more creative (rather than using trickery, like disguising ads as error messages etc).

3) I really need some sleep. Wait, that has nothing to do with advertising, or the point I was trying to make...

Transmission ending in three... two... one...

------------------
Justin Nelson
SFE Software (http://www.sfesoftware.com)