Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the blog or about the author.

Tuesday March 10, 2009

A Question about Advertising

I want to say a word about advertising on the Internet. And then I want to ask you a question. I know that Tuesday is typically the day I post a book review but, unfortunately, with all the home repair and renovations we’ve been doing these past couple of weeks, my reading time has not been what it usually is. I hope to have a review later in the week.

In the meantime, let’s talk advertising. I realized that I added advertising to this site without ever explaining my rationale . Let me do that today.

Some time ago I added a few ads to my site. I generally run about three of them, though this week I’ve got a couple more than that just because I got a bit disorganized and overbooked. Generally, though, I keep a few ads running at the top of the site and keep one running in the RSS feed. I did not begin running ads lightly but thought about it long and hard. I was fearful that, if I started running ads, I would begin to think about the site differently. I worried that I would begin to do things or write things purely because of the potential economic value. I feared it would be a temptation to view the site as a business rather than as a hobby or ministry or whatever it is now. I actually don’t know what the site is now and I kind of like it that way; it is what it is and I want to keep it pretty much the same.

I guard against this because I’ve seen what happens to churches when they adopt a marketing mindset. Every church markets; the moment a church places a sign outside or puts an advertisement in the phone book or the local newspaper, it is marketing. But some churches go far further, adopting a kind of marketing mindset that makes the church functionally not much different than a business. After a while every decision comes back to the bottom line, whether that is a dollar figure or an attendance figure. This quickly sends churches into a tailspin, a downward spiral that draws them further and further from the Bible. It is inevitable, really.

Now there’s nothing wrong with having a commercial blog. Most of the really popular blogs out there are businesses (think Lifehacker or Engadget or sites of that nature). They bring in revenue through advertising and pay people to do their writing, all while turning a tidy bottom line. These sites, then, have to think as businesses; with the heavy costs involved, they need to appeal to an audience so they can sell lots of ad spots so they can cover their costs and make money. It’s just a typical business model. It’s a model that might work for a Christian blog as well, but it’s one I’ve been committed to avoid.

So my goal was to offer some ad spots while maintaining my integrity. I’ve sought to do just that. These ads help cover the costs for the site (which are considerable compared to what they were when things started out!). I do not let ads or advertisers influence my writing; I try to choose advertisers very carefully to ensure nothing is advertised here that I’d out-and-out disagree with.

So that’s my rationale. I want to talk for just a minute about ad-blocking software. This is most commonly in the form of Firefox’s ad-blocking plugin but there are other options available as well. I am not bothered much one way or the other if people block the ads on my site. However, I have wondered about the morality of blocking advertising. After all, many sites depend on ads for support. We can use a blog like Lifehacker as an example. I do not know much about their business model, but let’s assume that advertising is the sole or at least major source of their income. They must incur massive costs with hosting, development and writing; they recoup these costs by putting ads on their site and by getting you to rest your eyeballs on those ads (and, of course, they hope, by getting you to click the ads). Now if you use software that blocks the ads, you are effectively getting a paid service for free, are you not? You are enjoying the benefits of the web site, enjoying the benefits of a site supported by advertising, while cutting yourself out of the revenue generation. I know that television advertisers are wrestling with similar issues related to their commercials; PVRs are ubiquitous now and most of them offer commercial-skipping functionality. As with web sites, people are getting a service but without “paying” for it by watching the ads.

So I’ve wondered if this an ethical issue? Speaking personally, I stopped using ad blocking software quite a long time ago for this very reason. I just couldn’t reconcile reading the sites while blocking all of the ads; I also became aware of the irony of using ad blockers on other sites while selling ad spots on my own.

I am open to the idea that I am wrong here. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this one. Is there anything wrong with using ad blocking software?

Amazon

Comments (53) »


1. Tim Irvin
March 10, 2009
10:45 AM

I wish I could get the ads to show up! They show up on my laptop but not on my desktop. I’m NOT running any ad blocking plug-ins or programs, that I know of, and I don’t know what I’ve done to make them disappear but I haven’t been able to see an ad in many, many, months. I see a Big Blue Circle with an “i” in it.

I don’t feel “morally” obligated to have the ads. If a website is a business and depends on the generated income from ads then they can sell access to the site up front. They can charge a subscription to get on the site.


