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?
feedback
|
closed as off topic by Sathya♦, nhinkle♦, ricbax, Diago Nov 17 '10 at 7:00
Questions on Super User are expected to generally relate to computer software or computer hardware, within the scope defined in the faq.
|
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." | |||
feedback
|
|
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. | |||||
feedback
|
