Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I was just thinking, if ads are based on clicks, a user using an ad blocker wouldn't click on the ad anyway, so there wouldn't be any money lost there. And an ad based on impression, wouldn't that still load beneath the adblocker (and count as an impression)? Would there be a loss of revenue there?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by Sathya, nhinkle, ricbax, BinaryMisfit Nov 17 '10 at 7:00

Questions on Super User are expected to relate to computer software or computer hardware within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

would there be a proper stack site to ask this on? – Jeff Nov 17 '10 at 19:39
try at Pro Web Masters – Sathya Nov 23 '10 at 0:31
Something similar just accepted at Law. – feetwet Apr 22 at 21:42

In the long term yes. An impression is truly only an impression if the visitor really sees it. Its not just the click that they are paying for its the impression and visibility. Even though you don't click on an add you will start to notice ads that repeat. Granted, they don't often have a way of determining if they really saw it or not.

Its said that the average consumer can only remember about 7 brands in each industry. Those brands are made through a combination of things and a new one being online advertising. When you block the ad you are preventing yourself from being impressed upon by that brand and thus are less likely to ever think about buying something from them. I myself don't often click on ads either, but I still remember a lot of the brands that I've noticed and probably would subconsciously choose one that I've seen over one that I haven't. So in the long term, it does cost the advertiser money because they paid for an impression that did nothing for them.

Whether it is ethical or not is an entirely different matter.

share|improve this answer
Good answer. I understand that it would cost the advertiser, but technically, will the impression still count towards the web publisher's revenue? – Jeff Nov 17 '10 at 1:53
Sure. Advertisers aren't completely clueless. They can get an idea of which websites get traffic to their site and which don't through metrics. Its also kind of one of those natural selection things. If a business that is advertising with a site doesn't get any business because of add blocking, it may go out of business or have to cut back on advertising, leading the website to lose ad revenue. – deltaray Nov 17 '10 at 3:41

In the event that it is impression-based (and not based on clickthroughs), some ad blockers actually prevent the ads from loading (Adblock Plus for Firefox is a good example), whereas others (like AdThwart for Chrome) just hide them.

So the answer is "it depends."

share|improve this answer
Your answer makes the assumption that the only cost of the website is loading advertisements, which is not the case. Yes that's right, website content actually costs money too. That's were the term "ad supported" comes from. – deltaray Nov 17 '10 at 3:45

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .