Would you pay to see no (online) ads anymore ?

[Freelancer1111]

This question was roughly inspired by

http://www.neowin.ne...e-an-adblocker/

The Question includes the entire Internet, not just Neowin, where the there is already a approach with the subscriber system.

My Question is, would you pay a monthly fee, to never see any ads on the Internet again ?

This concept does work for Television, where you have something like PayTV (Sky in Germany for example).

So why shouldn't it work for Internet ?

There are already solutions to this like AdMuncher (paid AdBlocker) or AdTrap (a $120 box, which sits between modem and router and filters out ads)

http://www.admuncher.com/

http://www.theatlant...d-again/265063/

What do you think, would it be possible to implement a similar system into the current internet infrastructure ? Would you then pay for it ?

I, personally, use AdBlock Plus except for sites I know/support.

[techbeck]

As long as their are ad blockers, no. Ads cause issues/slow load times and are intrusive....most of the time.

[max22]

I already do with Ad Muncher Premium Unlimited updates licenses. I have 3.

[n_K]

No, I'd never pay extra to have adverts removed.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Nope

Ads are a vital part of the eco-system and help pay people who can do amazing stuff.

I think the idea of premium TV that does away with ads is good, because the revenue will make it to the right people but i doubt very much it would in the case of the internet.

[max22]

Hulu without ads is wonderful.

[Arachno 1D]

Sky UK TV screens ads even if they are for its own products........

And no the plan wouldnt work companys need to keep their brand and ethos in customers minds.

EDIT Actually SKY do Product Placement which is ads by the back door

[DrJohnSmitherson]

How would this system work? Everyone who has a website on the internet with ads would get some money when their site is visited? It ad revenue was based on clicks, how would you determine who should get money when there are no more clicks?

[Freelancer1111]

..., because the revenue will make it to the right people but i doubt very much it would in the case of the internet.

How would this system work? Everyone who has a website on the internet with ads would get some money when their site is visited? It ad revenue was based on clicks, how would you determine who should get money when there are no more clicks?

I first thought of something like a giant "Internet Ad Fee Pot", where all the "fees" from the costumers go and which will then be split to the sites according to their traffic percentages.

But this does, of course, not work, because of machine generated traffic and so on :(

[COKid]

NoScript & Adblock Plus user here. I rarely, if ever, see ads. I would, however, consider paying certain sites to remove ads if it were an option because I support what the site does. Namely, the BBC. Honestly, I can't think of any other site I would pay for an ad-free experience.

But like I said, I get that already on every site.

[max22]

I would never pay a site itself.

[Phouchg]

No. Internets five nines full of shyte. I do/will carefully choose sites I wish to support, the rest I will Adblock to hell. There are options to finance a site. Like any other business or undertaking, it might not work out for a multitude of reasons. Mostly these days - because the content is shyte, readily available elsewhere or simply trivial, stupid and totally unneccesary.

And ads don't mean the product is free. Ads mean that I'm the product being sold. I take a severe dislike on that.

Sites need to present a choice, involving acceptable methods of financing... or be closed the f* down. The good side effect - internets gets purged of all the damn crap.

That includes Twatters, Crackbooks and other soshul cesspools. Much less people would post about the functions of their digestive systems, I'll guarantee you that.

On the other hand, there's Wiki. While Jimbo begs for donations now and then, it 100% runs on goodwill. Pretty much unique example that happens to work.

[zhangm Supervisor]

No. I'm already paying the internet company to download my ones and zeroes. I'm not going to pay someone else to NOT shove useless content down my throat on the bandwidth that I'm paying for.

[LittleNeutrino Veteran]

paying not to see ads would defeat the purpose of ads to begin with especially if you paid a third party. those of us with Subscriber membership here on Neowin sort of already do that. (although some folks like myself do it to support the website)

[Raa]

I already pay in one respect...

[Sir Topham Hatt]

No.

But then I don't understand why people like Google so much. Yes, their company might seem okay sometimes but who wants to see ads everywhere?

I'd happily use their services if they were not shoving "sponsored" results down my throat and trying to gather all information possible, so much in fact they don't know what to do with it.

[Dot Matrix]

I ALREADY ****ING PAY!

[LUTZIFER]

I answered NO to both.

I wouldn't pay to not have ads, especially since IE already blocks all the ads. Well most.

As for the other questions, we already pay a lot for the internet service, why should we have to pay even more.

Although for some services we do have to pay for, like Netflix for example, that makes sence, and specific content from providers,

but definitely not just for regular web page browsing. That would be ridiculous.

[cork1958]

No,

I would not pay to see no more ads and pay tv type stuff could easily be transitioned to the internet.

[(Account no longer active)]

If the price is right, yes. Unfortunately, cable TV in Australia is $$$, and there are very few providers (not much competition) :(. You guys in the US are lucky.

[Crisp]

Plot twist: Would you pay to have ads? You do if you own Xbox Live.

[McCordRm]

First question: No. There are already free adblockers which work just fine. Why pay for something

you can get for free?

Second question:

Netflix already proves this. The deciding factor is being able to stream to a TV. Watching TV on the

computer is only a convenience... not something the family would sit around and do.

[sagum]

>Would you pay to see no ads anymore ?

No. Adverts keep some sites alive and kicking, while others are just blatant abuse of money grabbing for worthless content.

If the site is actually any good, there are additional services or pros to it that'll let them run with minimal amount of adverts.

For the rest of the sites... I'll answer with your next question..

>Do you think that the concept of PayTV could be transitioned to the Internet ?

Unlike TV channels were we're limited to what we're given (or indeed asked to pay for) on the internet. Unless of course you're in a walled garden on some mobile ISP, or live in China.

The Internet is far bigger, if you don't like one site, or the way they're using adverts, the chances are you can find an alternate site pretty easily that'll provide similar content of your liking, if not the same content... possibly without any adverts at all.

Of course there are a few issues with that way of thinking, such as social networks or rather, "the" social network. Facebook right now has a monopoly over all the other social networks and they only have that because your friends ARE the content you visit the sites for anyway. It wouldn't take much for facebook to fade away, if enough of your friends were to migrate to another social site... and its happened before with a lot before facebook took over.

Other sites, such as tech news, world news. blogging, celeb, maker sites, diy, forums etc, there are very few of them that can't be replaced with another, it's simply how the internet is. So, while there might be a few sites that'll make money from going 'pay' via a subscription or what ever, it'll only be for a unique feature, or person that on the said site, or simply brand awareness that people can't shake.

In a way it's a lot like how the games industry is working. They see their userbase as something they control, and rather then providing them with incentives to continue to use their games and services, they start removing and charging for things we've already got access to, and indeed access to else where. It doesn't work. Forcing restrictions on to people only annoys them, eventually people get the right idea and move on.

[max22]

I refuse to watch commercials and never do.

[Growled Member]

No and NO.