Browser makers warned against ad-blocking

The end of free Internet content will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default, a DoubleClick executive has warned.

Bennie Smith, the online advertising network's privacy chief, told ZDNet Australia  the popularity of tools like Adblock -- an extension to the Mozilla Firefox browser -- which makes blocking online ads simple was tied to "a negative vibe against advertising in general".

However, only the online arena is able to easily produce and widely distribute such tools, he added.

He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers.

"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.

"You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said.

Part of the Internet's value proposition lies in the provision of large amounts of free content. "But that content is not without cost. And that cost is my eyeballs seeing an ad on a page. Or within an e-mail, or next to my search results, or however it's going to come," Smith explained.

If any browser manufacturer considered implementing an ad-blocking feature as a default option, Smith said they should consider their own position as a marketer [of their own products] and a publisher of content.

"They would be harming their own customer relationships to create a short-term, short-sighted, limited-effectiveness tool," he said. "One that they would probably end up having to withdraw from the market."

If enough people started blocking ads, Smith warned that publishers would start charging for content.

"In an offline world, what would happen in that case is that the 25c newspaper would cost $5," he said.

Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!

Advertisement

Print feature brought to you by Hewlett Packard

Talkback 136 comments

  1. Oh what a bleeding heart Mr Smith (if that is his real name) is. He's really worried about his company's bottom line. If he cared to look around, he would find many successful web sites that run ad-free, or offer ad-free subscription b Anonymous -- 23/06/05

    Oh what a bleeding heart Mr Smith (if that is his real name) is.

    He's really worried about his company's bottom line.

    If he cared to look around, he would find many successful web sites that run ad-free, or offer ad-free subscription based access that allow those of us who want to live without ads, but get valuable information, all for a low cost.

    Perhaps Mr Smith would like to investigate why people are wanting to turn off ads in their browsers. Maybe the ads are too invasive. Maybe flashing graphics make it very hard to read real text elsewhere on the page. Maybe some of the ads that are delivered are not appropriate to the site being visited. Maybe the user doesn't want to have to pay extra download usage charges to download the 80 KB Flash graphic ad on the page with 2 KB of text.

  2. This definitely looks like a press-release-made-into-news kinda stuff. My heart always bleeds for this kind of articles and standard of journalism. Anonymous -- 23/06/05

    This definitely looks like a press-release-made-into-news kinda stuff. My heart always bleeds for this kind of articles and standard of journalism.

  3. I guess it's like flicking the remote when an ad comes on television. Online businesses can't afford to have their ads not reach their audience so banner ads might be a necessary evil if people want up to date, independant content without it bei Anonymous -- 23/06/05

    I guess it's like flicking the remote when an ad comes on television.

    Online businesses can't afford to have their ads not reach their audience so banner ads might be a necessary evil if people want up to date, independant content without it being too intrusive.

    Idiots on previous posts don't see the point that content (whether you like the content or not) will dry up if ads are essentially useless. People won't pay for online content, plain and simple..

  4. Bennie Smith said "You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value". Wrong, wrong, wrong! I'd be absolutely overjoyed to never seen another advert for the rest of my life! I'm not interested in seeing adverti Anonymous -- 23/06/05

    Bennie Smith said "You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value".

    Wrong, wrong, wrong! I'd be absolutely overjoyed to never seen another advert for the rest of my life!

    I'm not interested in seeing advertising at all. I'm quite capable of finding my own information and doing my own research if I want to buy something.

    This is typical of the rubbish we often hear from people who work in advertising. They are deluded if they think anyone wants to see it - it's just that some people don't hate it as much as others. No-one wants adverts - just get used to it!

  5. Technically it is difficult to block unobtrusive ads, such as Google's sponsored ads, which are much more similar to ads in newspapers than those typically blocked by browsers. If a newspaper was able to put in ads that popped up over the articles, were Anonymous -- 23/06/05

    Technically it is difficult to block unobtrusive ads, such as Google's sponsored ads, which are much more similar to ads in newspapers than those typically blocked by browsers. If a newspaper was able to put in ads that popped up over the articles, were distastefully animated, or distracted the reader with noise, it is likely that the no one would buy the newspaper whether it cost 5 cents or 5 dollars. Ad blocking is in response to that type of advertising, not advertising similar to newspapers. Not recognizing this difference is a poor analysis of the issue.

  6. I don't think banners and other not too intrusive ads are that much of a bother. The problem with many ads is that the servers they reside on are overloaded. This means that a normal (short) page with mostly text can fail to load at all since they are des Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    I don't think banners and other not too intrusive ads are that much of a bother. The problem with many ads is that the servers they reside on are overloaded. This means that a normal (short) page with mostly text can fail to load at all since they are designed to load the ad first.

  7. It's not so much that I hate being advertised to, more that I loathe and detest it with a frightening fervor; particularly invasive advertisements. I couldn't help but chuckle at the fact that there's a big hole in the article, because I've bloc Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    It's not so much that I hate being advertised to, more that I loathe and detest it with a frightening fervor; particularly invasive advertisements.

