Would you pay for ad-free browsing?

[Garacesh]

BBC News - Google launches ad-free net experiment

 

Google has unveiled a project that offers web users the option to pay to visit sites rather than see adverts.

 

Dubbed Contributor, users can pay a monthly fee of between $1 to $3 for ad-free sites.

 

When those who have paid their subscriptions visit a participating site they will see pixelated patterns replacing the adverts.

 

Personally I think they're entirely missing the point. I don't care about adverts. I care about invasive adverts. Popups, auto-play-with-sound, discreetly placed close/mute buttons. I whitelist sites I use often that display non-invasive adverts, such as Edugeek, Imgur, Reddit and others. I don't whitelist pseudo-news and such.

 

I think the web needs to find a better money-raising model. The vast majority of people rarely click ads. Once or twice I'll see something and think "Ooh, that looks interesting." and give it a click but 99% of the time if I want something I go looking for it myself through the likes of Google/Amazon/eBay etc. Ads just aren't too effective in this era of the digital age.

[JRowley]

Don't really care about it for general web browsing, but seriously wish they would implement a similar model as twitch when it comes to YouTube.

[Garacesh]

And what's that? I don't really use Twitch.

[localzuk]

And what's that? I don't really use Twitch.

 

You can pay for "Turbo", which is a monthly sub. It disables all adverts, site-wide.

[Miscbrah]

It's VERY simple, good Google folks.

 

- Get targeted ad or see banner ad.

- Click on, visit site.

- Leave site, then DELIBERATELY buy from competitor, even if it costs a little more.

- Within a year, advertisers die of hunger.

- ????

- Profit (not for advertisers.)

 

OR try and get the silliest targeted ads you can just to collect them week to week. I'm SO BADLY trying to get an organ-enhancement targeted ad but there ain't none and I have one colourful Google history now.

[JRowley]

There are basically two systems, Turbo user and individual subscriptions. A Turbo user gets pretty much no ads at all (I think there is one exception) and a few other benefits. But the individual subscriptions are more interesting as you subscribe to a specific channel, they then get half the subscription fee ($5/mon) so you can more directly support them, you don't see ads this way either.

 

I would prefer Google added both, but the individual subscriptions is the one I would like to see the most, as money goes straight to the channel.

[Nibiru]

The advertisers have ruined it for themselves what with intrusive pop up, pop under & noisy adverts. On our v slow bb at home I found the adverts noticably slowed down page loadings - to several seconds on some sites This is when I discovered ad blockers.

 

And Google have missed the boat - anyone can do it for free with a few clicks and an add on.

[localzuk]

There are basically two systems, Turbo user and individual subscriptions. A Turbo user gets pretty much no ads at all (I think there is one exception) and a few other benefits. But the individual subscriptions are more interesting as you subscribe to a specific channel, they then get half the subscription fee ($5/mon) so you can more directly support them, you don't see ads this way either.

 

Not all individual subscriptions are ad-free. Only "older" subs (ie. if they were partnered and got the sub button before May 2013). Also, the amount the broadcaster gets isn't fixed at half any more - it is negotiated on a case by case basis - I think many will still be half/half, but the big subs/networks will obviously have more clout when negotiating.

[Garacesh]

You can pay for "Turbo", which is a monthly sub. It disables all adverts, site-wide.

Sounds like any basic ad-free 'account upgrade' paywall. Nothing special there.

 

- Leave site, then DELIBERATELY buy from competitor, even if it costs a little more.

What, even if it's a product I don't want or need?

Also, to be fair, practically every service advertises in one way or another.. So the competitors would have ads too.

 

I really don't have a problem with an ad if it's unobtrusive and relevant. And no, by relevant I don't mean use tracking cookies to target ads. I mean relevant to the site I'm on. If I'm browsing Overclockers, give me ads from ASUS, NVidia etc. If I then start checking out movies, throw ads for Netflix/Amazon streaming my way.

 

Chances are, even if I need a new PC part, I'm not going to click on a PC-based advert if I'm reading the news.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Garacesh

[JRowley]

Not all individual subscriptions are ad-free. Only "older" subs (ie. if they were partnered and got the sub button before May 2013). Also, the amount the broadcaster gets isn't fixed at half any more - it is negotiated on a case by case basis - I think many will still be half/half, but the big subs/networks will obviously have more clout when negotiating.

 

Regardless, this is still the model that I would like to see Google adopt for YouTube, it's better than nothing at all.

[jamesb]

I tend to use Adblock plus, with whitelisting turned on for non-intrusive adverts. Although it isn't really the adverts that bother me - it's the tracking and profiling.

[IrritableTech]

I tend to use Adblock plus, with whitelisting turned on for non-intrusive adverts. Although it isn't really the adverts that bother me - it's the tracking and profiling.

 

Yeah - if you want to pay up and go ad free, you'll need to be signed into google 24/7 on every device...

[LincolnE]

I've been using Adblock Plus for godknows how long now. I do whitelist some sites, however.

[difinity]

I tend to use Adblock plus, with whitelisting turned on for non-intrusive adverts. Although it isn't really the adverts that bother me - it's the tracking and profiling.

 

Take a look at Ghostery if you don't use it already. https://www.ghostery.com/

[LiamH]

Adblock, scriptsafe, and flashblock tend to deal with most of the issues. I do whitelist sites however (edugeek is whitelisted) Edited November 25, 2014 by LiamH

[rich_tech]

I have been using adblock plus for aeons with Firefox/Chrome now blocking everything regardless, its intrusive to my browsing experience being targetted, I also tend to sky+ everything and skip through adverts.

 

I was gutted the other day when the gmail app I had used for years started having a "Promoted" ad at the top of my promotions page when sorting mail, I switched to another mail program on the iphone moments later. Mobile phones now are infuriating too because you can't switch that c*** off on them.

[windowsman]

Depending on the amount of ad's, if it was on a general website (e.g. Google), and all you see is the Google Ad's, then no I wouldn't.

 

But, if this was a opportunity for more ad's to be added to websites which you NEED, then probably.