Yesterday I read some comments by someone who was upset that Widgetbox modified their policy to prevent the inclusion of ads in the widgets submitted to their directory. The author claimed that this change in policy was uncalled for. All of the ads he inserted into his widgets were easily removable. People were getting these widgets for free so it should be his right to insert his own ads into them, right?
If you are a developer or publisher you might be inclined to agree with the author. If you are more often a user of such applications you might disagree. Though the author, justifies himself by claiming the ads are easily removable, some among us, however, go to great lengths to keep ads or links within their applications from being removed. The problem, in this case, with portable web applications is the source is always available. The solution to this, too often, is to obscure the code in order to prevent users from modifying it. What about users modifying it in good faith though? I personally respect a developer’s right to include a link in their free software. This does not mean that I don’t sometimes need to make changes to the source code.
A larger problem than this is that this behavior contributes toward our conflicted viewpoint regarding ads. We both love and hate ads. If ads were a person they would be the ex-girlfriend you’re still attracted to but know you dont’ get along with. As publishers we put ads in our content, but as users will fully ignore them. How many people have sites containing ads, but also have the firefox plugin that prevents ads from being displayed? At the same time we want people to click the ads on our sites, but are unwilling to even look at the ads on others’ sites.
This conflict is most severe for tech oriented sites. If you have a tech site, your users (most likely tech people) are ad blind. Most likely a person can read this entire post without knowing what the ads even say. Ad placement plays a factor in this of course, but even when the ad is right in my face, I don’t give it a second thought. In fact, I think that intrusive ad placement as well as flashing, animated, or worst of all, ads with sound contribute to a users unwillingness to even notice your ads.
The tech oriented portion of the Internet is a special case of course. I went to a conference a couple years ago and heard a Microsoft representative claim that the ads on their mail service were not meant for us. Us refers to us at the conference: tech people. As a niche, we don’t generate ad revenue. When is the last time you went on someone else’s site and clicked an ad? When did you even read them? Without looking, do you know what any of the ads on this site say?
So what is the solution to this problem? Is it even a problem? If you’re a publisher in the tech niche you might be concerned that your users are experiencing ad blindness. I’ve already pointed out that more intrusive or attention getting ads are not the solution. The only thing you can do is give ads a chance. I encourage you of course to ignore intrusive ads as they are part of the problem. What about discrete ads placed in good faith, by tech people hoping to pay the bills or earn some pocket cash off an ad supported app? I’m not telling you to click ads. If you are a publisher or developer who uses ads in their work, I’m telling you to read the ads. See what they’re about.
This brings us back to a question I asked earlier. Does a developer have the right to insert an ad into an application that is meant to be used on someone else’s site? I think the answer depends on the method and the goals. If your ad subtracts from the content of your app or its users site then the answer is no. If your purpose is the generate ad revenue then the answer is no. We need to get over the mentality that ad revenue will make us rich. Even if you make is significant amount of money from ads, you should realize that credit does not belong to the ads, it belongs to the content.