[Anonymous]

[TominScotland]

We’ve all become familiar with the ads that add colour to our web pages, BT included. Some of them are useful, some rather more questionable. I went through a spell where Qatar were actively promoting fares to me to a range of Asian points from Preshawar (never been there) – perhaps not the most useful.

Today, a number of sites include the splendid news that I can fly from LGW to Geneva with BA from as a little as £403. Mmmmmmm – no thanks!!

I know these ads are machine generated but should they not have some level of intelligent human moderation?

What are the best ones fellow posters have seen?

[SimonS1]

To be honest I got fed up with the banner ads blocking part of the actual posts so now I view most forums using Adblock Browser.

[LuganoPirate]

It’s the one’s that pop up as you’re scrolling or typing I hate the most as you’re then whisked of to some site you’ve no interest in.

[Charles-P]

When reading the site on my laptop they are fine but with my tablet they are far too intrusive. I think we all appreciate that advertising is required to pay the bills here but when its done badly the effect can be very negative on the brand.

[LuganoPirate]

Charles. +1

[Tom Otley]

We’ve turned it off

[Tom Otley]

It’s back on, hopefully not so annoying.

Another thread about it here (no closed, since I can’t merge them)

http://www.businesstraveller.com/discussion/topic/Intrusive-and-annoying-advertising-here

and some food for thought

http://digiday.com/publishers/guardian-trial-tougher-messaging-ad-blocker-users/

We can tell there is a high proportion of people using ad blockers.

If it continues on the new site, our choices are:

1. Sell more native content – which ad blockers can’t detect.

2. Put more of the content behind pay walls.

3. Block those using blocking software.

I’m sympathetic that many of you find it annoying, especially on mobile devices, and I’m hopeful the new site will make it easier to view the content without pop up ads getting in the way, but snot everything in life is free.

After 200 years the two principal ways publishers cover their costs is still advertising and subscriptions. Our subscriptions are increasing in number, helped by digital subscriptions, and I’m grateful to those of you who subscribe and hope you have found it value for money, but to pay for the web, we need web advertising, and ad blocking software blocks not just the adverts but our revenue.

[MrMichael]

Fully understood. I must confess I do not subscribe to either the online or paper magazine but generally read it in lounges or occasionally buy it off the shelf at Smiths (although I cannot remember when last I did that). So the question is how much would I pay for this forum..and the forum alone…the answer is £12 per annum. But then, I have never complained about the adverts, because I also know nothing is free.

Perhaps the answer is, free forum with adds, less adds (or no adds) if you pay.

[FDOS_UK]

SiteAdministrator – 17/03/2016 15:53 GMT

I suggest that you do this:

1 – sell a magazine subscription that includes website access

2 – sell a website only subscription, that reflects the lack of fulfilment cost, but still generates healthy revenues

3 – no ads for subscribers

I would have thought that reasonable people would accept that – I’d be happy to buy a website subscription, but I really don’t want the magazine.

Blocking ad blockers is a negative move, as there are very good reasons a number of us do that.

To be frank, I took a Zinio subscription and thought it was awfully executed, I tried to read a couple of editions and then gave up – waste of money – if you check you records, you can verify that.

[LuganoPirate]

I’m in the subscribe and no ads or free but put up with the ads camp.
I am a subscriber and really enjoy both the magazine and this forum.

[SimonS1]

I’ve no problem turning the ad blocker off for the new site. The reason it’s on now is that so many times the banner ads have either intruded across the forum space or been so irrelevant (as per the OP) that it’s just irritating.

[Author]

Posts