2. J.P.H.
March 10, 2009
10:53 AM

If I’m not going to click on the adds anyway, then I’m not depriving the sites of any advertising. I’m actually saving the advertisers, my service provider, and every host in between, some bandwidth by not pulling down the ads.

You’ll hate this, but I also block google analytics and some similar services. Used to be I also refused all cookies except those from sites on a white list I maintained.


3. Bibliosteve
March 10, 2009
11:16 AM

Would the same rationale apply to my habit of muting TV commercials and turning off the radio during commercials?
The providers know the situation as well as I do and they take their risks.


4. Brance
March 10, 2009
11:24 AM

I use hedgebuilders.org for internet filtering and they block many, but not all, ads. they don’t block them because they are ads, they block them because of the content of the ads. so many news websites I go to, have their ads blocked.

I feel no moral qualms about blocking lewd ads.

Your ads all show up fine and I’m glad. Here’s why. I also run a blog on which I sell ads. TheBluegrassBlog.com is a music blog about bluegrass music. I sell ads, but only to companies that are relevant to my readership. I don’t want to advertise a product that is unrelated to my content. So I sell my own ads and only to relevant advertisers. In this way, I view the ads as a service. they pay for my blog expenses, they let my readers know about products and services they may find of interest, and they give others in my industry an opportunity to connect to interested consumers.

I see your ads much the same way. I’m interested in the products advertised on your site, because I trust that you are filtering the ads for me. It’s a service you are providing to your readers. And I do want to see your blog expenses covered and even a little extra so you can take the wife on a date now and then. :-)


5. Paul Huxley
March 10, 2009
11:26 AM

Most ads on reputable internet sites don’t distract me from the content and don’t bother me. Sometimes they make me aware of products or services I wasn’t aware of that are relevant to the subject I’m reading about.

Plus, there’s the added satisfaction of clicking on adverts I’m not at all interested in so that strange cults lose some of their funding…


6. Rich Owen
March 10, 2009
11:28 AM

Tim, what a great post - fascinating. Thank you for thinking about your discipleship so extensively and sharing those thoughts.

I think I agree with your position on this, but something that happened to me recently makes me think it is perhaps less of a binary issue. I recently had to register a complaint with the UK’s Advertising Standards Agency for an advert which was being displayed in webspace on a well known internet email site. It was advertising an adult magazine, and associated adult products. I don’t want to be exposed to those images or phrases when just checking my email.

In principle, I agree with you, Tim. We should look at the adverts which pay for the services we enjoy for free, but in practice an ad blocker is good - especially for families.


7. Kim
March 10, 2009
11:33 AM

I just wanted to say that I like the way you’ve arranged your ads! Having them all neatly arranged the way you do doesn’t feel like an assult on my senses…thanks! I also agree with the commenter above, that if I were to click on an ad, it would be at a site like yours because you offer things I am actually interested in.

I don’t block ads, but I NEVER click on them either (unless by accident when my kids are “helping” me type). I have no “moral” problem with people who block them. I’ve been watching public television for over 40 years and I still haven’t felt the need to fork out any personal money to keep them going. I might add that they’ve been begging me for money for 40 years under the pretense that they will not be able to keep up their “quality programming” if I didn’t stop right now and write out a check. What can I say? It’s a risk I’m willing to take. :D


8. Michael C.
March 10, 2009
11:39 AM

Get better adds and we won’t block them :D

Seriously though when Flash has become the de facto way to annoy-vertise you then I will block it. There has to be some give and take.

I’ve seen sites that do advertising very well (challies.com included) and have no problem actually disabling ad-block for those pages that treat me with “ads” that work — or I might click on. There is an online comic that has terrible language that I read (so I won’t post it here) but they do the same type of advertising (not the same content :) that you do here challies and I actually like to look at their ads and occasionally go off and click on them.


9. Tammy Schindel
March 10, 2009
11:39 AM

I had not really thought about it in the perspective you brought up. I have to say I hate the ads although I do periodically become curious and click on them.


10. Jessica
March 10, 2009
11:49 AM

You raise a good point. I’m pretty good at ignoring ads and didn’t use adblock until I became very frustrated with the number of sexually charged ads I was seeing. So I guess there’s another dilema.


