How Much Do Ads Annoy You?

A reader writes:

I’m sure you have well-thought-out opinions on this, but I’m not sure why you are so committed to not having advertising on your site. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t miss it … but I don’t begrudge it either.  No more complicated than I don’t care that Tiffany’s has a longstanding corner ad in the NYT, or the luxury jewelry/car ads in between.  Are readers really put off by ads?  I’ll agree that you don’t want some sort of advertising control of content, but can that be a concern?  Just don’t make them annoying Internet pop-up ads requiring people to “close/X” them away. But do use “banner ads” all you want.

The truth is: we’re not opposed to ads in principle and never have been. And my long-standing stance against sponsored content is not about ads, but dishonest ones. So why don’t we have them? It’s partly a function of being a tiny little company with no publisher. But it also comes from a sense that readers are prepared to pay for the site in part because it has such a high signal-to-noise ratio. As the rest of the web becomes insanely cluttered and distracting, we hope the Dish will become even more distinctive with our white space, and simple design. What we are actively considering, however, is serving ads for non-subscribers. That would give us another revenue stream, while still retaining an ad-free site for committed subscribers. Another reader is even less averse to ads:

What is wrong with putting Google Ads (or equivalent) on the top or right side of the page, get the income you’d get, and whatever the shortfall is, ask your readers to cover? What’s the harm? The ads are clearly labeled as such (check), and the advertisers are not trying to influence your content (check). Further – Google Ads are actually often helpful – Google (for better or worse) knows our interests well, and the ads they serve up to me on various websites are often quite useful alerting me that favorite website is having a sale on XYZ.

Another, on the other hand, isn’t a fan of ad networks like Google Ads:

I resubscribed for $250 a year. I will renew hubby’s as well; it’s a toss-up which of us is on the site more of the day. I thought of my renewal in a couple of ways: First, as a donation, similar to how I’d support any cause I believe in and/or benefit from (without the tax deduction, but who cares.) And I really fungusappreciate no ads. That can not be understated.

This morning I was scrolling through my local paper, The Brattleboro Reformer (of which you posted a great mistake headline from last year) and was once again confronted by an absolutely disgusting photo of toe nail fungus. There is no way to get the ad not to show up. Perhaps this is your best advertisement for folks to willingly renew. So they are not confronted with this photo in exchange for reading some news??

Thanks for all you do, and for steering clear of Google Ads.

Several more readers weigh in:

As my re-up date approached, I remained somewhat ambivalent.  Then, the other day, I went to the newly reconfigured and utterly awful New York Times page. gun-adBlown-up fonts surrounded by distracting, flashing ads – I’ve really cut down on going there as a result. And it reminded me of what I was already taking for granted: The Dish’s clean, non-distracting appearance, where your eyes don’t work overtime so that your brain can be more fully engaged.

So I just doubled my subscription rate, for a number of reasons: For your commitment to honest debate, for the great flow of content (including the Saturday and Sunday themes), for the recognition of the vital role of poetry, for your “long” pieces – especially your essay on Francis – and for saying “fuck you” to the ever-encroaching corrosiveness of advertising. I’m looking forward to another good year.

Another in the “no ads” camp:

This founding member doubled his initial subscription amount. If I can afford to give NPR $5 a month, I can afford to pay the Dish $50 a year, when you all are working your asses off, and, better than that, doing it with integrity and no advertising. I hate fucking advertising.

Another:

After a year as a “founding member”, I was nevertheless hesitant to renew again. While I fully supported the experiment that you were undertaking, I’d hoped, perhaps against reason, that more of dish-ad-summer-slamyour audience would be willing to follow suit and would give you the funds required to launch the kinds of independent reporting and commissioned pieces that you’d described in your initial pitch. I was thrilled by the first release of Deep Dish, “I Was Wrong“, even though I never got through it – the concept alone was enlivening. But as the year ended without entirely reaching your goal, I couldn’t shake a feeling that maybe you’d pushed as far as your audience was willing to go.

Last week, however, I signed into the New York Times website to see a Verizon ad taking up a the entire right-hand side of my screen, jammed into the spot just below where the Opinion section ordinarily goes. This is not the only time that this has happened. Like many of your readers, I run Ad Block Plus constantly, and have grown accustomed to an ad-free Internet. The umbrage I felt at seeing this Times ad shoehorned into empty space helped me to realize what several of your readers feel when they claim, insanely, that the Internet should remain free. It’s difficult to change how people approach these things, and difficult to appreciate when different realities might require different strategies. What I admire most about your work is that you understand this, that you welcome it, and that you’re open and honest about it.

The Times, meanwhile, isn’t. The fact is that I’m asked to pay the Times $15 every four weeks (not even ad-networka month mind you) in order, in theory, to keep animated GIFs of Marshall Faulk plugging Verizon to a minimum. Since this has happened more than once, I imagine that the Times and their advertisers have gone out of their way to make sure that these ads can be snuck around AdBlock. But even if not, shouldn’t my subscription buy me this much? The Times wants their cake and everything else too. Whose approach would I prefer – yours or theirs?

So as of this moment, I’m canceling my subscription to the New York Times, taking a quarter of the money that I’d pay them in a given year, rounding it up to make it a clean $50, and giving it to you. I’ll plan to distribute the rest in gifts to friends and family throughout the year, but I hope that this is enough for now to move you towards your goal.

One more:

I’m happy to renew and threw in a few extra bucks because you asked politely and with good reason.  I think there is value to an independent site that does not rely on advertising bucks.  And I hope it stays that way, but I can imagine the lure as you continue to fight to gain traction.  Hopefully you will openly share with us as you wrestle with the advertising demon.

(Images: Three network ads that have run on the Dish in the past)