When does a free service become intrusive?

[overseasTOON]

I see that Facebook have released a new user interface for their service so that advertisers have more space to ply a product and offer more engaging content and as per usual; the loyal users are slating the business for this decision.

It leads to me think, when does a free online service that needs to generate revenue to remain a free service finally cross the line in terms of revenue generation techniques? When does the revenue generation style become intrusive?

Looking back, for over a decade, online advertising has been a business model that most companies have looked towards to either provide a revenue stream or bolster revenues as an additional stream alongside traditional pay for products.

The internet had at its heart the mantra of ‘the internet is free’ but then it was recognised that it was a powerful sales and marketing tool that gave you cheap access to a potential global market.

Looking at a first internet generation business such as Friends Reunited, you can still see its roots were grounded in the traditional bricks and mortar model. The internet was new, wild and provided little to no ability to provide free services. That’s why you had to pay for a product that allowed you to find and stay in touch with people from your past and present.

In its day; it was the king and was fundamentally the founding father of online social networking. At its peak it was valued at huge sums but after the dot-com bubble and the emergence of other rivals following a new online business model, it eventually sold to ITV for £120 million and then in 2009 its database contents were purchased for a paltry £25 million.

The precedent was set and the new online business models were certainly the way to go. It adopted the initial internet ‘mantra’ that everything on the internet was free and people swarmed towards them.

But the underlying aspect of any online business is that the bigger you get; the more expensive it is to maintain a free service in terms of hardware, development, support and research and development of new and emerging technologies. When you become staid and dull; you will start to lose users.

Facebook have a mass of hardware that supports their free service but they've had to recoup some costs because 14% of the world’s population use the free service and supplying 14% of the world’s population isn't going to be cheap.

So Facebook use adverts to cover the costs as much as possible and where possible they will allow third parties access and use your data that you've inputted as part of an enormous geo-demographic database to do this.

There is no other way for them to create revenues that will allow them to maintain market share and supply a free service.

They can’t charge you. If they did; you’d run away in droves and they know this.

You are the heart and soul of the business model supplying thousands of gigabytes of data a day that will be used to target you, your friends and other 3rd parties with offers galore that should suit your lifestyle and needs.

You aren't forced to click an ad. You just have to put up with the fact that there are ads in a prominent position on a page you read and interact with.

You see ads on almost every page of every website in the world but people aren't up in arms about that. You are tracked with cookies through your entire internet journey that collate information about your user habits yet many people accept this as part and parcel of the internet user experience.

So why is Facebook looked at and treated differently? Google ads cookies track you far more in your online life yet no-one really bats an eyelid about these.

[skalpel]

I don't mean to flippantly miss the point of your article on purpose, but are there seriously still people who don't use AdBlockPlus?

Why are Facebook treated differently though? I'm not sure, I don't pay any attention to news about social sites, but could it not be the in built fear we have of the monopolistic company? Particularly one that knows everything about us?

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

I don't mean to flippantly miss the point of your article on purpose, but are there seriously still people who don't use AdBlockPlus?

Why are Facebook treated differently though? I'm not sure, I don't pay any attention to news about social sites, but could it not be the in built fear we have of the monopolistic company? Particularly one that knows everything about us?

My work computer only has old firefox and so adblockplus is not available. The thing is, I'm one of these people who uses free websites all the time that rely on adverts to pay their staff. Yet I actively try and avoid these adverts getting to me. If everyone was that tech saavy, so many websites would go bust. It's selfish but I do it anyway

[overseasTOON]

I don't mean to flippantly miss the point of your article on purpose, but are there seriously still people who don't use AdBlockPlus?

Why are Facebook treated differently though? I'm not sure, I don't pay any attention to news about social sites, but could it not be the in built fear we have of the monopolistic company? Particularly one that knows everything about us?

I'd say from a professional experience that there are far more people online who don't use any form of ad blocking software than those who do.

The online advertising industry is worth billions.

[Cal]

AdBlockPlus has started showing support for websites which use unobtrusive ads by giving the option to allow those which have been flagged as such. I've no problem with ads on a webpage or before a video if they're not actively infringing on the user experience or misleading, and in the case of before a video not excessively long/unskippable.

I understand that free services need some way to be profitable, but if they make themselves a hassle to use then I'll happily move along to the competitor, although that's not too much of an option with Facebook now that it has permeated throughout our lives. However if they are considerate in their business model, I will happily show the same goodwill back, such as in free to play games where I'll readily and regularly put money in if I agree with their monetisation strategy and want to reward them.

