Political ads == BAD

[Gullible Jones]

Well, what have we here...

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/2921/screen0wa.th.jpg (http://img529.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screen0wa.jpg)

And here is the site it links to. (http://www.worldahead.com/titles/lumb.php?gclid=CIWm1ejHqIICFT4dJAodZnSk5w) A healthy trace of gay-bashing just about tops it off, I think...

And now to stay tuned for the next installment: an ad for "Why Mommy is a Democrat". :rolleyes:

[Wolverine]

Firefox + Adblock = no silly ads. I don't think there's much control over the content available to the admins.

[long live the queeb]

This book shouldnt be tossed aside lightly, it should be thrown with great force....

[SolusLupus]

This book shouldnt be tossed aside lightly, it should be thrown with great force....

Er, careful, this might lead to a political debate/argument. I agree, of course, but if you recall, there are strict rules of "no politics, no religion" outside of discussions of science on this forum. This thread was about the ad, not the book itself and what it contained (except for the fact that it was, indeed, very political).

[long live the queeb]

Er, careful, this might lead to a political debate/argument. I agree, of course, but if you recall, there are strict rules of "no politics, no religion" outside of discussions of science on this forum. This thread was about the ad, not the book itself and what it contained (except for the fact that it was, indeed, very political).
Lonewulf, It was the absurdities it contained, rather than any political content that riled me. But thanks for the "Heads up" re Political comment..

[SolusLupus]

No prob. :)

[Nicholas_Bostaph]

Firefox + Adblock = no silly ads.

I know you meant no harm by this comment or suggestion, but it's something I feel I should point out.

Ad blocking is usually detectable to the ad networks or, if not, does not count as an impression. In either case the publisher (the BA) does not get paid for the ad. Each time this happens that is one less fiftieth of a cent (on average) that the BA earns or, in other words, one more tenth of a cent that he has to pay for the server out of his own pockets. Over a large number of users this can add up.

I see a real life example of this on my own websites. For instance, I offer the game I wrote for users to play for free. Last year my server bill came to $1200. Ads brought in $522 so I paid $678 of that out of my own pocket for other people to play a video game. I'm a middle class single income individual; $678 is a lot of money to me. I detected many users using Ad blocking, which allowed them to play without paying, but somebody still has to pay for server and bandwidth costs. In this case it is similar to walking into a EB or other gaming store and stealing a game knowing that the next customer in line will have to pay for it.

I imagine this is not so different than the BA. He is by no means rich, and he puts a lot of time and effort into maintaining his website and this wonderful BB for us. Although I can only guess at server costs, I thought he said that he had a dedicated server, meaning his monthly bills are on par with, or higher than, my own. Though he may share these costs with Fraser (are they sharing a server?), the principle is still the same; he should not have to pay for us to talk, enjoy, and learn from his time and effort.

So when using ad blocking software, please do so responsibly, preferably after checking with the webmaster of any site you plan to use it on. Remember that viewing ads does not cost you anything, but blocking them will cost the site owner a fair amount.





I don't think there's much control over the content available to the admins.

This is true. From what I understand the forum uses only Google Adsense. Although you are able to ban specific urls as competitive sites, there is no way to ban a category, nor even use a keyword filter. Last I checked, there was also a limitation on how many urls you were allowed to ban, and the number was not high (I believe 100). Unfortunately, the best solution is usually to do your best not to let the ads get to you.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Here's a question (I'm new to Firefox):

Is there any way for me to disable Google ads, but not those from a specific site? Like from BAUT? I want the BA (and other people whose sites I support) to get the ad money, but not every shmoe who puts up ads.

[Roy Batty]

Err, surely you only get money for ad's that people click on, not for just how many are displayed? If I have absolutley no intention of clicking on any of the ads I will block them however I want thank you very much. I don't think the BA would disagree with that policy either. It is certainly not 'stealing'.
Don't get me wrong, If the BA charged a small amount for subscription I would most likely pay, but until then, it's a free market. Sorry if it's not working out for you Nicholas_Bostaph but that's just the way it is:neutral:

The Supreme Canuck: you can try downloading & tinkering with something like the Proxomitron (http://www.proxomitron.info/) that, though not easy, will allow you a high level of configurabilty that I' don't think Firefox can. I'm possibly wrong so please other people step in :)

[The Supreme Canuck]

Erg. I'm really not the greatest at that sort of thing.

