By chance, has anyone seen or heard this episode yet? If so,thoughts?

[G+_Mark Swaim]

By chance, has anyone seen or heard this episode yet? If so,thoughts?

https://twit.tv/shows/triangulation/episodes/227?autostart=false

[G+_Dave Trautman]

I actually listened live. Leo found himself in the unenviable position of having to defend the value of advertising from a lot of different perspectives. The three guests were understanding and helpful in clarifying the best uses of ad-blocking techniques but they would always come back to the question of what power this blocking can put into the hands of the everyday user.

 

With Leo as closely connected to ad supported media throughout his career it was unfortunate that he took so much of the available time directing the discussion toward specific examples instead of the broader implications of this emerging issue. I thought it was a worthwhile talk, but it suffered from Leo's lengthy elaborations on the different advertising models and applications.

 

If the subject concerns you enough then it is a good netcast to look into.

[G+_Randy Hudson]

I generally dislike advertising as much as the next guy, but I do understand the concept that nothing is actually free. You pay one way or another.

 

I don't mind a few ads if that's how I'm paying for the content, with my time. What really burns me is getting pushed ads for content I already have paid for thru subscription.

[G+_David Pick]

Dave Trautman I'm just trying to understand. Are you referring to this specific episode? Or is there another netcast/podcast your referring to?

 

I thought this was a good informative episode. But Leo seemed a bit hypocritical advocating add blocking while advertising in the episode. To Leo's credit, he did acknowledge that.

[G+_Charles Griffin]

I'm actually afraid to listen to it, given Leo's many discussions of ad blocking over the past months. I just don't want to hear any more comments trying to guilt people about using ad blockers. My view is that the Internet was not created so people can make money gathering clicks, but feel free to do so. Have at it. Just don't expect me to be concerned if you don't. The Internet belongs to all of us and for me blocking ads in my right as a citizen of the web. Of course, not everybody feels that way and that's OK with me. I just don't want to be beat over the head for blocking ads.

[G+_Dave Trautman]

David Pick as I said, I listened live.  This is the episode to which you were referring.  But as Randy Hudson has correctly pointed out Leo's been on this subject in a number of other netcasts for a while now.  But it appears you have listened, so the question is moot by now.

[G+_David Pick]

Charles Griffin Again,Leo was a little hypocritical in this episode advocating add blocking while advertising in his show. However Leo asked directly the developer of Addblock Plus if adds are bad? He replied no. But we can all agree how those adds are used greatly effects the user experience of a sight.

 

I have no choice but to avoid a sight that uses full screen video adds when visiting a sight. Especially on a mobile phone.

[G+_Randy Hudson]

I find that just by disabling Flash more than half of all ads in my Web browser never play.

[G+_Curt P.]

Charles Griffin You said, "the internet was not created so people can make money gathering clicks"... but how are people supposed to generate enough revenue to provide you content? Website design/creation & hosting & domain fees & staff to maintain a site can cost A LOT of money. That stuff isn't free. Do you expect them to work for free for you?? I'm sure you browse many websites & online apps that people pay a lot of money to produce and maintain. If they aren't selling products to you, how else are they suppose to  generate enough revenue to keep that up? Should they just take a loss on the site so people like you don't have to look at ads? That seems rather selfish and shortsighted. I understand that people don't like ads. But I also understand that without ads, the internet as we know it would not exist.

[G+_Charles Griffin]

So anything new to add. Curt?  Everybody knows ads support websites but I contend it is our right not to look at them.  Monetize YouTube or a website, whatever.  I am fine with that.  I still reserve the right to be "selfish," as you say and not watch your ads or visit your site.  Your comments would make Leo proud.

[G+_Dave Trautman]

Let's be careful not to mix up "sponsorship" with "advertising". Leo's shows all have sponsors. They get mentioned and their products get promotion. Pretty simple. The advertising fits the viewers and the promotion does not reduce the viewing/listening experience. This is how sponsorship should be. Leo also does not solicit support or do crowdfunding campaigns. Both of these support methods could "pay for the internet" as was asked earlier.

 

Unconnected advertising which has no idea what site it is showing on, who might be visiting, or whether the information is relevant to the visitor's life is like flyers in my mailbox. They are hoping to use their saturation exposure to hit one or two good targets, like carpet-bombing. They advertise with the hope of reaching a person who might want this information.

 

Google (and others) are attempting to make that targeting better by mapping it onto the behaviour patterns they can gather about people's visits, favourite sources, and personal interests. This helps a little bit. It reduces (but can't eliminate) exposure to messages which are not even close to relevancy. Most people have habituated to the existence of advertising blocks and messages on the periphery of what they choose to look at.

 

What has happened in recent years has been the intensity of the effort to overcome the habituation of the visitor and push these messages into the center, or use them as hurdles to leap over to get to the information. The more recent problem of advertising malware and undeclared tracking has caused visitors to reject advertising even more than before. Now, it seems, this is a practical matter of protecting both identity information and intrusions into our platform or systems.

 

Those of us old enough to have been exploring the "internet" before it was commercialized understand there is a balance between information which is useful and information which is pointless. Sometimes you have to roam the useless to find the nuggets of useful deep within. Sponsorship can work more effectively and can be measured more accurately. Widespread distribution of ads through a wasteland of low value information is ruining it for the sites which invested heavily in getting good information and offering it up.

 

I believe where some day the use of micro-payments will be so simple as to allow us to actually subscribe or outright buy the information we are seeking. This is not a pay-wall approach, it is fee-based approach where the popularity of some content can be leveraged for income streams. There are still a lot of places on the internet which have free information. Mostly because the information was meant to be free and was already paid for by government agencies around the globe. But there is also mis-information and propaganda floating around.

 

As with most things the value of the information starts with the source of the information. My neighbour in real life is not a great source of information. But there are some sources worth paying for. I believe we are caught, right now, between the old model of advertising which comes to us from print-media and television and some new model of advertising which is involving, responsive, actually useful, and can live alongside content without being intrusive. It will also not try and sell me what I've already bought.

 

Ad blocking algorithms will also get smarter and allow users to target the "techniques" as well as the ad content (or distribution sources). That way we can "mute" those which annoy us and send messages back to the distributors about our dissatisfaction so they can report it to their clients. Just as we can "mute" posts or block other Google Plus comments we should be able to click the "X" on an ad and say we don't want to hear from them again.

 

Just to be fair, I have in my life only twice responded to an ad I saw on a web site. In both cases it was a product I was seeking and a seller I recognized. So if it is done correctly advertising can work. But if it annoys me, then I will not reward the people who wrote that code to put a hurdle between me and the content I was seeking.

[G+_Charles Griffin]

Without really reading your whole statement, let me be certain to say I am definitely OK with ads Leo has within his shows.  I choose to listen/watch them, because I'm willing to pay that price to gain the content.

[G+_Curt P.]

Charles Griffin I'm not saying you have to click on the ads or you shouldn't use an ad blocker. Sure, it is your right to do or not do those things. But you also can't complain then if those sites go away if you choose not to support them. It's like sitting on a street corner for hours and enjoying a street performer, but then never tipping them. Good luck finding any street performers in the future to enjoy if everyone were to adopt your methods.