[Sir Bobby]

I'd say from a professional experience that there are far more people online who don't use any form of ad blocking software than those who do.

Definitely this. I have both, but I still end up going on Safari (which I don't have ad block for) just as much as Firefox. Adverts don't really bother me though.

I'd say it becomes intrusive when it stops you using the website, even if it's only for a few seconds like on YouTube

[asbo]

I'd say from a professional experience that there are far more people online who don't use any form of ad blocking software than those who do.

Definitely this. I have both, but I still end up going on Safari (which I don't have ad block for) just as much as Firefox. Adverts don't really bother me though.

I'd say it becomes intrusive when it stops you using the website, even if it's only for a few seconds like on YouTube

It was the YouTube ads that made me get Ad Block, the video ones before are so annoying, and the pop up ones during are pretty irritating too.

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

This post is interesting and on the same vein: Half of Destructoid's readers block our ads. Now what?

[skalpel]

This post is interesting and on the same vein: Half of Destructoid's readers block our ads. Now what?

Boo hoo, really. "I can't pay my bills unless you stop blocking my adverts!!" He even pulls the classic: "..my Internet generation expects everything to be free, cheap, and plentiful.." out of the bag. This is a guy whose previous posts include; "I helped a girl take a piss", "win tickets!", "Party today in Miami!!" and a whole post dedicated to photos of a van covered in images of Mario and Luigi. People were and still are freely sharing far more interesting and important information than this without being under any delusions that they deserve to earn money from it. Instead of complaining about shifts in how the public legally use their service, people should be working to consider better ways to bring in revenue.

[Cal]

This post is interesting and on the same vein: Half of Destructoid's readers block our ads. Now what?

Boo hoo, really. "I can't pay my bills unless you stop blocking my adverts!!" He even pulls the classic: "..my Internet generation expects everything to be free, cheap, and plentiful.." out of the bag. This is a guy whose previous posts include; "I helped a girl take a piss", "win tickets!", "Party today in Miami!!" and a whole post dedicated to photos of a van covered in images of Mario and Luigi. People were and still are freely sharing far more interesting and important information than this without being under any delusions that they deserve to earn money from it. Instead of complaining about shifts in how the public legally use their service, people should be working to consider better ways to bring in revenue.

Ignoring the guy himself, destructoid is one of the highest quality, if slightly alternative, gaming news and reviews sites going. But I agree that crying about adblocking isn't the way to win back those who don't appreciate annoying adverts, @ululator had it right for me;

"1: Enable scriptless plain image or adwords ads. 2: Advocate NoScript instead of Adblock. 3. Respect your users' safety concerns"

More-so 1 than 2 and 3, but those are still valid. Don't inconvenience the user or make them fight to get to the content. If they're so concerned about revenue but also keeping all their content free, start a premium membership that doesn't access content locked behind a paywall, but offers some other kind of benefits. Destructoid has a cult following, and I expect many of them would happily stump up a bit of money. And now that I've finished the article I see that's their plan.

[Speedo]

I think it's because people don't expect ads on Facebook - the ads are camouflaged among regular posts, in the actual bit you read. On most sites, the ads are down the sides or at the top or bottom, so you kind of blank them out. It's like the difference between product placement and adverts on TV. One you can ignore, the other you can't (although I suppose the analogy falls down because the subtle advertising, product placement, is more tolerable than the explicit advert, whereas on the net it's the other way round).

[tomtom94]

Here is the quandary:

1) Intrusive adverts are annoying.
2) Hence people use programs like AdBlock Plus block intrusive adverts
3) Thus companies paying for advertising revenue aren't seeing any results (because people are blocking their adverts)
4) They make adverts that are more intrusive, reasoning that a consumer should not be allowed to avoid the advert
5) They ALSO cut the amount of money they are giving to the website providing the service, because why pay big money when they're seeing no results?
6) The website providing the service goes bust.

Services like AdBlock are great for the consumer but there's a reason why it was an offence to admit to using it on The Escapist's forums. Now, I use the Escapist regularly and I despise their current pop-out video player which almost always (unless you watch a lot of videos) forces you to sit through a 30 second advert before you start. That was the main reason I used to subscribe to their Publisher's Club (which among other things, ensured you saw no adverts). Contrast Youtube, which has worked out a very successful
system that allows the consumer to skip the majority of adverts on there.

But because I want to use their service, I just find something different to do in the 30 seconds of advert. If people want Facebook to change, STOP USING FACEBOOK. IT'S NOT DIFFICULT.