[Fraser]

Don't worry about blocking the ads. If you don't want to see them, feel free to block them with a clear conscience. I recommend the Adblock extension for Firefox.

[Wolverine]

So when using ad blocking software, please do so responsibly, preferably after checking with the webmaster of any site you plan to use it on. Remember that viewing ads does not cost you anything, but blocking them will cost the site owner a fair amount.

Of course -- and as you can see above, Fraser has made it clear since the forum merge that members are welcome to use ad blocking software here on BAUT.

[Nicholas_Bostaph]

Of course -- and as you can see above, Fraser has made it clear since the forum merge that members are welcome to use ad blocking software here on BAUT.

I agree. I just wanted to put that out there because I didn't know Fraser's or the BA's stance, and I know that many internet users don't realize the effect of blocking ads. I wasn't trying to accuse in any way; just put it out there as an informational piece. :)





Err, surely you only get money for ad's that people click on, not for just how many are displayed?

No, actually the most common form of advertising is based on a cpm model, where the publisher is paid a small amount per thousand impressions. An impression is defined as the advertisement completely loading on the client machine, though they are often actually counted as soon as the server request is made. Cpm models from major networks pay anywhere from five cents to a dollar per thousand.

Cpc models, or cost per click, are rising in popularity thanks to networks like Google Adsense. These models pay a larger amount per hundred clicks. Cpc industry average is in the range of 5 to 50 cents per click, often depending on the ad.

A fair deal of advertising is also done via cpa, or cost per action, models. This is where the publisher is paid once the user takes a specific action, usually by signing up to a mailing list or buying a product.

Google Adsense was based on cpc advertising and was one of the major factors that helped cpc models gain a lot more ground against the more common cpm ones. However, near the end of last year, Adsense introduced an option for publishers to allow cpm based advertising to mix with the cpc. The Adsense server uses past data to determine which advertising will produce the most income for that site and displays that.

So by not clicking you initially are not helping the website earn any money. However, after a short time the advertising you are shown will switch to cpc campaigns when available, likely based mostly around brand awareness, and the webmaster will begin earning based on how many pages you view even if you do not do anything. Considering this takes no effort from you, but supports someone who has offered you something that they put much time and effort into, I am puzzled as to why you would be opposed to leaving the ads intact.





I don't think the BA would disagree with that policy either.

Considering Fraser's quote above, I would agree that is likely. But I was unaware of the BA's and Fraser's stance at the time, and thought the information would be useful either way as most BAUT members visit other websites as well.





It is certainly not 'stealing'. Don't get me wrong,

I'm sorry, but that is not entirely correct. In most websites ads are included in a page as an integrated element, usually placed no different than any other image or iframe. The ad blocker component, last I understood, determined what elements were ads based on their source attribute, blocking either those that contained common ad network domains or by completely stopping cross-domain linking. The ad blocker then directly modifies the structure of the page. There are no tags placed by the developer to denote ads. Quite the opposite, in most cases; many developers now go out of their way to make the ads look like required elements in an effort to trick the ad blockers.

I made this distinction because their integrated nature makes it quite likely (obvious?) that the developer intended those ads to be seen. Unless otherwise stated, as Fraser has done here, this makes it a pretty clear implied agreement; the webmaster will agree to let you use the web site's services, and you will agree to view ads. Though this is not always the case, most free services rely on advertising to keep them alive.

You can try to make the argument that because you 'can', it is not wrong. However, you are using a business' (website's) services without paying the implied fees (banners), by sneaking around them (adblocker). How is that different than using a business' (movie theater's) services without paying the implied fees (ticket cost), by sneaking around them (sneaking in the side entry)? In both cases you 'can' do it using methods that the business may not have specifically told you not to do, but that is often because these methods are created without the knowledge of the business owner. Similarly, is anyone on the street allowed to walk into your house (server) and take a Coke out of your fridge (use a web service) because your front door was unlocked (website in the public domain)? You could also modify that statement to say: walk into a store (server) and take a Coke out of their cooler (use a web service) because the door was unlocked and open sign on (website in the public domain).

I do realize that most people who block ads do not realize that there are any negative repercussions, and as such I hold no animosity towards them. However, I think it important to educate others when I have the chance. I love this board because of all the amazing things I am able to learn, so I wanted to take the opportunity to give a little bit back; help others learn.





