anna.morris's blog
Just another FSFE Fellowship Blogs site
44 Pounds a month for a add free web?
I don’t like adverts because they distract me, they try to manipulate me, and they are usually ugly or annoying. But this article got me thinking about adds on-line again. It focuses mostly on Add-block Plus (GPL) which now has a “white list” system. Add’s let through the block must firstly reach certain criteria (no animation, not in the way of the rest of the site, not too big etc) but secondly any large companies wishing to get unblocked – must pay a fee.
I have been concerned about this tactic since looking at Ghostery’s (proprietary) white-list, where it is not clear what it is and why folks are on it. Add Block Plus are at least transparent about what they do – so I can learn and blog and discuss with you guys! Also, if we compare their white list scheme to things like “vegan society approval”, “BUAV approved” or “ethical company mark” – it’s probably pretty similar. If fact, if I could could simply “block” the unethical products, those tested on animals, those with meat in, those made in sweatshops or by firms who shoot union officials, from ever being in front of my face, I probably would.
Anyway, the interesting bit for me is near the end of the article, where it says that the rough cost of an “add free internet” each month would be £44 per user, on top of whatever they pay now. So that’s all the news sites, blogs, social media sites etc we visit – all sites that don’t make money in other ways (so web shops not included).
I would like to look at how they came to this figure exactly, but for now, I think I disagree with it. The first point is that there are many many projects, video and blog especially, which make a profit from adds because they can, not because they need to. And hello, I know how long it takes to make a video… but I am pretty sure 99% of these people would still make the video if they knew for a fact they would never see a dime. It just happens that when they start to get some serious views (and not before!) they think – hey, I could make a bit of cash by putting an add in front this. So actually, they are not the people who need the money for their site. The people are Youtube, who take a cut too. Hosting video takes a lot of server power. So does that take a dime of the cost? Did the factor in need or simply takeup of add revenue??
The situation is similar with blogs. There are so many blogs (and forums) which are “monetised” – but I really doubt this just covers the hosting, or that these people are working full time and that the adds are their income… and even if they were… how can this £44 a month argument hold up in the face of projects like Wikipedia? Given for free, paid for by donations, paid for with time and love? On top of which we know where our money is going with Wikipedia: they tell us, they keep accounts.
I am actually quite uncomfortable with the “transaction” involved with on-line adds on small sites. It goes something like “come to my site, click on an add, I get some money, you know nothing about me, it may be fulling my porn-addiction/coke-habit/mad religion… but you will never find out anyway.” This is in some ways even worse than the high-street / ethical certification situation I mentioned earlier. At least we can, to some extent, know how good/bad/ugly a shop or product is. We can make an informed decision about where our money goes. We can’t really know this with privately run internet sites… which isn’t a problem… till we are giving them money. An here-in lies an issue: by clicking on an add, we are making a financial transaction, a small one, an invisible one, sure. But there is a figure that can be put on it.
That changes the way I think about adds. I guess it’s about more than just me versus manipulation and distraction.