    I couldn't help but chuckle at the fact that there's a big hole in the article, because I've blocked everything from doubleclick.net. It didn't bother me to have a hole instead of some undoubtedly, annoying flashing advert, really.

  8. I'm stuck in dialup hell. Must I endure 4 x 50kbyte gifs for a full 40 seconds of wait so I can see a page of text that takes 5 seconds to load? Is that his point?. Absolutely preposterous. Get the annoyance out of web ads an Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    I'm stuck in dialup hell. Must I endure 4 x 50kbyte gifs for a full 40 seconds of wait so I can see a page of text that takes 5 seconds to load?

    Is that his point?.

    Absolutely preposterous.

    Get the annoyance out of web ads and I'll watch 'em.

  9. Stop creating adds that flash, scroll, gyrate, block my page, pop-up, pop-under, open 100's of windows, track my viewing habits, force me to endure watching prior to showing the content that I am interested in, and I will not block them. I do not block t Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Stop creating adds that flash, scroll, gyrate, block my page, pop-up, pop-under, open 100's of windows, track my viewing habits, force me to endure watching prior to showing the content that I am interested in, and I will not block them. I do not block the text adds and sponsored links from Google because they do not infuriate me. I actually even click on them sometimes. Sometimes less is more.

  10. His comment that people would feel cheated if they found blank spots in their 25c newspaper is ridiculous for two reasons. (1) Nobody would complain if the ads disappeared from newspapers; (2) Daily newspapers stopped being 25c (in the U.S.) a l Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    His comment that people would feel cheated if they found blank spots in their 25c newspaper is ridiculous for two reasons.
    (1) Nobody would complain if the ads disappeared from newspapers;
    (2) Daily newspapers stopped being 25c (in the U.S.) a long time ago. Even the Washington Post went to 35c after being 25c for years.
    If they feel they want to start charging for content, that's their privelege. Whether their content is worth what they want to charge, that's another.

    These are the comments of an obnoxious advertiser who can't stomach the fact that their ads are so unpalatable that people are avoiding them. And I am also curious as to exactly how they are going to know that their ads are not being seen. Perhaps they can do comparisons of hit rates for content pages vs. hit rates for ads but that won't last long. I suspect the next step to prevent this is to query the ad servers but don't display the content; they will never know their garbage was not seen.

    This is the whining of some failed wannabe who can't figure out how to compete in the real world, and instead wants to roll the clock back to an easier time, just like the buggy whip makers and blacksmiths wished the automobile would not damage their business model.

  11. I've mixed thoughts on this. On the one side, I have no problems with the ads on Google or even web pages that show ads or banners. On the other side, I loathe pop-up ads that force me to watch, spawn another ad for each one I close, and things of that Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    I've mixed thoughts on this. On the one side, I have no problems with the ads on Google or even web pages that show ads or banners. On the other side, I loathe pop-up ads that force me to watch, spawn another ad for each one I close, and things of that nature. If advertising companies kept it simple, such as displayed on the same page as the content so I can read the content and ignore the ads if I so choose, then I might even look at them. If, however, other companies insist on using pop-up ads, then I will continue to block them as I prefer to read the content and not be forced to read what someone who does not know me thinks I shold be interested in.

  12. Imagine this. You get you paper and open it. As you're trying to read your paper, someone throws an advertisment at you and someone else places an advertisement between you and your paper. How long would you stand for this? In general, people do not h Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Imagine this. You get you paper and open it. As you're trying to read your paper, someone throws an advertisment at you and someone else places an advertisement between you and your paper. How long would you stand for this? In general, people do not hate ads because they pay for content. People hate the intrusive manner in which ads are delivered. It's the advertising companies who have the short sighted goals and don't understand they are hurting themselves and the sites they're displayed on.

  13. Thanks for the link to Adblock. Maybe I can kill those flash ads that bog my PC down Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Thanks for the link to Adblock.
    Maybe I can kill those flash ads that bog my PC down

  14. If I did not use AdBlock on Firefox, I would not be able to load this article in under 3 minutes using broadband. If ads, especially those from double-click, did not take so much more time to load than the content I want to see, I would not have to use A Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    If I did not use AdBlock on Firefox, I would not be able to load this article in under 3 minutes using broadband. If ads, especially those from double-click, did not take so much more time to load than the content I want to see, I would not have to use AdBlock.

    I cannot believe that an Internet-based company wants to limit the functionallity of any kind of software. How about we limit the security and stability of the web servers your company uses to feed annoyances across the web?
    Because so many companies "got fat" for the sole reason that Microsoft dominated (and still dominates) the browser market and that they would never add functionallity into thier products to limit a non-competing company's revenue even thought that is what the consumer would like, is no reason to keep these giant gas-bags afloat.
    This technology allows the browser user to preemptivly block content thier browser renders, this can help with speed, blocking unwanted ads or pictures, keep from being forced to request other websites for traking purposes, and is has many other uses all controled by the user.

