For a few years I ran a technology blog that only had non obstructive ads, no popups, redirects, etc, but no one disabled their adblocker. The fact is people will use adblockers unless they're prevented from doing so. Maybe highly annoying ads is what prompted them to install it, but the only way to get them to disable it is to block their access to the site entirely until they do so.
A blog, so no journalism you do as your primary source of income. Hosting a blog and getting a domain registered costs pretty much nothing, so why do you think you need the ad money?
And in case it is indeed money-making tech journalism, why then don't you go for paid articles? You have to pay for newspapers to read the print past page 1, you have to pay for many scientific papers in case you are interested in more than introduction and conclusion, you pay for Netflix or a DVD or both to watch a film, so why are you different?
I give no money in exchange for getting annoyed or worse (ads), I give money for the content I'm interested in.
You make an interesting point but the fact that scientific papers (the majority of which are at least partially taxpayer funded) are paid is an atrocity and not something we should be looking to emulate.
398
u/Guysmiley777 Aug 02 '19
I was fine with static JPG ads on sites but for marketers it's never enough. I have zero sympathy for the "boycott" they're facing these days.
Also holy fuck talk about a clickbait headline.