Do ad blockers really cause revenue loss?

well if the requirement for the sites to get their pennies is that I either watch their ad videos or click their ads, no, they won't lose a penny from me using ublock origin

if they get a penny for me simply seeing their ad video for 5 seconds and skipping it or seeing that banner ad without clicking it, then yeah, they lose money from me

>>60099961
Yes, content creators lose more than half of their profit just because of adblock

>>60099961
who cares

>>60099961
I sure hope they do.

So with ads there are impressions and click-throughs. The former are counts of the actual ad loading on the page. They don't pay very much at all and on some platforms, like with video, don't pay anything unless the ad is viewed for a certain length of time. This is why you'll sometimes see ads which can only be dismissed after a certain number of seconds.

However that's not the only reason that some ads have timers, because that timer might not even last long enough to earn a payment (thousandths of a US cent) for the host. A short timer might simply encourage a visitor to actually read/watch/whatever the ad in hopes of convincing the visitor to click on it. That's a click-through and it pays at a better rate than "per impression."

Hiding ads might not sabotage impression revenue. Just because you can't see the ad doesn't mean it hasn't loaded. However if the ad is outright blocked by its domain then there's no impression. Furthermore there's no opportunity to then click through, which deprives the host of that potential revenue as well.

File: 1479072417181.jpg (48KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 720x720px

Does it cause the website to make less money than they otherwise would? Yes.

Is this your problem? No.

>>60100025
Not the OP, but

> being deprived of *potential* revenue
and
> actively losing money

Are not the same thing, right? I mean, I'm technically being deprived of 'potential revenue' right now, by sitting on 4chins, by I don't kick up a fuss about it.

>>60099961
If they can't pay for their bills purely with meaningful content, then ads shouldn't be allowed to be used as a crutch.

If I come across a site that doesn't let me do something because of adblocking, then not only do they lose their ad revenue, but they'll lose me as a potential site visitor period.

>>60099961
Don't worry ABP just hides them and sites still get paid.

>>60100005
>>60100054
Jesus fucking Christ, of course it doesn't concern me, since I don't own a website, but I'm just curious.

>>60099961
Internet users didn't sign a contract with huge jewish advertising conglomerates before being able to use the web, they signed a contract with their isp. Don't be a good goy.

>>60100058
That's right. Hosting costs actively cost the site owner(s) money. Those would be paid regardless in order to support reasonable expectations of traffic.

So to expand your point fully: to make a site actively lose money, you don't adblock. You compulsively drain their "bandwidth" (a common misnomer) allocation with inordinate numbers of page refreshes with the use of a botnet or a warehouse full of Chinamen. You don't even have to block ads at that point. Blowing through their hosting limits will far outpace the spike in ad revenue. (Which may not even occur because the ad company can detect fake impressions.)

Adblocking is only stopping potential gains.

>>60099961
>I'm clueless about how exactly ad revenue works
Here's an explanation on how ad revenue works on YouTube specifically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW0eUrUiyxo

Other sites might use something more simplistic, Cost Per Thousand Views (CPM, where M is the roman numeral for 1,000), Cost Per Click (CPC, where users are paid per click), and Cost Per Action (CPA, where users are paid commission on clients that click an ad and then pay money to the site) are other formats that are used. I've advertised on Newgrounds which uses a combination of the above.
http://www.newgrounds.com/wiki/creator-resources/monetization/advertising-terminology

Personally, I block ads on everything but 4chan simply because ads are becoming much more intrusive than just showing a banner. Ads can contain malware, tracking, and snooping code. I whitelisted 4chan just because m00t used to complain about never having any money and I felt bad for him. Other than that, I'd much rather find a way to support a content creator directly over using ads as a middle man. Patreon, Twitch, Kickstarter, and similar sites allow people to send money direct to content creators with minor amounts taken by the hosting site. Much better than shitty ads.

>>60100058
they are losing money on running the sites because that's not free

>>60099987
they're not entitled to revenue that requires me giving up my privacy and security

I didn't choose their business partners, they did, if those relationships aren't working for them, only they have the ability to change them

>>60100085
Every modern ad blocker is capable of both element hiding(just collapses but still loads like you describe) and network filtering(what actually happens to ads in filter lists)

>>60100128
but not expensive either, unless you are running a massive server.

but by that time you have so many users it'll make profit

>>60100235
youtube is not profitable, google is actually losing money from that

>>60100059
That's exactly what I do. If I see a site that says "block your ad blocker!" then I simply go away. I don't need to view their ad-ridden website, but evidently they do need me!