    And who better to have the power to stop sites from tracking them and to keep malicious software from permiating thier computer.

    There will always be those that provide free content without ads like me http://www.ominousharbinger.com.

  15. What "Smith" fails to realize is that adverstisng in a newspaper doesn't cloud the information that a user is reading. ...Not to mention how thrilled I'd be if I could purchase a newspaper without advertisement....the paper would stop bre Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    What "Smith" fails to realize is that adverstisng in a newspaper doesn't cloud the information that a user is reading.
    ...Not to mention how thrilled I'd be if I could purchase a newspaper without advertisement....the paper would stop breaking the seams out of my back pocket. :)

  16. A cable company in my area is blasting commercials for their service showing digital television sets that are cut up like a newspaper without ads. Even they do not see their ads are already blocking the intended content, turning people off. "Free con Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    A cable company in my area is blasting commercials for their service showing digital television sets that are cut up like a newspaper without ads. Even they do not see their ads are already blocking the intended content, turning people off. "Free content" these days has more of a cost than people are willing to put out ever since the double click generation of marketers came to light. This is nothing but a last gasp of air for their business model. The only suggestion I could offer is "get a real job". Provide goods and services for the people. If the people do not like what you have, they will tell you, as you have just stated they are doing right now. When you shut down, let me know. I will need to remove doubleclick from all the firewalls and DNS tables translating the address to local machines.

  17. what a moron. HIS ads are blocked because he is stupid. Smith preys on the retards of the world and feels good about it. anytime i see a bannerad that says HIT THE ASSHAT WIN AN IPOD, it quickly gets adblocked. when i want to look at ads, i go to google. Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    what a moron. HIS ads are blocked because he is stupid. Smith preys on the retards of the world and feels good about it. anytime i see a bannerad that says HIT THE ASSHAT WIN AN IPOD, it quickly gets adblocked. when i want to look at ads, i go to google. funny, those ads tell me exactly what i want and are actually helpful.

  18. Actually, ad-blocking will not spell the end of free content, but rather the end of paid-for content. Right now the "free" content we get is paid for with our time, aggravation, bandwidth, and distracted, tired eyes and brains. When advertising Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Actually, ad-blocking will not spell the end of free content, but rather the end of paid-for content. Right now the "free" content we get is paid for with our time, aggravation, bandwidth, and distracted, tired eyes and brains. When advertising has been removed from our (our!) Internet, it will mean that we have finally ended the conflict of interest that prevents free and untainted flow of information across the world.

  19. The internet managed just fine before advertising... and it'll manage just fine if the adverpushers dry up. good content will still be provided by people out of the goodness of their own hearts, and paid content will cover the rest. wa Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    The internet managed just fine before advertising...

    and it'll manage just fine if the adverpushers dry up. good content will still be provided by people out of the goodness of their own hearts, and paid content will cover the rest.

    want your advert to be seen by people and not ignored? then look to google for inspiration, not flash.

  20. At least the Target flyer in the Sunday paper doesn't climb up in my lap and rub itself in my face repeatedly. Maybe -- no, make that ABSOLUTELY ('cause I already do it) -- I'd leave the ads alone if they weren't so intrusive. Please note t Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    At least the Target flyer in the Sunday paper doesn't climb up in my lap and rub itself in my face repeatedly. Maybe -- no, make that ABSOLUTELY ('cause I already do it) -- I'd leave the ads alone if they weren't so intrusive.

    Please note that Froogle doesn't have !@#%^!@#!! flash animations yet, and they're all about advertising -- maybe they listen to their customers?

  21. Ad-blockers are a response to several things: 1) popups, popunders, etc. They are annoying and obtrusive. Kind of like going to a mall and having every salesman in the place come up to you at the same time shouting their pitch in your face. 2) Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Ad-blockers are a response to several things:
    1) popups, popunders, etc. They are annoying and obtrusive. Kind of like going to a mall and having every salesman in the place come up to you at the same time shouting their pitch in your face.
    2) The new pop-in flashes (you know, the ones that slide in over top your page content)
    3) noisy adverts. I absolutely, positively abhor sounds in adverts.
    4) Adware. Advertisers do NOT have a right to secretly install ANYTHING on my computer. Ever.
    5) "Click-through" adverts. No one has a right to require a click on their product before I can see content.

    Ads that are OK:
    1) Banner ads, even animated.
    2) 'Tween-content ads, the type where if you click for an article, you get an advert with a "skip this ad" thing. I'm used to fast forwarding through commercials.
    3) Sideline ads, similar to banner.
    4) In-content ads, preferably not animated.

    People block all ads to avoid the annoying ones. Stick to the non-annoying ads, and you won't have a problem.

  22. Amazing. Not a drop of sympathy from anyone! Quite likely no one is surprised to hear DoubleClick complain about this since it is DoubleClick's business model that is in the crapper. Bye, bye, DoubleClick! I hope your private hell is plastere Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Amazing. Not a drop of sympathy from anyone! Quite likely no one is surprised to hear DoubleClick complain about this since it is DoubleClick's business model that is in the crapper.