11. Troy
March 10, 2009
11:59 AM

I have to say that I tend to think along the same lines as Tim Irvin, JPH, and Bibliosteve. I personally don’t block ads, but the stars have to align perfectly and it has to be a pretty good product or service to get me to click through on one. The reason I would assert that blocking ads (not much different than refusing to click through IMHO) is that while website advertising is a business, it is an entirely back end business. The only way I become a direct part of the sites revenue stream is with an upfront paid subscription, which is hardly ever charged because site admins know that it would negatively effect the overall bottom line. As Bibliosteve pointed out, the same dynamic is at play when you forward through or mute your TV commercials.

I’m not here to say that people should block the ads that they might see on a site, but I don’t know that I personally could ever get to the place where I would say it’s a moral issue and that we shouldn’t block them. I respect your position and enjoy seeing someone act on their personal conviction, and I appreciate your post and thank you for giving me something to think about on what would have been an otherwise slow mental day.


12. Larry Geiger
March 10, 2009
12:01 PM

Blinking ads and I’m out of here. That’s one thing that I can’t stand on the internet. And I really don’t like blinking avatars on BBS’s. Otherwise, it seems to be sort of ubiquitous.


13. Tim Challies
March 10, 2009
12:15 PM

Thanks for all the comments. I’m enjoying reading them.

In terms of blinking ads, I monitor all the ads on this site and occasionally ask the advertiser to provide a new one. There is a stipulation that ads will not be annoying. I have to look at this site, too, and have no desire to see blinking Flash ads all over the place!

I also try to put ads on here that will be a win-win between the readers and the advertisers. Hence you see a lot of ads for books and conferences and product that will be of interest to you (I hope).


14. Jude St.John
March 10, 2009
12:16 PM

I think the onus is on the advertiser to make sure their ads are seen as opposed to the onus being on the targeted audience to look at the ads.

If an advertiser has a problem with ad-blocking, then they need to figure out an ‘anti-ad-blocking’ strategy. Someone such as yourself could employ a simple strategy such as asking your audience not to block ads. If you made this appeal I think most of your audience would acquiesce. And if they rejected your appeal then it may become a moral issue, but even that is a stretch in my opinion.


15. johnMark
March 10, 2009
12:30 PM

I don’t block ads, but my filter blocks many of them though not yours.

I do not feel obligated, morally or otherwise, to view the ads. Viewing ads is not a prerequisite to reading this site or any others that I’m aware of. Just like watching TV and not watching the commercials. The station desires you watch the ads, but they know that the purpose is to watch their shows not to watch the ads.

I’ve had people buy books through my blog. I even make about $6/month on one ad that no one even sees to my knowledge. Would it be cool to make more money through my blog to help pay for things like seminary? Sure! But that’s not why I blog.

Thanks for the interesting article, Tim.

Mark


16. Alfie
March 10, 2009
12:31 PM

Placing any kind of ad is a calculated risk by the advertiser. Whether it is TV, radio, billboards, mailings, telemarketing, flyers, internet… whatever. The individual consumer never has a “moral obligation” to look at any advertising. To try to make that case is a massive legalistic stretch, to say the least. You simply can’t legislate that people look at your ads.

In a free market, the burden is upon the advertiser to create a compelling ad that will attract consumer attention. Advertisers know this, and sadly, that is why they so often use sex (or at least a pretty face) to draw your attention.

What about the flip side: Would it be immoral to force consumers to view and/or click on your ads? I think a better argument can be made for that than the other way around.

But hey, I’ve never really thought about either… Just my initial reaction.


17. RKF
March 10, 2009
12:37 PM

@Larry Geiger I just love that you said “BBS’s”. How many folks online today even know what that means? Seeing that warmed my old-school heart!

@Tim I appreciated that you made the point that every church is active in marketing from the moment they open their doors and hang a sign out front. Marketing is about telling a story and communicating with the audience. The problem for the church is when we stop telling the audience about the church, and try to change the church to tell a different story. The only metric we can use in this is the standard of God’s word - not bums in seats, cash in the plate or sermon downloads.

As for ad-blockers - I do use one to selectively block offensive ads. I don’t mind seeing relevant, useful marketing but lewd or off-topic ads are just inappropriate and I have no problem blocking them. From a marketer’s perspective, if the ad doesn’t fit with the audience it might as well be blocked for all the effect it will have. For instance, if you had a banner for the Watchmen movie I doubt you’d get many clicks from this blog’s audience :)


18. Tim Challies
March 10, 2009
12:37 PM

Alfie - I like that line of thinking. I’ll have to ponder it a bit, but you may be on to something.


