Wired blocks access to adblocking users

“Five months after Apple opened the door to ad blocking on mobile devices, news site Wired has become the latest publication to charge users who have installed ad-blocking tools,” Michele Chandler reports for Investor’s Business Daily. “‘We know that you come to our site primarily to read our content, but it’s important to be clear that advertising is how we keep Wired going: paying the writers, editors, designers, engineers and all the other staff that works so hard to create the stories you read and watch here,’ Wired told its readers in a post Monday.”

“The publication said 20% of its traffic comes from readers who are blocking its website ads,” Chandler reports. “Wired said visitors using ad blockers will not have full access to articles on its site. It said website visitors can either agree to see ads or pay about $1 a week for an ad-free subscription.”

MacDailyNews Take: $52 per year. For one site. Gee, wonder why website subscriptions generally don’t work?

“Some media firms, including Comcast-owned NBC, will not allow people using ad blockers to watch videos on their sites, while the Guardian and the Washington Post are among media sites that are prodding people who use ad blockers to pay for subscriptions instead,” Chandler reports. “About 16% of the U.S. online population blocked Web ads during Q2 2015, according to a September study by Adobe Systems and PageFair. Ad blocking could could cost publishers $41.4 billion globally this year, up from $21.8 billion in 2015, according to that study.”

There Is No ‘Free’ Internet

“‘There has never been any such thing as free Internet, as users either pay with cash or with personal data/advertising. The experience is ‘free,’ but a return is earned by using users’ personal data to generate advertising or relevant marketing,’ wrote Edison Investment Research analyst Richard Windsor in an industry note Tuesday. ‘The problem is that virtually all users who are paying with personal data do not realize that they are actually paying for the services that they consume,'” Chandler reports. “Windsor added that ‘with many legitimate and well-respected businesses that depend on advertising to make a living, the threat of having it cut off could put them out of business.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Due in part to ad blocking, the shift to mobile (where ads pay less than on the desktop), some decline in desktop CPMs, and other circumstances, we’ve been forced run some advertising that we’d rather not have to resort to running in order to pay the bills.

We hope this is a temporary situation as we’re working on various means to get back to fewer, more tech-oriented ads. To everyone who’s been patronizing our advertisers to support MacDailyNews, a BIG THANK YOU as it’s helping us toward our goal of minimizing ads!

SEE ALSO:
Axel Springer bans adblock users from accessing Bild website – October 13, 2015
Apple pulls ‘Been Choice’ ad-blocker, other apps from App Store citing security concerns – October 9, 2015
Rush Limbaugh: What Apple’s iOS 9 ad-blockers will unleash – September 21, 2015
iOS 9 adblocker apps top App Store charts; developer pulls ‘Peace’ adblocker – September 18, 2015
iOS 9 content blocking will transform the mobile Web – August 24, 2015
Apple’s iOS 9 ad blocking threatens Google’s lifeblood – August 14, 2015
Apple News shows that Apple wants to bolster and profit from ads, not eliminate them – July 10, 2015

27 Comments

  1. I have no problems supporting websites and/or apps like MDN by allowing them to use advertising but PULLLEAZE get rid of the “You have won a free Iphone” adds that keep on blocking the whole UI untill I press OK, ignore the questionaire presented and try to retrack my steps to get back to the content I was about to read.

    1. This is the issue. It’s not ads in general, it’s how ads get in the way of the browsing experience. In the beginning, there were simple, static banner ads. If it had stayed that way, I would never have installed a blocker. But no. Ads started moving, trying to get your attention. They started making sounds. And they started being ads for slimy disgusting obvious scams. I finally couldn’t take it anymore.

      If websites would put together a coalition and agree to run only non-intrusive ads from non-scam artists, I would have no problem unblocking.

      ——RM

  2. I just installed adblock plus and ghostery and I’m enjoying even better battery life and smoother browsing on my Macbook Air. I see 9 ads and 15 trackers blocked on this page alone. I’ll be glad to contribute a few bucks to MDN, but I don’t see a donation area.

    As far as online publishing as a whole, I WANT to see many sites shut down or reconfigure their business model. Advertising isn’t just about selling ads that we can pay attention to or ignore, tracking the shit out of readers is far more lucrative. Screw the sites that engage in that behavior (most of them).

    Wired and their SJW ilk deserve their fate. Bad enough that you want to invade my privacy, you also propagandize the world with lies. I look forward to your bankruptcy.

    1. I agree with you. I would rather pay a fee than to see ads. I have been around long enough to know that many people prefer ads. I don’t hold it against them at all.

      1. I just don’t like ads that run batteries down, take up screen space and try to predict what I will buy next.
      2. I also realize that ads are not there to get me to buy something per se, but rather to sell my data and track me.

      I am of some forums that do use ads, but they don’t track me and are there in case I want to order something that throws a percentage back to the forum. That form – I can take. it doesn’t track me.

      1. My iMac was running S. L. I. W last night when I got home..

        Pulled up activity monitor and found it was a F’N AD on a tab in safari that I opened up in the morning.
        Closed that tab and all was well, that’s when I realized I accidentally turned off Adblock somehow.

        Ads are one thing, BS like that is unacceptable.

  3. I installed add blocking software on my home computer only because of MDN’s pop up adds were so annoying. The normal adds are no bother at all and can be somewhat entertaining. The problem with the MDN add is it causes the text to shift when it opens and again when it closes.

      1. But MDN is using the company that’s providing them, yeah? If your ad provider can’t keep out malware, use a different ad provider OR get blocked, essentially.