    Bye, bye, DoubleClick! I hope your private hell is plastered with obnoxious, blinking, Flash ads!

  23. I wasn't sure what this "doubleclick" agency was, so I checked my ad-block list. It's the first one on there (*doubleclick*). Funny that. I think this guy's just spouting sour grapes. Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    I wasn't sure what this "doubleclick" agency was, so I checked my ad-block list. It's the first one on there (*doubleclick*). Funny that.

    I think this guy's just spouting sour grapes.

  24. Interesting, end of all that cool free stuff... I highly doubt that, there are peopel in the world that do put free stuff out with no adds of any kind, there is also this thinng called open source... Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Interesting, end of all that cool free stuff... I highly doubt that, there are peopel in the world that do put free stuff out with no adds of any kind, there is also this thinng called open source...

  25. When I buy a local or international newspaper, I am spending up front for full content. I know there are ads, and I often WANT the ads. It is a choice on my side of the purchase. This is not the same as web ads. I may elect to pay or not to pay for web co Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    When I buy a local or international newspaper, I am spending up front for full content. I know there are ads, and I often WANT the ads. It is a choice on my side of the purchase. This is not the same as web ads. I may elect to pay or not to pay for web content, but ads are usually there in my face regardless of my decision. I applaud "Adblock". I can use it if I want or not, and sometimes, I don't want to use it. It is up to the advertizer to make ads that I want to look at and click on. Regarding a browser w/default ad-blocking, would this "feature" be tweaked by the user? I would tweak it to show ads unless I block them. I think other people would, too.

  26. When I buy a local or international newspaper, I am spending up front for full content. I know there are ads, and I often WANT the ads. It is a choice on my side of the purchase. This is not the same as web ads. I may elect to pay or not to pay for web co Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    When I buy a local or international newspaper, I am spending up front for full content. I know there are ads, and I often WANT the ads. It is a choice on my side of the purchase. This is not the same as web ads. I may elect to pay or not to pay for web content, but ads are usually there in my face regardless of my decision. I applaud "Adblock". I can use it if I want or not, and sometimes, I don't want to use it. It is up to the advertizer to make ads that I want to look at and click on. Regarding a browser w/default ad-blocking, would this "feature" be tweaked by the user? I would tweak it to show ads unless I block them. I think other people would, too.

  27. The thing to do is to use Adblock, but with a little care. Do not block every advertisment, but rather, only those companies that generate pop-up or pop-under based ads, or else ones that cross a threshold of annoyance. Just as sites h Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    The thing to do is to use Adblock, but with a little care.

    Do not block every advertisment, but rather, only those companies that generate pop-up or pop-under based ads, or else ones that cross a threshold of annoyance.

    Just as sites have a right to advertising revenue, so we have a right to accept ads that do not break the flow of the perusal of content.

    The idea of blocking the company, rather than just the specific advertisment is to cause the forces of competition to favour those companies who have a policy against excessively intrusive advertisments.

    Without having to compete for attension, a quieter advertisment should be ample.

  28. hmmm have you ever think what is the difference between e.g. google adSense (which we are (mostly) not blocking) and js/flash ad which is blinking, playing quasi-music, and covers the page content... and which yes we are blocking? Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    hmmm have you ever think what is the difference between e.g. google adSense (which we are (mostly) not blocking) and js/flash ad which is blinking, playing quasi-music, and covers the page content... and which yes we are blocking?

  29. Adblocking is the *beginning* of the free, as in freedom, internet. This means that you will only see the ads you want to see. Pop-ups, pop-unders, and the like are an invasion of privacy, and a blow to free will of people. Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Adblocking is the *beginning* of the free, as in freedom, internet. This means that you will only see the ads you want to see. Pop-ups, pop-unders, and the like are an invasion of privacy, and a blow to free will of people.

  30. Hey we gotta think of more intrusive ways to display ads on peoples' machines! Pop-ups are blocked too much so let's use Flash to bypass that and pop-up ads anyway! Oh noes!! People are still mad and blocking our Flash ads now! It's the end of free conten Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Hey we gotta think of more intrusive ways to display ads on peoples' machines! Pop-ups are blocked too much so let's use Flash to bypass that and pop-up ads anyway! Oh noes!! People are still mad and blocking our Flash ads now! It's the end of free content because we can't advertise!

    Wake up greedy zombies. If you start giving us content on our terms, perhaps we will stop blocking it! Conforming to the needs of the consumer, WHAT A CONCEPT! This is not the end of free content, it's the end of intrusive advertising. Nobody cares about embedded advertising banners.