19. Eric S. Mueller
March 10, 2009
12:38 PM

I laugh now thinking back to a time when I tried to run advertising on my blog and it wasn’t showing up. I finally realized that I was running Ad Blocker in Firefox.

Ads today I don’t mind so much. I though little of blocking those annoying flashing banners and “punch the monkey” ads. Pop-ups were way too obnoxious and pop-unders are in a class of idiocy all by themselves.

I try to respect the hard work of sites that provide a free service of value supported by advertising. I don’t mind the low-key targetted ads at all.


20. Adiel
March 10, 2009
12:41 PM

Is running to the bathroom or changing the channel the same as ad-blocker software?


21. Terry Rayburn
March 10, 2009
12:49 PM

Tim,

I believe it’s more a question of wisdom than of morality, since the Bible is quite silent on the issue.

I think you have stated the “wisdom” aspects quite well, Tim. And I agree with your conclusions about advertising on a Christian blog. If it’s “righteous” advertising, why not?

“Righteous” advertising can be a blessing, in my opinion. As you pointed out, a sign in front of a church is marketing.

“Unrighteous” advertising is another story.

I once had Google Adwords ads on my Christian blog. Adwords ads are “contextual”, that is, Google feeds the ads based on the context of the page they appear on.

Since my blog deals with “religious” things, the ads often were from anti-Christ organizations promoting atheism, Mormonism, etc. I couldn’t personally justify promoting such things, and dropped the Google Adwords.

Legalistic? Weak-conscience? No, just simple wisdom. Why “minister” for Christ, and then promote those who oppose Him?

Aside from such questions of wisdom, however, to paraphrase Augustine, “Love God and advertise (or not), block ads (or not) as thou will.”


22. Tom Sturch
March 10, 2009
1:02 PM

Tim: I am fascinated by the theme you’ve generated in the blog over the last week or so - that of choice and balance. I wonder if it is intentional or if something is on your mind and being revealed here. Anyway, I love it! It is a root theme for Christians as we find ourselves “in the gap” between two kingdoms, between the advents of Christ, between the physical and spiritual. It is a wonderfully dynamic existence, this Christian life.

I have a friend who surfs and likens it to his faith walk. Buoyed and driven by the force of the waves he is nonetheless accountable for discerning and choosing in a dynamic environment. That’s us, driven by the force of culture. Balance and choosing is essential.

Yours, like Paul’s, is a vocational ministry. The commercial activities support the spiritual ones and each informs and supports the other. It is the best of being both Image and the Child of God. Who would ever think that a question like “Is there anything wrong with using ad blocking software?” would bear theological significance? Ain’t it wonderful?!!


23. Jeri
March 10, 2009
1:19 PM

I just know that your ads in themselves are often beneficial and informative; I click on them often to check out what’s being promoted, and have made more than one purchase through them. Interesting topic and interesting and thoughtful comments.


24. John Kuvakas
March 10, 2009
2:04 PM

Great post, Tim. It has made me consider my approach to advertising in general. My filters will filter our offensive ads, which I have no intention of clicking on but I do not struggle with the ads that appear.

I actually enjoy reading some of the ads that are targeted toward me so I appreciate the thought that goes before allowing an ad to appear on your site.

You raise another point of interest, though. One I haven;t thought of before. Would you mind sharing the nature (not necessarily the amount) of your expenses in running your site. I have always assumed it was negligible but this is obviously not the case.


25. wvpv
March 10, 2009
2:28 PM

We always have a choice regarding advertising — whether we look at it or not — irrespective of the medium.

Advertising in it’s simplest form is just prospecting for customers, right? The advertiser can go for quality or quantity, but there’s no guarantee that any of it will work.

Majority of it doesn’t work for me and I’d prefer to not even see it.

I surely will whitelist for a good cause — like challies.com


26. Curtis Powers
March 10, 2009
2:49 PM

I try to block ads because I will generally see a sexual ones here and there. Just depends though I suppose…


27. Christina
March 10, 2009
2:51 PM

I’d love to see a “punch the monkey” ad here. That would be awesome.


28. Brian Popp
March 10, 2009
3:24 PM

Matthew 5:30 (paraphrase) And if [the banner add on your ah-choo! email] causes you to sin, [install ad-blocker]…

I never used ad-blocker until the past few months because of this paraphrased version.