If the BA charged a small amount for subscription I would most likely pay, but until then, it's a free market. Sorry if it's not working out for you Nicholas_Bostaph but that's just the way it is:neutral:

It is unfortunate, and many disagree with you. I have received a lot of negative responses to my announcement that my next game will be setup on a paid subscription model. I feel especially bad for many of my users who simply do not have any discretionary income and will thus not be able to enjoy it, who are also ironically the ones who would go out of their way to look at ads and click on interesting ones on occasion when playing my current game. They were given no choice in this matter by those who played the game without supporting it. They ask why they have to pay for others not following the TOS (terms of service agreement). How do I answer that?

I would also be happy to pay a subscription fee to access the board. Before making this distinction for all sites, though, you may want to consider the extra financial load that a paid internet would entail. Do you use any of the following: web search engines (Yahoo, Google, MSN, etc), free email, free message boards, free internet radio, free weather reporting services, free stock market research, free financial services (like Yahoo finance for mortgage or loan information), random web reviews/information (many websites you find on search engines publish content only because advertising supports them). Many of these services currently rely on advertising, but it is a market that is drying up without user awareness and we could soon see many of the free services available move toward a pay structure. Worse, they could follow those who are already running out of income, and start implementing unblockable popups, DHTML ads, interstitials, or even worse in a never-ending 'arms race'.

I don't want to derail this topic too far. if you wish to discuss this further, Roy, please start a new thread in BABBling and link to it here. I'll be happy to debate further.





Is there any way for me to disable Google ads, but not those from a specific site? Like from BAUT? I want the BA (and other people whose sites I support) to get the ad money, but not every shmoe who puts up ads.

Unfortunately, I’m not yet familiar enough with Firefox, but will look into this for you if I can get some free time today. I do want to say that I think the attitude is commendable.

[Wolverine]

I agree. I just wanted to put that out there because I didn't know Fraser's or the BA's stance, and I know that many internet users don't realize the effect of blocking ads. I wasn't trying to accuse in any way; just put it out there as an informational piece. :)

No sweat. :)

[Nicholas_Bostaph]

Here's a question (I'm new to Firefox):

Is there any way for me to disable Google ads, but not those from a specific site? Like from BAUT? I want the BA (and other people whose sites I support) to get the ad money, but not every shmoe who puts up ads.

I'm assuming that you are using the AdBlock extension available from http://adblock.mozdev.org ? If so, there is not currently any easy way to do this, but it looks like they will be including a whitelisting option in the next release. So your best bet is to check back with them every once in a while and grab the new version when its out.



However, you can modify your settings to simply hide ads instead of remove them from the page. This makes the request from the ad server but prevents Firefox from rendering the ad content. So, in effect, the BA and Fraser SHOULD get paid for them; I can't be sure though.

I hesitated to mention this option, though, because it doesn't actually resolve the issue; it just moves it up one level. Now the advertisers are paying for something they are not receiving. This will, in turn, affect the BAUT because those advertisers will either decrease their payouts or will simply stop using Google to advertiser due to low response ratios. This will result in lower overall income for ads on the BAUT (and likely on other sites as well). Though if you didn't intend on clicking any of the ads anyway it may not make a difference at all. I'm not sure what your aim was.

Hopefully that helped...

[SolusLupus]

Huh. Nicholas, you just put the whole world of advertising in new light for me.

I still hate pop-ups though. Loathe the things with a passion.

[Lance]

Site users can instruct their browser to ignore your CSS and it is within their rights to do so regardless of how much it may trash the appearance of your page. They can also disable images, ActiveX and javascript if they so desire.

Once you page leaves your server, it is up to the viewer to determine how they want to consume it. As a developer, I hate that this is true but it is none the less. And because this is the precedent, disabling ads is perfectly fine too.

If a user wishes to discard the classifieds, sports and comic sections of their news paper and only read the headlines, then that is what they do.

[Fraser]

Nicholas is right, without the ads, we wouldn't be able to run the site. However, the forum gets its value from people contributing content, ideas, etc. So if you were visiting Universe Today and running ad blocking software, I would feel a little put out. But here on BAUT, much of the value is provided by the members, for the members. And I'll go with the members every time.

[MrClean]

Jeeze, you could do Like I do and just ignore em, even the ones with the purty girls on em.

If you're that confident in your way of thinking that a silly little blurb at the top of a list gets to you, re-evaluate your beliefs. I hadn't even noticed the add till you pointed it out.

[SolusLupus]

Jeeze, you could do Like I do and just ignore em, even the ones with the purty girls on em.