  31. I agree with the general idea that ad-blocking can be bad for online services like news papers etc. However the reason people use ad-blocking is not because of the ads on websites - much like people do not really care about ads in normal newspapers. What Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    I agree with the general idea that ad-blocking can be bad for online services like news papers etc. However the reason people use ad-blocking is not because of the ads on websites - much like people do not really care about ads in normal newspapers. What makes people, including me, extreamly irritated is the folowing:

    1) tracking cookies
    2) pop-ups, new pages
    3) ads that cover the contents

    Industry, including the websites that use these types of adverticing really only has themself to blame. People want to read the content, but do not want their browser "highjacked" by adverticement. Plenty of manjor newspapers use both pop-ups and automatically open new pages with other contents.

    Please do continue with smaller ads and banners. They help pay for content that I want to access. But do not make the adverticement larger than the content. Also, if you use adverticing, please use fast servers. Many ad-servers are slow and unresponding - causing the browsing experience to be poor.

  32. Like the RIAA, Doubleclick is clueless. Ads like the sponsered ones on the bottom seem to be quite acceptable and no developers have released tools to block them while intrusive ads by Doubleclick are blocked left and right. Maybe Doubleclick should stop Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Like the RIAA, Doubleclick is clueless. Ads like the sponsered ones on the bottom seem to be quite acceptable and no developers have released tools to block them while intrusive ads by Doubleclick are blocked left and right. Maybe Doubleclick should stop blaming the users and start blaming themselves for the backlash their business model has created.

  33. You must be kidding? I would feel cheated that I got the same information but without the annoying ads? Maybe if I was buying the paper to GET the ads, but I'm not. I'm going to the web site to read their content, ideas, opinions, etc. - not loud obnox Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    You must be kidding? I would feel cheated that I got the same information but without the annoying ads? Maybe if I was buying the paper to GET the ads, but I'm not. I'm going to the web site to read their content, ideas, opinions, etc. - not loud obnoxious flash/popups that distract me and try to trick me into giving personal information out to be used for further advertising and spam.

  34. Hey. Bennie Smith. You're an idiot. Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Hey. Bennie Smith. You're an idiot.

  35. Ads are bandwidth theft...I pay for my bandwidth so if you wand to display an ad on my screen, then pay for my bandwidth! Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Ads are bandwidth theft...I pay for my bandwidth so if you wand to display an ad on my screen, then pay for my bandwidth!

  36. There's no "negative vibe toward advertising in general" there's just a negative vibe toward bad/super annoying advertising and rampant porn advertising. I dunno, but for me, sitting down with my wife and trying to help her do medical research o Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    There's no "negative vibe toward advertising in general" there's just a negative vibe toward bad/super annoying advertising and rampant porn advertising. I dunno, but for me, sitting down with my wife and trying to help her do medical research on the internet is a better experience when random loads of XXX garbage don't pop up all over the place. Or, you know, when her little brother is looking around for Star Wars stuff and gets blasted in the face with a picture of a naked woman, it kinda makes me wanna do something about it, ya know?

    That's where your negative vibe is coming from.

    Oh, and a million "Shoot the duck and win a house!" popups everywhere don't help either.

  37. Funny, when I read this article, there was a banner on the top from "http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/". What was the first thing I did? Adblock. Screw banner advertisers. I know exactly what I'm doing by using Adblock, and that's pus Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Funny, when I read this article, there was a banner on the top from "http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/".
    What was the first thing I did? Adblock.

    Screw banner advertisers. I know exactly what I'm doing by using Adblock, and that's pushing things towards Google-like advertising that acutally has a chance in hell of showing me something I care about. Those, I never block.

  38. Gee, Since when do I have to listen to idiots when *I* PAY for the access to the Internet, AND for the equpiment that makes it all work ??? This person (I cannot forget his name quickly enough) and his 'doubleclick' company can go the way of the dod Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Gee, Since when do I have to listen to idiots when *I* PAY for the access to the Internet, AND for the equpiment that makes it all work ???
    This person (I cannot forget his name quickly enough) and his 'doubleclick' company can go the way of the dodo.
    IF he pays me for the use of my computer, AND pays me for the portion of *MY* bandwidth that he uses, THEN, and ONLY then, can he complain about me blocking *ALL* content from doubleclick.
    B.T.W.: He has so many BIG 'ADs' coming from his site that 'doubleclick' slows down access to almost every page he has an advertizement on !! Which is why I block EVERYTHING from them !!

  39. This guy is an idiot if he thinks that ad-blocking will end the free content of the net. I guess that means that myself as well as countless others who have free content available will just have to STOP. Get a clue idiot, you'll just have to find anothe Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    This guy is an idiot if he thinks that ad-blocking will end the free content of the net. I guess that means that myself as well as countless others who have free content available will just have to STOP. Get a clue idiot, you'll just have to find another way to push your intrusive garbage onto people.

  40. "You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said. That's right! we all buy our papers to get our daily dose of wonderful advertising! If only they'd remove all that annoying news content.... Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    "You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said.

    That's right! we all buy our papers to get our daily dose of wonderful advertising! If only they'd remove all that annoying news content....

  41. Good. The sooner you dolts stop wanting everything for free and start paying, the sooner the internet will be an enjoyable experience and companies like doubleclick will die. Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Good. The sooner you dolts stop wanting everything for free and start paying, the sooner the internet will be an enjoyable experience and companies like doubleclick will die.

