Source: http://www.techspot.com/news/63746-wired-stop-blocking-our-ads-pay-ad-free.html
Wired Magazine is taking a bold step into the unknown. Starting next week, the site will give its readers who use an ad blocker an ultimatum: either stop blocking their ads, pay to view an ad-free version of the site or turn to a different source for technology news.
Wired is planning to charge readers $3.99 for four weeks of ad-free access to its website.
McClusky believes that the portion of Wired's readership that uses ad blockers (roughly 20 percent of its readership) are likely to be receptive to a discussion about their responsibility to support the businesses they rely on for information online. I, for one, am not nearly as confident in their reception as McClusky but I digress.
Most sites have been offering their content for "free" through ad-supported methods and any pushback against what the general population sees as the norm will no doubt create backlash. That said, Wired's buck-a-week rate isn't set in stone, however, as the publication says it could change based on reader response.
This is the problem. For every site that blocks adblockers, there will be several alternative that don't.Originally Posted by brownbob06
Sooo... when this fails miserably they're going to just keep dropping the price of an ad free subscription?
It's not like there's a shortage of tech news sites and the like. Traditional websites may have to take a different approach soon to different types of advertising (think radio commercials where the DJ actually does the commercial during a show.)
Sure, it's not fair that companies that are responsible with their advertising have to pay for sites with full page ads and required surveys. But guess what, sometimes a few bad eggs ruin stuff for the rest of us. We, as consumers, know this better than anybody.
Exactly. I'm all for supporting the makers, but this (and also the DRM on modern games) is a matter of "let's punish the people who buy our stuff". I refuse to buy a game that I can't play (that also goes for being able to play off-line).
Then they will include packages to certain sites where it will be ad-free for a monthly fee, there will be different tiers and...wait a minute...
hahaha...there is no privacy on the internet or the world.
It's not consumer responsibility to help creators survive. It's respect and the ability of the target audience to express it in monetary terms, that'll serve as a guide to which creators will end up making how much money.McClusky believes that the portion of Wired's readership that uses ad blockers (roughly 20 percent of its readership) are likely to be receptive to a discussion about their responsibility to support the businesses they rely on for information online
exactly this, i like places being able to pay bills, i dont like suddenly listening to stuff at FULL VOL when nothing was playing, security /malware risks, full page interruptions ect....
Forbes. I followed a link there just a day or two ago and got that message when on my phone. The article wasnt nearly worth my time to bother with any of that nonsense so I just hit back and continued about my business.
Yeah that sounds about right