>>60100118
Thanks for the link to the video, I'll watch it later.
I have been using an ad blocker since about 2007. I agree, the Web is pretty much unbrowsable nowadays without blocking ads: pop ups everywhere and often even malware.
To be honest, I don't think you can blame users from blocking ads if you allow such intrusive ads on your website.

>>60100246
stock has always increased in value

>>60100269
alphabets but youtube is just a part of the entire thing

>>60100246
youtube doesn't release revenue information?

>>60100025
There's no potential clickthrough revenue lost from adblock because adblock users aren't the type of people who click ads.

Who cares if it does? I don't

>>60100303
youtube worth:
2014 -40 bn
www.adweek.com/digital/youtube-may-be-worth-40-billion-more-twitter-159861
2015 -70bn
fortune.com/2015/05/27/youtube-google-value
2016-90bn
http://247wallst.com/technology-3/2016/06/08/how-youtube-may-now-be-worth-90-billion-or-more-on-a-standalone-basis/
YOU ARE A MORON!

>>60099961
>Do ad blockers really cause revenue loss?
shit, predictable ,clickbait-tier content, forcing memes, nazi mods, cause revenue "loss".
when something with over 9000 reposts is posted continuously, "users" will flock to different site

>>60099961
In short:

1st scenario
>lots of people block ads (let's say 10%)
>your site gets $1 per 1000 visitors who see it, so you need 1111 visitors to earn that dollar

2nd scenario
>nobody blocks ads
>your site gets $1 per 1000 visitors, so you need 1000 visitors to get the dollar
>since the more people see the ad, the more money the sponsor must give you and everyone else, so they'll have to reduce the cost of an ad to compensate and reduce the losses, thus reducing the amount of money you earn
>eventually, they'll give you only $0.9 per 1000 visitors, so to earn a dollar you're again forced to get 1111 people onto your site
>this means you won't notice a long-term difference and will only gain some additional revenue at first. However, the sponsors will be shown to more people and they're the only ones benefiting from this

In other words;
It is bullshit. Read some basic economics. If they were to illegalize ad blocking the sponsors would pay you less per ad view (if all other factors remain the same). Their end goal is to spend less or equal amount of money on ads while showing them to more people.
Content creators don't seem to understand this and think they'll increase their profits by supporting ad block illegalization, but nothing would really change. They'd just get some additional cash at first until companies decide to make cut backs in ads. So in a year, everything would go back to normal with the exception of more users getting annoyed by ads.
It's an attack on civil rights to force ads on people, supporting forced advertisements should be punishable.

>>60100483
This seems like a very reasonable possibility. Of course, many people don't take into account the possibility that the sponsor could start paying you less per ad if more people see it.

In short, continuing to block the ads seems the most logical thing to do, based on the majority of responses.

>>60099987
>half their profit
Source?

>>60101120
myass.gov

i noticed some websites stopped using malicious ads and that is a good thing.

File: Mark_Blue_Hair.png (3MB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1080x1080px

>>60099987
>content '''''''''''''''''''''''''''creator''''''''''''''''''''''''

Say I beg for money or are a street musician or something.
Some people give me money, some don't.
Everybody that walks by me without giving me money could be viewed as loosing me money if the world view is that X people walk by, they would all give Y, but I didn't make X*Y.
It is very common in the entertainment industry that the entertainers are completely clueless about business, so I guess that is how they got that idea.
Maybe if they had a real job for a while, they would know better, but lets face it, a lot of them are just young youtubers that cry about getting more money.

Do they owe me anything? no.
Does it make sense to track how many that walks by or harass people that don't pay? no.
This debate has not changed just because it is e-begging.

There is no reasonable way to claim that people are required to watch advertisements just because other people make money that way.

>>60100025
I thought it was a social experiment to see how many times people clicked on the "skip raping me" button until the ad went away.

>>60099987
good.

>>60099961
>Do ad blockers really cause revenue loss?
Nope.

>>60099961
They give PewdiePie 20 mill for shit he puts out.
Fuck em!

>>60102111
This.

>>60099987
>content creators lose more than half of their profit
And my winshit gets half the malware it would otherwise get. It's a fair trade.

>>60102111
>loosing me money

Jesus fucking christ

>>60099961
>Ad plays on TV
>Change channels
>Media outlet loses money
There is no way to force someone to watch/click their ads.

>>60103262
>ad plays on TV
>change channels
>ad plays on new channel
>ads finally over
>other channel finishes playing ads too
Fuck this shit.