29. Jay
March 10, 2009
3:26 PM

Tim,

I agree with those who say it is moraly acceptable to block ads. Speaking for a publisher that has paid to have ads dispayed on your site, we see it as one of those calculated risks we take in advertising. As a viewer of your site, I cannot recal ever making an agreement that I would look at any of the ads in order to have the benefit of reading your posts. So, unless a legitimate authority over me demands me to view ads (and supposing that those ads do not violate other obligations imposed on me by God), I am free to use an ad blocker in good conscience.


30. Michael Duenes
March 10, 2009
4:57 PM

Good reflections on the commercial issues of blogging. I’ve been thinking through those myself as I try to start podcasting. I know that I need to have some commercial appeal, but I don’t want to compromise the gospel.


31. Ian Carmichael
March 10, 2009
5:04 PM

I agree with most of the comments above. But I think there is a responsibility on the media site to be honest with the advertisers about just how many people are seeing the ads (not just click-throughs). It is easy to misrepresent how many people the blog reaches by talking about the blog sites hits, and the advertiser may think he is reaching that many people with his ad. Not so, apparently.


32. Larry
March 10, 2009
5:17 PM

From what I understand, many websites base their ad rates off of the number of visitors, which would stand true regardless of whether said visitors have ad-blocking software or not.

In any case, as a user of ad-blocking software, I fall in the “ads are annoying and potentially objectionable” category of blockers. I can’t even see some of the ads on my own blog. I’m also a person that will mute the TV and find something to do for 3 minutes while a show is on commercial break. Sometimes it feels too much like brain-washing.

On the other hand, when I want to support a website sometimes I’ll turn off the ad-blocker and click on a few ads occasionally. I don’t actually care for the ads, it’s just a simple way of saying “thank you.”

One more thing, one blog I read regularly, Techdirt, often talks about how advertising needs to be at least relevant or entertaining to be worthwhile to both the consumer and the advertiser. I think you get this right in filtering your ads to reflect the audience of your blog.


33. Justin
March 10, 2009
5:23 PM

One argument for using the ad-blocking software could be that websites are making themselves available for free to the public. They could always charge money for their service. But they are making it available to anyone with internet access.

It is sort of the same principle as changing the channel every time that a commercial is run during a show. For example, if I am watching a movie on TV and I change it every time that a commercial comes on, then the advertiser is not really getting their money’s worth even though they are paying for it.

Also, ad-blocking could be thought of like a free newspaper that someone goes through and cuts all of the ads out before you see the paper. But in this case, a computer is doing it.

I think that there are other ways for websites to implement advertising that would not be disabled by ad-blocking software. For instance, if they have videos, they can run the ad at the beginning of the video.

Ad-blocking software does not work (at least for Ad-Block for Firefox) if the whole website (or content portion) has the ad mixed in with it.

I know that some websites specifically mention it in their terms for their site. MySpace had something like that (or at least used to). So when you find out about a website specifically making it a policy, I think that then you should disable the ad-blocking software.


34. kristalblue74
March 10, 2009
5:56 PM

While you certainly raise some interesting questions about ad-blocking, there are a number of other questions that need to be asked. If I shouldn’t block ads while reading a blog, does that mean that I’m obligated to sit through all the commercials on TV? Or the ones on the radio? Do I have to read all the prescription drug ads in the magazine? Should I be making a point to read all the classifieds in the paper? Do I need to make a point to read every single billboard, sale flier, and poster? Is it possible to let this get entirely out of hand?

I installed ad-blocker mainly to get rid of the borderline pornographic ads on facebook (and, I’ll admit, the annoying, flashy ads too). But I’ve found another, less obvious benefit. In a nutshell, after paying my bills, I really can’t afford to buy much extra anything. And advertising, when it’s done right, is designed to make me want something. It’s easy for me to start wishing and coveting and feeling ungrateful and greedy when I see all these ads for things that could be very beneficial to me. So, spiritually, which is more important—“paying” for a free service by reading ads, or avoiding situations that tempt me to greed and covetousness?


35. Nathan Campbell
March 10, 2009
6:28 PM

Hi Tim,
Long time reader (lurker), first time poster.

Great post - particularly re: church marketing.

My thoughts on ad blocking is that you’re actually doing the business a service if you block the ad.

In my understanding of online advertising (and I work in the marketing industry) you pay per click through - on that basis you want a significant return on your investment. If I click through on ads I’m not interested in I’m costing the advertiser money (while at the same time earning money for the host).