If you're that confident in your way of thinking that a silly little blurb at the top of a list gets to you, re-evaluate your beliefs. I hadn't even noticed the add till you pointed it out.

Well, okay, yeah, that's true and all that. But they often put up ads 'cause it benefits them. And, well, that ultra-conservative ad... without going into too much detail, I don't like the idea of them getting rewarded by being benefited by having their ad ont his site.

Other than that, I agree with ya. Pop-ups still annoy the hell out of me, though, as does adware.

[Nicholas_Bostaph]

Site users can instruct their browser to ignore your CSS and it is within their rights to do so regardless of how much it may trash the appearance of your page. They can also disable images, ActiveX and javascript if they so desire.

This is true. However, there is a fundamental difference between deciding how you gain value from a service, and making implied or agreed payments for said service. As in my previous example, if you buy a movie ticket you have the right to close your eyes or sleep during the movie; which is a different subject than whether you should or should not sneak in without paying.

Note that I brought up the way ads were integrated not to say that viewers had no right to modify the page, but just to point out that developers go through great lengths to make these ads virtually indistinguishable from the page. This was to show that webmasters do not wish the ads to be removed, and are making viewing them an implied term of using the service. Though it is true that this is not sufficient evidence to be sure, it is enough evidence to cast doubt on a conclusion either way. The viewer can then ask the webmaster for clarification on if they are required to view the ads to use the service.





Once you page leaves your server, it is up to the viewer to determine how they want to consume it. As a developer, I hate that this is true but it is none the less. And because this is the precedent, disabling ads is perfectly fine too.

I agree with that in a legal sense, but I did not mean to imply that any legal repercussions could result. There are, repurcussions though, and I wanted to first point out the ethical ones (such as the BA and Fraser losing income) as well as the direct physical ones (decrease in availability of free online services). I apologize if I miscommunicated.




If a user wishes to discard the classifieds, sports and comic sections of their news paper and only read the headlines, then that is what they do.

This is a good point, but to discard them they must first purchase the paper as a whole, and I could definitely see issues being brought up with a robot that walks out, picks up the paper, eats (shreds) all the ads, then hands it to the subscriber. This is what ad blockers do since they do not download the ads and, if they do, they make it appear as though they never existed. Though this may not be illegal, it could easily force most free papers out of business forcing readers to spend more discretionary income for the same paper as before.





I still hate pop-ups though. Loathe the things with a passion.

You and me both. :)

Adsense has helped revitalize the banner industry, though, and if Adsense payouts remain constant, or increase with more users viewing and clicking, we will see more sites switch to banners instead of popups. I'm hoping that's the way we're heading, which is why I try to take the time to explain these issues to everyone who will listen.

[Fraser]

Yeah, popups are extremely frustrating, and really just take advantage of peoples' ignorance. To say that Adsense has revitalized the advertising industry is an understatement. It has singlehandedly allowed me to make Universe Today my career. And it's spurred competition from Yahoo, Microsoft, etc, so I think this industry is here to stay.

[Moose]

Google's banner model is a pretty good one. The ads generally integrate well with a site, and I've yet to see one I'd consider hostile. (Many that are blatantly out of place, though. Hehehe.)

I do, however, reserve the right of final say as to what ultimately is permitted to be sent to my machine. Occasionally, I end up on a mainstream site bearing abusive ads. (This recently happened with the United Press comics page.) When that happens, I generally summarily block all ad server domains found on that page, and continue surfing normally. I don't feel guilty for filtering a site I fully intend to continue to enjoy, either. If they want to generate ad revenue from my surfing, something I normally have no problem with, they shouldn't have been dealing in malware. I won't tolerate that.

"Je repliquerai de la bouche de mon canon." Governor Frontenac of Québec to General Phipps.

[Gillianren]

Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but surely using ad-blocking software is no different than TIVOing something and skipping the commercials, which, last I knew, was considered one of the great benefits of TIVO?

[Moose]

Pretty much, but there are apparently TV execs I've seen quoted (can't validate the quotes though) who've said in all seriousness that doing so (as well as going elsewhere or changing channels during commercials) is stealing. Personally, I think TV execs need a reality check as it is. If true, this simply reinforces it.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Hopefully that helped...

Yes, thank you. But there's a better way. Apparently, AdBlock allows you to let the ads load, but then not display them.

Done.

