If someone asked you to work for free would you do it? I would not. But many publishers do this all the time. They allow their content to be served to people who use ad-blockers. Most publishers would say that about 20% of traffic comes from devices with ad-blockers. I don’t understand why sites would serve content to people who block ads. It’s like working for free.
Today the Financial Times launched an interesting defense on ad-blockers. Rather than serve up content with no chance of selling the ad impressions the digital newspaper is testing hiding a percentage of the words in its story to point out how advertising revenue funds the content.
The New York Times is being more direct by insisting that people whitelist their site from the ad-blocker to receive content. This is a big step in the right direction for media content providers. Content costs money. Good content costs more than bad content. Advertising is a necessary aspect of most publishers’ sites because very few people will pay for content with cash. Why should a business give its product away just because a device has an ad-blocker on it?
These steps by FT and the NYT reminds people that quality content can only be provided if there is a revenue exchange. Publishers need to stand firm on blocking content to those who do not want to pay for it. Visitors either need to pay cash or pay attention. The ad-blocking phenomenon will only end if content providers don’t enable them. Don’t work for free.
Read more in this article from Ad Age.