I agree with the sentiment expressed by most other ad blockers too - I’d prefer to choose the content I’m subjected to by going to reputable sites than open myself up to all manners of temptation by allowing other parties to dictate what I see.


36. Chris Roberts
March 10, 2009
6:35 PM

We don’t watch television. We watch movies and shows purchased through iTunes. One big reason we avoid television is because of all the advertisements. One problem is the consumerism they promote - television ads have done as much to create an “I Want!” generation as anything else. Another problem is just the fact that so many ads are themselves so filthy.

Web ads are the same or worse. I don’t want things flashing and bouncing around while I’m reading an ad - especially if the thing flashing and bouncing is half naked. Your site, of course, wouldn’t have such ads, and I could white list it from my ad blocker, but I just block them all.

So you see my take - blocking ads is not wrong. There is absolutely no ethical obligation to see advertisements. And the content of many ads being what they are, good ethics would lead me to keep my mind clean by not seeing those ads.


37. Nathan
March 10, 2009
7:31 PM

Morality of blocking ads? Whatever. Are you compelled to watch commercials when you watch TV? Oops, I’ve sinned because I went to the bathroom during the commercial instead of during the show. Are you compelled to scan through an entire newspaper because you might miss one of their revenue generators? Even the free paper on the street?

Now I can’t say that I never click ads on websites, but that is my goal. I abhor internet ads so much that I refuse to click them.

BUT I do have to say that the last ad that I clicked was the one on your site — NEXT. It was clean & well-designed. There was nothing jumping or jittering in the ad. It sat there very well-behaved and in an intriguing manner — I just had to click to see what Christian thing could have resulted in such a nicely designed ad. Alas, they’re logo is better than their website.

There is always room for some well-behaved ads on a webpage. I wouldn’t necessarily call them sponsors, though.


38. J.P.H.
March 10, 2009
7:58 PM

Larry #32:

Counting visitors is usually done with a cookie, or with some page element that could potentially be blocked. For instance, lots of people use google analytics to see which browsers their visitors are using, where they’re coming from, etc. You can block google analytics. Same with things like SiteMeter. Now, you could certainly just look at how many times the main page was accessed, but advertisers are usually interested in “unique visitors”, etc.

For instance, I block the following on challies.com (sorry Tim!):

http://22626.hittail.com/*
http://embed.technorati.com/*
http://rcm.amazon.com/*
http://s7.addthis.com/*
http://s9.addthis.com/*
http://sm1.sitemeter.com/*
http://www.adgrab.org/*

Justin #33:

You’re right about embedding adds in video or audio. That’s much harder to do away with. What content providers can also do is host the ads at their own site. If Tim’s adds were hosted at “challies.com” then I probably won’t take the time to go through and selectively block certain challies.com URLs and not others.


39. Chuck
March 10, 2009
8:20 PM

If my comment has already been made, please forgive. I read your blog using GoogleReader. The only time I click to the site itself is to make a comment. I actually don’t recall making a selection to not receive ads so assume that is just the way Reader functions. In any event, advertisers have to recognize that reality and make their ad placement decisions accordingly.


40. Laurie
March 10, 2009
8:34 PM

There is nothing wrong with advertising per se. It must be effective on some level or companies wouldn’t pay for it. If we were required to look at it, there would be something wrong with it. I’ve never even noticed your ads here, so you must be doing it right. I’m an advertiser’s worst nightmare. My mind has been an ad-filter since a class I took in college about advertising tricks and deceptions. If anything even remotely resembles advertising my mind rejects it. For a long time, Tim, I never read your a la Carte section - never really looked at it - because it resembled ads over in the side-bar.

Of course, if an ad is so annoying (like those horrific blinking ones) that I can’t help but notice it , I will ever after associate the product or company with that annoyance. What I really detest are the ones that pop up when you roll over them - without clicking. Those are the visual equivalent of telemarketers. You’re minding your own business and they interrupt and interfere with what you’re trying to do. Those ones get my dander up and leave me with a very bad impression of whatever it is they’re selling.