[Nicholas_Bostaph]

If they want to generate ad revenue from my surfing, something I normally have no problem with, they shouldn't have been dealing in malware. I won't tolerate that.

Not to try to shift the blame, but often the owner of the site does not realize that they are dealing with malware.

In general, you have three types of entities in online advertising: publishers, advertisers, and networks. Publishers are the site owners, like Fraser and the BA, who want to show ads on their site to bring in revenue. Advertisers are those who have ads they want to show and are willing to pay publishers to show those ads.

What isn't as immediately apparent is that there is a middle man, the ad networks. There are so many publishers out there that many advertisers either cannot find a good site to match their demographic, or the sites that do just don't have enough page views to make it worthwhile. Likewise, many new or smaller sites simply don't know how, or don't have the ability to, get in touch with good advertisers. Ad networks bridge that gap.

Most advertisers buy very large runs of ads directly from a network. The network would then look at hundreds (or as many as tens of thousands) of publishers that are signed up with them. The network then shows the advertiser's banner on hundreds of sites at the same time. They then distribute the money that advertiser paid them to each of the publishers based on how many impressions or clicks that publisher's site gets. This works beautifully to simplify the process for both parties and help make the industry accessible to even new or small sites.

The are two problems:

The first problem is that the publisher is signing over control of part of their site to a network. An unscrupulous network could easily run malware banners on any publisher’s site. They get away with this because many webmasters only make up a very small percentage of their site’s total traffic, and many don’t visit every day. So while the visitors to that site are getting slammed with spyware, the site owner is completely oblivious. While blocking that ad network may save you a headache, you are also taking the revenue stream away from the website while the site owner has no idea why his income is decreasing. So while you have the right to ban that network if you like, I’d encourage you to also use the ‘contact’ link on the website your visiting to let them know. That way they can stop it from happening before they lose even more visitors.

The second problem is that advertisers usually host their own advertisements. This means that they have the ability to change the way ads display, especially with rich media ads, often without the knowledge of the ad networks. No matter how good an ad network is, there is almost no way to prevent malware from ever showing on their network. Many try to spot check ads on a regular basis, but often malware advertisers will purposely sneak into the network with a normal banner that they can later change. They know perfectly well they will get caught and lose their deposit, but if they can infect enough machines, it may still be worth it to them.

So by blocking any network with malware, you could be blocking good networks and leaving bad ones run free. In either case you are punishing both the network and site, both of which may not have done anything wrong. Even if you do decide to ban the network, again, an email to the webmaster will be the best step you can take to punish the offenders. I can’t stress that enough. The webmaster can then get in touch with the network and stop the ad from appearing immediately, and then begin investigating why it appeared. Repeat visitors are everything for websites, and malicious advertising can kill viewer loyalty in an instant.

This is, incidentally, another reason why Adsense is so great. It is impossible for advertisers to get any kind of malware banner into the network.





Pretty much, but there are apparently TV execs I've seen quoted (can't validate the quotes though) who've said in all seriousness that doing so (as well as going elsewhere or changing channels during commercials) is stealing. Personally, I think TV execs need a reality check as it is. If true, this simply reinforces it.

There will be disagreements on the morality of these actions. But the simple fact remains that doing so decreases the effectiveness of the advertising. This will force advertising to either go away, or become more intrusive, and if it goes away all free advertising supported services will go with it. I would consider either case a bad thing. Like many others, I am a salary employee, so I can’t simply work an extra few hours per week to pay for commercial-less TV, nor would I want to if I had the choice. Likewise, I don’t want commercials that interact with me, or commercial breaks that last twice as long as they do now.

This is the only point I was trying to make. Whatever the moral or ethical implications, there will be direct repercussions to these actions. Most do not see this battle occurring, or do and do not understand the direct cause (think popups, dhtml, flash ads, etc), but it is and has been occurring. There is not a status quo that is difficult to upset; we are already swinging in the direction of more intrusive advertising (which malware is just one example of) and paid-only services.

Out of curiosity, do you consider pirating movies, games, or music to be ‘stealing’?




Think of all of this another way. Consider a hobby that you enjoy, maybe something like art or writing or anything similar. Now consider the possibility that you could share the results of that hobby with others, and that by doing so you enhance their lives. In other words, you have put work into something, and are freely giving others something of value from that work. Now imagine that you have the ability to share your work with a great number more people, but to do so you will have to pay more than you can reasonably afford. Then you find out there is a way to do this at no cost to you or the people you share your hobby with, except for them to hear about something that may interest them. They can, of course, ignore this attached message.