  42. Advertisements only pay when someone is buys what is being advertised. I have never bought anything advertised on a website. That doesn't mean I've never bought anything over the web, it just means I only buy stuff that I am interested in, and I decide Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Advertisements only pay when someone is buys what is being advertised. I have never bought anything advertised on a website. That doesn't mean I've never bought anything over the web, it just means I only buy stuff that I am interested in, and I decide when to become interested in something. For example, I recently bought a car. I never clicked a single car advertisement. I searched and researched and only then did I buy a car. Had the information about the car not been available, ie. had the "content=independent reviews, etc" not been available. I'd have been less likely to buy the car.

  43. Ads versus Adware. I dont mind seeing an ad on a website. I do however mind adware installing on my system bogging it down with unneccessary processes that I didnt ask to have installed. When I read the newspaper, the ads don't take over the articles, the Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Ads versus Adware. I dont mind seeing an ad on a website. I do however mind adware installing on my system bogging it down with unneccessary processes that I didnt ask to have installed. When I read the newspaper, the ads don't take over the articles, they don't adhere themselves to my being and keep track of how I spend my day so some marketing department can create better ads.

    I would be happy to click an ad knowing that it will benefit someones website that I enjoy visiting if I know that my computer is safe from being invaded.

  44. Doubleclick puts up the most annoying ads on the planet. They have large, flashy Flash ads, popups, popovers (which I utterly despise), massive images, and persue new and more evil ways of shoving a message right in our face. Google is an advert Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Doubleclick puts up the most annoying ads on the planet. They have large, flashy Flash ads, popups, popovers (which I utterly despise), massive images, and persue new and more evil ways of shoving a message right in our face.

    Google is an advertising company. They are making billions. Notice how unobtrusive their ads are? I would never block a google ad, because they are so easy to ignore when I choose to.

    Doubleclick is a dinosaur. If they don't change their ways, they deserve to be extinct.

  45. WHAT 25 CENT NEWSPAPERS????? Take your f*cking banner ads and shove them up your *ss. Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    WHAT 25 CENT NEWSPAPERS?????

    Take your f*cking banner ads and shove them up your *ss.

  46. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah <deep breath> hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

    <deep breath>

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

  47. Mr. Smith's comments are simple and understandable in the context of his position. Unfortunately for Mr. Smith and his company (et al), this is a free market. And in a free market, the customer has the final say. Ergo, if peo Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Mr. Smith's comments are simple and understandable in the context of his position.

    Unfortunately for Mr. Smith and his company (et al), this is a free market.

    And in a free market, the customer has the final say.

    Ergo, if people want ad-blocking, they'll have it. And they do.

    Further, if they want it by default, they'll have it. His plea to browser mfrs to abstain from making such a decision is specious. Mozilla.org surely doesn't have the concern. Microsoft is too large to be significantly impacted by any fallout. And both (along with others) are in a position to engineer alternatives if they care to work with the publishing industry to arrive at such. To the complete and utter exclusion of parasitic enterprises such as Doubleclick.

    It is only a matter of time, and will. Plenty of both are evident.

    The newspaper analogy is so fraught with irrelevancy one shouldn't bother deconstructing it.

  48. "Doubleclick is their own worst enemy. It's not just the trashy ads, but their spyware cookies and other means of tracking internet users. Here's a clue for those ****s: We're not here for your convenience. We pay for our bandwidth and that doesn't m Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    "Doubleclick is their own worst enemy. It's not just the trashy ads, but their spyware cookies and other means of tracking internet users. Here's a clue for those ****s: We're not here for your convenience. We pay for our bandwidth and that doesn't mean you're entitled to it. If your customer sites want to find a different way to make money, have at it. Another site will find a less obtrusive way to get their advertising in front of consumers by offering the same content. That's the way the free market works. They win, you lose. And it couldn't happen to a more deserving company."

  49. And so we'll no longer have commercial websites... The best content usually is found on privately owned sites which will always be free to visitors because we webmasters pay for them. We are not going away (after all our sites have been ad free from the Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    And so we'll no longer have commercial websites... The best content usually is found on privately owned sites which will always be free to visitors because we webmasters pay for them. We are not going away (after all our sites have been ad free from the start) and if ad sponsered websites go away we won't miss them at all!

  50. I use adblock, and I'm becoming more effective with it by the day. However, if the ads weren't displayed in such an obnoxious and distracting way (i.e. using flash, blinking, cycling, etc.) I wouldn't invest the effort, and I might even read one. Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    I use adblock, and I'm becoming more effective with it by the day. However, if the ads weren't displayed in such an obnoxious and distracting way (i.e. using flash, blinking, cycling, etc.) I wouldn't invest the effort, and I might even read one.

    As it stands right now, they **** me off, and give me a negative impression for the products they advertise.