41. Brandon
March 10, 2009
9:25 PM

Here is another way to look at this: when you engage in selling ads, what you are really selling is your readership. We viewers are (in some sense) the commodity that the advertiser is paying for. The problem is that viewership is a difficult commodity to define. Is it hits for the site, or clicks, or the number of people who view the ad? Whatever it is, I believe it is the responsibility of you the site owner to deliver the readers to the advertiser just as it is the owner’s responsibility to deliver the content (including ads) to the readers. Since it is your responsibility, you have editorial control over your advertisements and you have the right to exclude those like myself who use ad blockers. Morally, as readers, we have a responsibility to be honest in our dealings and behave according to whatever rules you set. Thanks for doing a great job at managing both responsibilities!


42. emmzee
March 11, 2009
1:38 AM

As a person who supports their ministry work by running websites which make money via paid ads, I may be a little biased on the issue. But I see my sites as having an implied contract between myself and the viewer: You can have my free content if you agree to watch my ads. No ads? No content. I’d block ad-blocking viewers (on my money-making sites, anyways) if I could but that’d really a losing battle on my part.

Here’s another way to look at it: While you may not consider it immoral to block ads, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it may end up being detrimental to you. How so? The ad-supported site is not usually making tons of money (not unless they command a huge amount of traffic like Lifehacker etc). Especially in tough economic times, a few extra ad views may not seem like much, but it may make a big difference, especially if everyone does it. I can understand blocking popups and so on, but are banner ads really that annoying? Is it worth hurting your favorite sites (possibly helping them to cease to exist) to save having to see a Google ad link once in awhile?


43. floyd seres
March 11, 2009
2:41 AM

i would not say its bad to block the ads- why would it be? if you dont look at them , that performs the same function as blocking them- block away!!


44. Richard
March 11, 2009
3:33 AM

Personally, I don’t block ads anymore. I’ve tried it in the past, but wasn’t happy with the overhead it loaded into Firefox, and some sites just don’t function properly when filtered. Instead, I use an extension called Nuke Anything for a quick right-click -> remove to clean any ad (or anything at all) I don’t want on screen (or to print).


45. Sean
March 11, 2009
6:15 AM

To an advertiser, placing an ad is an investment. They are putting relevent material out there and hoping to draw from the reader base of the website. Their investment comes with risk - there is no guarantee that every person viewing the site will view their ad. I don’t think we need to feel morally obligated to view every ad on every site - people pay for their internet service and for their ad blocking software. We are not morally obligated to increase the return of an advertiser’s risk. In fact, proposing so does somewhat seem contra to your heart behind running the ads - as if you’re using your influence over your readership to promote advertising. (Not that you are, but it could be interpreted that way.) Advertisers are aware of ad blocking sotware and they take risk ads knowing that only a small fraction of internet users actually employ them. Their mission is also to find a way to get you to view their material outside of ad blocking software (ie. even if you miss the Coke commercials, you’ll still see Paula Abdul drinking from her Coke glass on American Idol.). No one should feel bad about blocking ads; just like no one should feel bad about going to get a glass of water during the commercial of their favorite tv show. Advertising is the advertiser’s risk.


46. Brandon
March 11, 2009
7:55 AM

Re: #44. You bring up a good point that there is an “implied contract” between viewers and site owners. However, if you make no attempt to enforce the contract, people wonder if it is really in effect. If you sold tickets to an event, but did not check them at the door, people would question your ‘no ticket/no event’ policy. And is it really that difficult to post an ad onto your site that cannot be blocked? If you hosted the banner ad, you could have it download from your own server.


I’m with you on this one Tim. I did use to use an ad blocker but quickly realised websites were using this to fund themselves.

I don’t agree with the argument some give that if you wouldn’t click on an advert it makes no difference. It is a similar logic used for piracy, that if you wouldn’t buy the original product at the retail price, it makes no imact if you copy it.


48. Dave B.
March 11, 2009
8:44 AM

Hey Tim,
I agree with your thoughts. I actually purposefully will click on adds on my favorite sites. I understand that for the most part the sites are being ran out-of-pocket. If I can check out something new while helping out the guy running the site, great! Also, I understand that a lot of guys spend hours on their site, trying to have good articles and links. Yes, they enjoy it, but hey who wouldn’t want someone to help you do something you love for free! I love sports and I’ll pay to play in leagues and such, if my church or a business wants to sponsor us to help with the cost, great! I feel like the sitebuilders spent time building something for me to read and check out, why not help them. I have found good gifts and ideas from supporting their advertisers.