You would likely think that is a cool idea and jump on the opportunity. How would you then feel if you found out you were starting to owe money each month. You still were responsible for paying for each person enjoying your work, but those people refused to hear that ad that went along with it. Not only have you spent thousands of hours of your time on something that will enhance their lives, maybe expecting nothing in return, but now you also have to pay for them to enjoy that something. Soon, you will no longer be able to do that hobby that you enjoy because you simply can’t afford it.

[Nicholas_Bostaph]

Yes, thank you. But there's a better way. Apparently, AdBlock allows you to let the ads load, but then not display them.

Done.

Yes, that's what I was describing in my second and third paragraphs; I really must learn to be more concise, sorry. ;)

[The Supreme Canuck]

Hah! Even better: the whitelist feature seems to be implemented already.

[Moose]

Not to try to shift the blame, but often the owner of the site does not realize that they are dealing with malware.

Why should I have any sympathy whatsoever for a negligent site operator?

Why should I be made to tolerate hostile software on my system that an openly posted, non-subscription site has attempted to install without my knowledge or consent?

Should I be forbidden from assuming that, given a site negligent or malicious enough to subscribe to one hostile malware vendor, hasn't subscribed to many?

Sorry, but unless you can show me my signature on a document saying I'm willing to take it where the sun don't shine, or a Canadian law (my jurisdiction) that expresses such an obligation, I'm under no obligation whatsoever to accept potentially hostile content. "Shrinkwrap" licenses are almost certainly unenforcable in Canada. As such, I certainly feel no obligation to be bound by an "agreement" I didn't explicitly sign, nor even had the opportunity to read through before the attack began.

The rest of your argument, while somewhat interesting, is a non-sequitor.

[Nicholas_Bostaph]

Why should I have any sympathy whatsoever for a negligent site operator?

Why should I be made to tolerate hostile software on my system that an openly posted, non-subscription site has attempted to install without my knowledge or consent?

Should I be forbidden from assuming that, given a site negligent or malicious enough to subscribe to one hostile malware vendor, hasn't subscribed to many?

Sorry, but unless you can show me my signature on a document saying I'm willing to take it where the sun don't shine, or a Canadian law (my jurisdiction) that expresses such an obligation, I'm under no obligation whatsoever to accept potentially hostile content. "Shrinkwrap" licenses are almost certainly unenforcable in Canada. As such, I certainly feel no obligation to be bound by an "agreement" I didn't explicitly sign, nor even had the opportunity to read through before the attack began.

The rest of your argument, while somewhat interesting, is a non-sequitor.

I'd rather not respond until I fully understand your position. Could you please tell me what a site operator that is not 'negligent' would do to prevent this? Or at least clarify if you believe this is possible?

[Moose]

A non-negligent site operator thinking of supporting their site with ads would do what any responsible business would do when choosing a contractor in the real world: the term is due diligence.

As with any business arrangement, any website that signs up with a rogue advertizer who practices malware such as persistent tracking cookies, pop-ups, pop-unders, sound-players, browser or desktop hijacks, anything that uses deception or covert installation as a practice; any such outfit that signs a rogue either knowingly or through negligence deserves whatever PR hit, loss of revenue, civil and/or criminal consequences ensue.

Just like in the real world.

[Captain Kidd]

On the TIVO part: I've heard that there has been a negative income impact on revenue already. One way they're looking at getting around it is product placement in the shows.

This brings up the issue that I worry about sometimes when I'm bored and wonder what the future will hold. For contemporary era shows, product placement isn't too much of a problem. But if this pratice becomes a crucial part of a show's funding, I'm worried about other types of shows. Sci-fi and fantasy come to mind. I doubt people will accept a Coca Cola drinking knight, or a space show where suddenly some crew member is washing their clothes and there's a modern Surf box next to the Evap-o-matic. (Although Battlestar Galactica seems to be selling Hummers. ;) )

So if the number of people using digital recorders to bypass commericals causes an increase in product placement, will we see a decrease of shows where such placements would be cumbersome or impossible?

[Moose]

(Although Battlestar Galactica seems to be selling Hummers. ;) )

Let me know when they start selling Warthogs.


So if the number of people using digital recorders to bypass commericals causes an increase in product placement, will we see a decrease of shows where such placements would be cumbersome or impossible?

