The Advertisers Dilemma
Recently, Eyeo has announced a mobile version of its popular AdBlock software, which blocks internet ads. While the announcement of this software isn't particularly noteworthy for a company that doesn't (yet) have a mobile application or mobile-specific site, I nevertheless thought it was a good opportunity to share some thoughts on the topic, as it is something that we wrestle with often here. Slowtwitch is, currently, a 100% advertising-supported site. So if there was to be an app or a mobile version of this site, it would also be supported by advertising dollars. I'd like to borrow a phrase from Facebook – "It's free and always will be." I have my own thoughts on what Mark Zuckerburg – who still maintains a controlling interest in Facebook in spite of going to IPO – really intends to do with Facebook, most of which are more noble than what I think people accuse him of. However, they are just speculation, though I've read enough articles that share the same sentiments. But when it comes to Slowtwitch, I know what our expectations are for the future of this site, so I feel a lot more comfortable making declarative statements. So when I say, "Slowtwitch is free and always will be," I know exactly what that means on the backend for all of us involved in order to preserve the truth in that statement.
Eyeo does maintain a "white-list" within AdBlock – Amazon.com, for example, is allowed to serve it's own "ads" on it's own site, but Eyeo doesn't allow any site to petition for inclusion on this whitelist. Likewise, users can allow certain sites to serve ads, but based on the prevailing research on "opt-in" vs. "opt-out" psychology, I don't hold out much hope for that as a truly viable solution to the dilemma many sites face going forward. The dilemma is simple, "how do you pay your content creators if the very people consuming your content block your revenue stream?" When AdBlock blocks an ad, it prevents it from ever serving, which is perhaps fair. So it's not like when you TiVo a show and then fast-forward through the ads, and the company charging their advertisers doesn't actually know that you fast forward and can claim that your eyeballs were on the ads, which they were, just at 3X speed. I don't know if I'd like it better if AdBlock loaded the ad and then rendered them invisible, since that would be turning us into liars, effectively, when we claim that we served so many ads. Because of how AdBlock works – preventing an ad from ever loading – we are able to keep track of how many users on our site are using it. It's not particularly difficult, and – if we chose – we could also prevent the rest of the content from loading as well. But we don't. We simply use our tracking tool as a way of gauging, roughly, how much revenue we lose to folks using AdBlock. Thankfully, it is currently pretty minimal – less than 1% of visitors – but I expect that number will go up as AdBlock becomes available for mobile browsers, which make up an ever increasing amount of our traffic.
About a year ago, we decided to bring 100% of our ads in house. All of our ads are served from our own server – reach.slowtwitch.com for those who do want to whitelist it proactively. It's one of five dedicated servers that keeps Slowtwitch ticking. Those servers are paid for by the ads you see bracketing this article. We decided to do this – at a significant cost to us (about 30% of our revenue in the immediate aftermath) – for a few reasons. The first and foremost was that we maintain a very strict set of rules – no sound, no screen takeovers, and some others along similar lines designed to keep our ads unobtrusive while still being noticeable – and the third party (one of the larger ones on the internet) wasn't able to consistently abide by these rules. We also weren't sure we wanted to contribute the ever growing reduction in privacy by allowing Slowtwitch to be part of the cookie crumb trail you leave on the internet. The vast majority of users on Slowtwitch will have only one cookie from us – their forum login, and even that is optional (though you can't use certain parts – like adding a race or a retailer – of the site without it due to coding limitations). We have taken to using Facebook for comments, but that was because the overwhelming majority of spam and nastily negative comments came through our comment utility, which allowed total anonymity. So Facebook seemed the better way to go, even if we contribute to the ubiquity of their social graph. Seemed the better choice. Though it was not an easy decision.
And the last, but not insignificant reason, was that this coincided with Cenegenics (the "anti-aging" folks) contracting with third-party and remnant brokers to serve their ads to the same target clientele that Slowtwitch serves – active and (relatively) affluent individuals. The problem that we had is that much of what Cenegenics appears to offer is not legal for anyone who is actively racing. It's not criminally illegal, but it is in violation of the WADA Code (at least without a TUE, which is rarely given for most of the stuff that Cenegenics seems to be pushing). and we just didn't think it was right to offer our site as a platform to serve the message that youth is just a shot of HGH or testosterone away. These are the sorts of decisions we deal with internally. Most of the time, these are internal dialogues that rarely get discussed outside of Dan, Herbert, and I, at least until we get threads on our forum asking how to install AdBlock or accusing us of being spineless capitalistic Randians who will do anything to make a buck.
Proponents of AdBlock argue that it's the free market at work, and that if sites were less obtrusive with ads (shorter video lead-ins, less screen takeovers, less sound, etc), then people wouldn't feel the need to use AdBlock. And content-creators have fought back with more and more sites being subscription based, or allowing you to read articles only briefly before siloing them in a "Members Only" area, or – as on the Christian Science Monitor – asking you to complete a brief one or two question survey to keep reading. All of these things seem much more obtrusive than advertising to me, but with AdBlock as the number one browser add-on worldwide – (the only downside to IE dying a slow – but seemingly inevitable death) – it's clear that the war between advertisers and ad-blockers is expanding. So far, we've largely been able to ignore this battle, but as I think about how I want to continue to grow this site – say, with a mobile application – I realize that may not be a truly tenable position for very long.
The title for this article is my play on the name of the classic game theory exercise called, "The Prisoner's Dilemma." Given the erudite and august nature of our readership, I'll save going over it suffice to remind you all that it's that thing where the police catch you and a partner and makes you a deal of leniency in exchange for testimony, with the catch being that he's making the same deal to both you and your conspirator simultaneously. It's a basic 2×2 matrix of choices, where the best-decision is affected by what your partner-in-crime decides to do. Logic dictates that it's best for you to confess, because the best case scenario in case of confession is as good or better than if you don't, but the worst case scenario is not as bad as if you do not confess but your partner-in-crime does. The basic takeaway is that cooperation is ultimately the best for everyone. That's what logic says to do. But, of course, people are not logical. That applies to us as people running the site as much as it does to people reading the site. But I'm struck by how often, whenever this topic comes up in one form or another, how often I hear, "I never thought of it that way." And that's the harm I see with AdBlock. By default, it blocks all ads. You have to opt ads in, and people don't like to opt-in (many, many economists and other social scientists have done a lot of research on this, much of which is worth reading). I'd be much happier if AdBlock was an opt-out system. See an ad you don't like? Block it. And in blocking it, send a message that it was blocked. Right now it's like a boycott that you don't even realize is happening.
The purpose of this editorial is absolutely not to paint Eyeo software (really, he's just one guy, plus a business-oriented partner) as evil. They have a noble mission statement. They believe in, "Privacy. Openness. Responsible Advertising. Sustainability." All things that we believe in here at Slowtwitch. And Eyeo is a business, but a business with some very different fundamentals about how it operates from a lot of companies. A business that is not supported by ads, but by volunteers and a single generous backer. At least, as far as I can glean from the statements on Eyeo and on the AdBlock blog. They seem like want the same thing that a lot of folks want – they want to experience content, not ads, and especially not ads that "know" who they are. But I just think they choose a somewhat divisive tactic to execute their vision. So, all irony asides, I'm open to suggestions via the comments (powered by Facebook) below. This isn't just about my thoughts on AdBlock. This is about figuring out a way that we can grow this site, keep it free, and still serve the larger concerns of our constituency. Thank you for reading.
Start the discussion at slowtwitch.northend.network