Also, I like for the advertisers to know why I am at their site. One of the few powers in the economy we have is how we spend our money. I like to try to support retailers that share my beliefs. In example buying a book from CVVBS or Westminster ,instead of giganto-mart “christian” store online who sells heresy on the same page with doctrinal truth. I believe it matters, even if I have to pay a couple dollars more. I have been amazed at how groups like American Family Association have led boycotts of certain products and have had huge companies (Ford, McDonalds, etc) change their stances. I must say the Ford one was a 1,000 times easier than the McDonalds one. :) They are currently boycotting PepsiCo products (more items than just soda, believe me it is painful on occasion). Call me an idealist but it has worked twice already…

So all in all, while I think there is some free will (not actually) and choice, I think the right thing to do is to try to support any of the sites that you read. The guy behind it is probably putting hours and money into it for you to enjoy, it is an easy way to say thanks for the great posts! I just checked out “Recovering the Reformed Confession”, thanks Tim!


49. Nathan
March 11, 2009
11:45 AM

Maybe you should explain how your ads work. Do you get money for them just being there (each time your page is loaded) -or- only when they are clicked?


50. Mik Harewam
March 11, 2009
12:24 PM

Wow, I’d never thought of it that way. I work in advertising myself (I own an agency) and always thought of advertising as something that people chose to look at and take in. So while there are average figures of who looks and how many look – the media agency can’t guarantee that everyone will look. ie Everyone knows that during TV ad-breaks people switch channels or get up to make pop corn, they only watch the ad if it grabs their attention in the first few seconds and/or is relevant to them. Same thing for billboards/posters and press & magazine. Hehe, that’s why we really like cinema and washroom ads because there we have a captive audience.

Placing ads works in a way that you do your best to put your ads where your target audience will see them, but there’s always ‘wastage’ in that they get shown to people who aren’t interested in your product or service. The more mass the media, the bigger the wastage. Or your ad may be ignored because people just don’t look at or read everything they’re exposed to. I seem to remember that the average person has to be shown a TV ad about 10 times (or something like that) before they even realise what the product is (and we call that retention). So we aren’t even guaranteed that the target audience will even know what the ad’s about if they co-operate and watch it.

I think if ads irritate a person they deserved to be blocked, like those ads that pop up about a hundred times. Any ad that irritates the viewer will get ignored on any medium. If an irritating radio ad comes on, people just switch it off.

So I’d recommend that ad agencies work extra diligently to advertise in a relevant, sensitive and entertaining way.


51. Jason
March 11, 2009
6:06 PM

I think that this is a great issue to raise and evidence that you are striving to honor the Father and keep your conscience clean, Tim. That you raised the question has been very encouraging to me. Thank you.
Christianity is not a set of no-no’s. We want to please the Father and put off the old man so we can put on the new man. So, let’s ask the question another way. What is our duty to a media outlet we utilize that derives its revenue from advertising? We will strive to fulfill our duty once we have identified it.
Whatever we conclude, we should be consistent. So, if we have a duty to view ads on webpages, then we have these duties as well:
1. we must watch commercials when we are viewing television programming
2. we must inspect ads when we read a magazine or newspaper
3. we must pay attention during a radio station’s commercial breaks
If using ad blocking software is sin, then fast-forwarding through tivo-ed commercials is sin. Neglecting full-page newspaper ads is sin if using ad blocking software is sin. The money we pay for the magazine or newspaper probably hardly covers the printing cost. Print media make their money on the ads.
I beleive that using ad blocking software is not sin. In the marketplace for consumer attention, I beleive that the duty is on the advertiser to entice me to pay attention to their ads. I use entice in a sanctified sense - though much of advertising caters directly to the flesh (and understandable so). It is not my duty to view advertising. If the marketer is good at his or her job, then I will want to view the ads. If a website is famous for its clever banner ads, then I will want to turn off my blocking software so I don’t miss out.
Take all of that with these caveats:
A. Feel free to turn off your ad blocking software if you see it as a way to be a blessing to others. Joyfully view their ads in the freedom of service to the Father.
B. Protect your conscience. If you think using ad blocking software is wrong, then don’t do it.
BTW, thanks for your excellent blog!


52. Nathan
March 11, 2009
8:23 PM

What about people that just click your ads so that you get money. They have no intention of looking at or buying the item or service, they do it just to support you. That seems disingenuous to me.


53. Justin the lesser
March 12, 2009
9:38 AM

This is a discussion for us American Christian Capitalist.