*chuckle* Don't know, don't really care. Once the few good shows got cancelled and the only shows left worth watching were the older ones coming out on DVD, I cancelled my cable. Haven't missed it at all, except occasionally. Like now, actually. I haven't figured out how I'm going to see the Canadian women's Olympic hockey matches yet.

[MrClean]

From Futurama of course:
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.

[Gillianren]

I mean, for heaven's sake, it's not like there isn't already product placement! Admittedly not on the shows I watch most often (Good Eats and MythBusters), but I have noticed it on shows I watch occasionally. Which is most shows, as I also find most current television to be very bad. I have, however, gotten addicted to In Justice, largely because I'm a Kyle McLachlan junkie.

[Infinity Watcher]

Not to hijack or anything but the worst product placement I've ever seen has to be "I, Robot", on top of the damage already done to Asimov by that film it was just so blatant, I don't mind product placement but please don't ram it down my throat.

I have to say I'm glad Fraser has said we can block the ads here, I don't mind text ads so much but these new graphical ads get on my nerves

[HenrikOlsen]

A reason to not block ads, is that the discussions here often cause the ads to be for alternate stuff, so keep ads on for the sport, and click on the nutty ones.
It helps to move money from the woowoos to the GoodGuys(rm) which is a GoodThing(tm).

[Jens]

In this case it is similar to walking into a EB or other gaming store and stealing a game knowing that the next customer in line will have to pay for it.


I'm sorry, I know this has been discussed a bit, but this leads to a funny question. What about people who "channel surf"? Some individuals will watch a TV show and then either turn the channel during the commercials, or at times do something else (go to the bathroom or whatever) during the commercials. Wouldn't this also be stealing from the TV station? It would seem from the logic above that it's immoral, and that one should suffer through the ads while watching the TV show.

[mickal555]

"the island"

That had a lot of product placement...

[MrClean]

Wayne's World II

[Mungascr]

Far as I'm concerned, advertising in general is often committing the crime of "public nuisance" (pretty sure that's a crime both here & elsewhere, incl. the US.)

I'm sick of it, I detest it & I see no reason why everyone in the public should be repeatedly subjected to really annoying ads making false assumptions and dubious claims for garbage they neither want nor need most of the time.

I can't afford pay-TV - which has ads on it anyway - but I do watch commercial free ABC (Australia) & SBS TV & I do video out ads on TV shows, mute 'em or change channels and if the advertisers don't like it then as far as I'm concerned they can take a long walk off a short jetty over shark-infested water. Theft? Get real! :-I

However, I also just ignore ads here & I can comprehend if not like the case that they're paying for this ... So there you have it, we have ads and I hate em but sorta understand their logic. A necessary evil? Mayhaps but evil - or at least irritating - nontheless.

If people really want to sell me something then word of mouth or point of sale is best - but if they're putting their irritverts out there anyway, I'll put up with them, ignore them and do the best I can to cope with 'em.

If that means the BAUT forum can be run as it is - fine. I'd rather not have 'em but then I'd rather be on a FTL starship too & I'd certainly rather the BA got his income for this site that way than the alternative of having to pay ... which,I expect, would lose this site a whole lot of people, incl. me.

If people choose to cope by using adblockers that's their choice too. That's, IMHO, the best American principle - personal freedom to do or not do as we choose .. Advertisers are free to advertise and annoy the heck out of us - but we're free to respond to that provocation as we choose too.

[Gillianren]

Advertising would never be considered a public nuisance in any kind of legal sense. I don't even consider it evil. Tiresome, possibly, but ignorable and therefore less of a nuisance than quite a lot of other things.

[Mungascr]

Pity ;)

Anyone out here litigation-happy enough to launch a test case?

As for 'evil' didn't Hannah Arendt (?) famously note something about its banality?

Of course, its all in the eye of the beholder, but you could look at advertising as essentially a form of pyschological warfare - the advertisers trying to impose their will on us consumers.

Must admit I'm a fan of culture-jamming & would heartily recomend reading Naomi Klien's 'No Logo' book. Not that that's an ad of course .. ;)

[Sp1ke]

I do find adverts are useful on the TV. In the UK, the BBC doesn't have adverts (or at least it doesn't interrupt its programmes for them). So you're half way through a two-hour film and need a drink or the toilet or both. With the commercial channels, just wait 15 minutes and you've got three minutes of dead time to sort things out. But no adverts on the BBC mean either missing part of the film or an increasingly desperate wait for the end of the programme... ;)