        1. Yes, you are Wrong Again.

          Virtually all “ad networks” use Google AdSense/Adwords inventory. You cannot turn off one and that rogue ad is on any number of others. There’s no way for websites to do as you so simplistically suggest OR THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT LONG AGO, GENIUS.

          Those who ad block should be blocked. Period. I urge MDN to follow Wired’s example.

          1. The one that Daring Fireball uses has never had the issues that MDN has. Maybe it doesn’t bring in as much money BUT either you value money or your user’s experience.

            Most sites, for very good reason, value money. Not saying it’s right, just that they have their reasons.

          2. So because all these ad networks are full of sh*t we should just eat sh*t and like it? To hell with that.

            Fine, let all the websites block me. It’ll give me a chance to get caught up on my book reading.

            ——RM

  4. Any site that syndicates its ads and tracks you to determine what its algorith says you should see should die. Us an ad blocker. That way the only advertising that a site can genrate is that which it creates and distributes itself.

    So much of the web is full of clumsy Google Ad Sense ads that provide a pittance to the site in exchange for screwing its viewers.

    Grow your own- This includes you MDN

  5. I use ad blocking because the ads are poorly targeted and have absolutely no relevance to me. I keep on advocating that advertisers target me and my wants better. I am very happy to give them a list of products and services that I use to get ads for things I actually will buy. I want suppliers to compete for my business.

  6. I think that all Ads should have a universal “comments” button that you can click on, which sends information back to the Company that is paying for the Ad (eg- “fyi dear company, your childrens clothing ad is displaying on a Porn Web site) . . . i.e. If companies knew the crappy way that their ads are being displayed on websites, (and that we hate their brand because of it), they would pull their ads, and it would force the industry to come up with standards . . . right now Fortune 500 companies are being fleeced by Google, etc.

    1. Meanwhile, a brief summary of what’s going on in this wonderful anti-ad revolution:

      1) As with warrantless government surveillance of their citizens, Internet users have been blatantly abused by what I call Marketing Morons. In response, they have lost faith in being treated with respect and have enacted ad-blocking in their web browsers, among other personal protection tactics (such as tracker cookie filtering).

      2) The intelligent sector of the marketing community has realized their error (or outright abuse) and are attempting to make amends.

      3) Ad-blockers have matured to the point where nearly all of them offer a white list of websites. Faithful, appreciative site users have been white-listing their appreciated websites in order to kindly allow their chosen advertising. Note, however, that they are still blocking 3rd party ad sources, who typically remain abusive. For example, I’m sick of having mammary glands shoved in my face in multiple ads are, ahem, certain websites. So no way am I going to allow ads from the specific ad sources that foist said mammary glands. IOW: I have no interest in being treated like a slut minded sex fiend and will enforce my choices.

      4) Ad-blocker developers are interacting with what I call the marketing mavens within the marketing community in order to automatically white-list their advertisements, which the developer has deemed unabusive if not entirely beneficial to web users. This is an iffy aspect of ad-blockers but has so far been handled intelligently, without payola rubbish involved.

      My POV: Marketing is entirely about helping and benefitting customers and potential customers. As soon as customers are treated poorly, customers have the right as well as duty to their own well being to BLOCK all such advertising.

      IOW: Business and capitalism is all about COLLABORATION between all involved institutions and individuals. Once collaboration is removed for any reason, these systems are broken and no longer functional. They become something less, something undesirable and undeserved. Those damaged by the removal of collaboration WILL create retribution. This is, for better or worse, an entirely normal human behavior. Expect it.

  7. Cult of Mac is very bad with trackers. I would t mind ads so much if that’s all they were, BUT 36 trackers on one webpage is waaaay too much. Get rid of tracking and just use pure ads and I’ll turn off my blockers.

  8. Let’s simply take this to it’s logical conclusion:

    1. Publishers block ad-blockers.
    2. Ad-blockers have no recourse and have a choice to either turn off ad blockers in order to see publishers’ content or they see no content.
    3. There is no step 3.

    1. 3. Most viewers decide they really don’t need to visit these sites if it means being bombarded with intrusive advertising and tracked to hell and back. Web site views dive.
      – or –
      3. Ad blocker developers find way to prevent site owners from knowing whether ads are being blocked. Cat and mouse game begins.

      People started blocking ads because they hated the experience of browsing with ads. They won’t go back to browsing with ads just because. They’ll move to mobile apps and just browse less.

      ——RM

  9. I travel all over Europe and read MacDailyNews constantly. I wish I had an ad-free subscribed access. I never click on your ads because I see them in countries I don’t live in and don’t understand the language. And I presume that Google may be the agency which I don’t like.

    Apple is moving to ad-free devices. Change or be changed.

    I don’t know how much you get from ads that I see and never ever click but you should think about selling me a subscription through the App Store or in-app. If you don’t, your business model may be disrupted by the very company that you report on.

    Evolve, MDN. And BTW, it will be nice to not have to see the ridiculous troll posts because they won’t subscribe.

  10. Apple should pay you for some of those rants by advertising on your platform and they should quote your comments at their keynotes to grow your audience. It suppose to be their damn duty. 😉

  11. MDN:
    I pay for Apple Insider and numerous sites like The New York Times, Financial Times, The Economist, The Los Angeles Times and others.

    I prefer paying a subscription to seeing a blizzard of bullshit. I also do not like the fact that ads and tracking cookies eat up so much data.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.