  51. He is correct saying that if someone went through my news paper and cut out all of the ads I would feel cheated. Not because I didn't have the ads, but because the large gaping holes that were cut out would have content other than advertising on the back Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    He is correct saying that if someone went through my news paper and cut out all of the ads I would feel cheated. Not because I didn't have the ads, but because the large gaping holes that were cut out would have content other than advertising on the back side of it.

    I'm a proud AdBlock user. I am tired of intrusive advertising. I'm taking back my internet.

  52. In other news, "NAMBLA Warns Cub Scouts Against Firing Pedophiles". Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    In other news, "NAMBLA Warns Cub Scouts Against
    Firing Pedophiles".

  53. "He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers." In newspapers, you're paying for HARD COPY. You can pull the same news information off free TV or free broadcast radio. &qu Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    "He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers."

    In newspapers, you're paying for HARD COPY. You can pull the same news information off free TV or free broadcast radio.

    ""You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said."

    If those hole chopped out portions of the content? Sure! You damn betcha! If all it clipped out were JUST the ads (like a black marker), **** no.

    ""But that content is not without cost. And that cost is my eyeballs seeing an ad on a page. Or within an e-mail, or next to my search results, or however it's going to come," Smith explained."

    I call bull****. If someone wants to make money off their content, at least be honest about it. CHARGE FOR IT. But no. You have to perform a form of minor bandwidth theft. You push the content I want, sure. But you also push unwanted content (ads) on me as well. Without my consent. So forgive me for protecting the amount of bandwidth I utilize.

    What's more, some of these ads are MUCh more than "minor" bandwidth theft. Hundreds upon hundreds of kilo/megabytes of flash, etc.

    And, unlike an ad on TV, or in the paper, it's pushed at me over and over again as I browse around.

    ""They would be harming their own customer relationships to create a short-term, short-sighted, limited-effectiveness tool," he said. "One that they would probably end up having to withdraw from the market.""

    Translation, all of us leech companies would have to spend out money on a lawyer (yet another type of leech) and sue you to get it kiboshed.

    "If enough people started blocking ads, Smith warned that publishers would start charging for content."

    LET THEM DAMMIT!

    If the want to charge for content delivery, that's their right!

    Just as it's people's right NOT to decide that they don't want it badly enough to pay. It'd also help to curb this development of instant-gratification limited attention spans.

    If you want it NOW, and you want it badly enough, you'll pay for it.

    If you want it and you don't want to pay for it, you'll have to wait until they make it available for free. Until then, you can't look at it.

    ""In an offline world, what would happen in that case is that the 25c newspaper would cost $5," he said."

    Like a magazine? One that's STILL filled with advertisment?

    Bull****. Advertising is a revenue stream. If people don't act in a manner that allows you to generate that stream, they're not stealing from you. You just chose a bad stream. Find one that ****ing works and quit yer ****in'.

  54. "Invalidate our business model and... well... you'll be sorry! Really sorry!" Obviously the next thing to do is start filing lawsuits. Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    "Invalidate our business model and... well... you'll be sorry! Really sorry!" Obviously the next thing to do is start filing lawsuits.

  55. I use adblock, and I'm becoming more effective with it by the day. However, if the ads weren't displayed in such an obnoxious and distracting way (i.e. using flash, blinking, cycling, etc.) I wouldn't invest the effort, and I might even read one. Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    I use adblock, and I'm becoming more effective with it by the day. However, if the ads weren't displayed in such an obnoxious and distracting way (i.e. using flash, blinking, cycling, etc.) I wouldn't invest the effort, and I might even read one.

    As it stands right now, they **** me off, and give me a negative impression for the products they advertise.

  56. Waaaah waaaaaah waaaah waaaaaaah. Advertising sucks. Information is free. News is not. If you try to make us pay for your "news" we'll just start blogging... oh! WAIT! We already do!!! BAAAAAAHHHHHHH! Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Waaaah waaaaaah waaaah waaaaaaah.

    Advertising sucks.

    Information is free. News is not. If you try to make us pay for your "news" we'll just start blogging... oh! WAIT! We already do!!!

    BAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

  57. It may mean the end of doubleclick style advertising but Google's adsense is experiencing record growth. What Mr. Benny is actually experiencing is a consumer reaction against pages that become unuseable when clogged with his brand of internet advertising Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    It may mean the end of doubleclick style advertising but Google's adsense is experiencing record growth. What Mr. Benny is actually experiencing is a consumer reaction against pages that become unuseable when clogged with his brand of internet advertising.

    If those newspaper ad's moved around on the page, flashed annoyingly at us, and just generally made it a pain in the but to find content then those newspapers would have a pair of scissors taken to them pretty darn quick. In fact I can think of a few newspapers I don't purchase precisely because their ad placement strategy interferes with reading the content. If he want's to keep his business then he needs to stop finding creative ways to annoy the heck out of people and work on ways to actually make them want to buy the products he advertises.

  58. I am sure this moron will start suing people for blocking his crappy ads. Destroy our business model and we destroy you. Yo moron - I don't want your ads - or anyone elses. Nice comment about the missing ads in newspapers - I honestly Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    I am sure this moron will start suing people for blocking his crappy ads. Destroy our business model and we destroy you.

    Yo moron - I don't want your ads - or anyone elses.

    Nice comment about the missing ads in newspapers - I honestly can't remeber the last time I bought a newspaper for the ads.

    Do you sell magazines explicity full of advertising, but use newspaper articles to sell the product. You suck, zdnet sucks for posting crap as well. the hole online ad sucks. I can only imagine what TV would be like with pop ups - what do think - is the next wave?

  59. "One that they would probably end up having to withdraw from the market" This guy is seriously clueless. What right does he think he has to tell people that they have to accept any content that his company tries to force down their (pa Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    "One that they would probably end up having to withdraw from the market"

    This guy is seriously clueless. What right does he think he has to tell people that they have to accept any content that his company tries to force down their (paid for) internet connection? What right does he have to dictate what type of software can and cannot exist in the market?

    Answer: None.

    Browser makers, wether proprietary or open-source, are introduce whatever settings and plugins they wan't to make their user's browsing better. They don't have to get approval from the high-priests of dodgy marketing practices and bull**** at doubleclick.

  60. 1) Advertisments on newspapers do not save itself on your desktop and beacons itself as some ad-statistics. 2) Advertisements on the newspapers do not take 300 times more duration that you need to open & read a page. 3) Advertisements on pap Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    1) Advertisments on newspapers do not save itself on your desktop and beacons itself as some ad-statistics.
    2) Advertisements on the newspapers do not take 300 times more duration that you need to open & read a page.
    3) Advertisements on paper do not move/flash/overlay on content and essentially behave like a brat trying to get my attention.
    4) Advertisements on paper actually have more quality than those you see online. Hows for that?

    Advertising guru-wannabes... learn something from your predecessors. Bright neonlight advertising is no longer your formula.

    Adblock can still block out your content while querying your ad servers.... so you'll get your precious 'statistics' while we are satisfied with the missing blocks.

    Mr smith, deal with it, stop being a cry baby. Either you find some way to entice readers/users on your ads w/o annoying them... someone else will. and I can bet that your doubleclick will stay a vague history.

  61. A comment as stupid as that could only have come from an Advertising Executive. Double-Click are the biggest purveyors of SPAM in the world today and they don't have to send a single email to do it. Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    A comment as stupid as that could only have come from an Advertising Executive. Double-Click are the biggest purveyors of SPAM in the world today and they don't have to send a single email to do it.

  62. 1. Not much money is made from advertising revenue in the first place. 2. Remember preferred listings search engines, the ones which change your search results so that sponsor companies have their links listed at the top of you hits? What's hap Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    1. Not much money is made from advertising revenue in the first place.

    2. Remember preferred listings search engines, the ones which change your search results so that sponsor companies have their links listed at the top of you hits? What's happened? Google. Lesson evolve or die.

    3. Google has a very good advertising revenue business model, learn from it.

    4. The sooner doubleclick dies, the better.

  63. You gotta be kidding me? Mr Smith must have his head where the sun don't shine. There's been a number of similar comments recently and they all display a fundamental lack of understanding of the key principle of the internet: "The Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    You gotta be kidding me?

    Mr Smith must have his head where the sun don't shine.

    There's been a number of similar comments recently and they all display a fundamental lack of understanding of the key principle of the internet: "The user is in control"

    Marketers who understand this will reap benefits. Fools like Mr Smith will lose.

    As for the death of free content, I don't think so. As a consultant to several very successful online businesses, we are generating as much free content as we can, as we realise the value this has to our customers and therefore us.

    Mr Smith seems to have no idea of how business works.

  64. Absolute rubbish - there are countless websites that offer valuable content without ads etc. If Double Click can't produce something people want to view without ads they should examine what they're doing and why they're doing it. And if people d Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    Absolute rubbish - there are countless websites that offer valuable content without ads etc. If Double Click can't produce something people want to view without ads they should examine what they're doing and why they're doing it.

    And if people dont want to see ads - why should they be forced to? Just so Bennie Smith et al can be parasites on the bandwagon of corporate avarice?

  65. I don't mind the adds, but the practices they play on the users : key-logging, spyware, 5 popups per page. and the list goes on and on. There are ways they could implement to make it work without making my days longer. Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    I don't mind the adds, but the practices they play on the users : key-logging, spyware, 5 popups per page.

    and the list goes on and on. There are ways they could implement to make it work without making my days longer.

  66. This guy is obviously a ****ing retard. Has no clue about how advertisement works and what makes it functional. GTFO ****, go work as a garbage man or something. Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    This guy is obviously a ****ing retard. Has no clue about how advertisement works and what makes it functional. GTFO ****, go work as a garbage man or something.

  67. Golly,I personally can't wait for default ad blocking.Bunch of vermin suckering naive people into buying junk they can't afford,nor likely to use.May be stretching it just a tad but these places like DoulbleClick are as bad or worse than a virus on my com Anonymous -- 24/06/05<