Comments on: Would You Pay to Make Your Favorite Sites Ad-Free?

By: AIDS Drugs

AIDS Drugs — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:57:19 +0000

As long as ads are tasteful I would rather not pay and most the time when they are not its not in my “favorite” sites. Ads make a lot of resources free and can be helpful sometimes.

By: drivelocity

drivelocity — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:04:19 +0000

$30 is a lot to make a site ad free! I have considered doing it for one of mine but would only charge a few dollars. Although it's not nearly on the same scale as Twitter or Digg, I believe it's all relative. They have a lot more members, so they'd make a lot more than I would. Also, I feel that any money is better than nothing, especially if it makes your more devoted members happy. They are the ones most likely to have ad blindness too, so you wouldn't be making much, if any revenue off of them anyway. drivelocity's last blog post..Black and Decker Thermal Leak Detector

By: Solid Blogger

Solid Blogger — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:25:05 +0000

I am not going to pay at all
Well, a simple AdBlock Plus or NoScript (Firefox addons) can do that trick for free. Why to pay for that?

Solid Blogger’s last blog post..Top Blogging Secrets To Success

By: SeoBrain

SeoBrain — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:26:31 +0000

Site with ads? i think its very useful since they can give to us new product/service information. Its not just about heavy site load.. i never pay my pav site to get adsfree, i always click the ads when i see something new and make me interesting. I think its normal for some people dont want ads on their pav site, and iam sure many people love ads on their pav site for same reason as me.

By: Kenney and Kim

Kenney and Kim — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:02:54 +0000

I wouldn’t. I think that’s silly. Ads, for the most part are out of the way. And many times if targeted right can provide the very products or information that I need. Just don’t like the ones that are super intrusive. Follow me on the screen and can’t close. lol

By: Diana Freedman

Diana Freedman — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:22:30 +0000

I definitely wouldn’t pay. On content sites, it’s easy for me to ignore the ads; perhaps because I’m part of a generation that’s been bombarded with advertising since infancy, so it’s just natural to tune it out. But whenever an ad DOES catch my eye, I usually click on it, and it ends up being something helpful, and I’m glad the ad was there in the first place.

I also really enjoy the :30 spots between streaming TV shows, especially on ABC.com. They make them short, catchy, funny, and sometimes even interactive. And hey, I get to watch that TV show TIVO messed up on for free, so I can’t complain.

By: canggu villas

canggu villas — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:47:41 +0000

not to pay 69%…well i belong to this section then..

By: Ted Murphy

Ted Murphy — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:41:03 +0000

Would you pay $40 a year to be able to speak directly, over the phone, to the author of your favorite site?

By: Nicole Price

Nicole Price — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:37:36 +0000

No, twitter is a different ball game. I would not be willing to pay to keep it ad free. Nicole Price's last blog post..Offbeat Gift Ideas

By: Web Design Beach

Web Design Beach — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:06:20 +0000

That is really interesting survey. It could make sense to allow such a feature on big sites, and as survey shows it could have participants who would use it. Personally i really don’t made on ads, because sometimes i come to some interesting ones that i can check out if want something specific.

By: Jacques Seoman

Jacques Seoman — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:21:52 +0000

I am used to ads by now, and actually feel some sites might look rather bland if all the eye candy is removed. I definitely won’t pay to dodge ads, it doesn’t make financial sense to me!

By: Busby SEO

Busby SEO — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:09:19 +0000

I think I will pay for twitter. I do not know with other service, I will pay or not

Busby SEO’s last blog post..By: Busby SEO Test | Reduce Bandwith Usage Tips

By: Saad Kamal

Saad Kamal — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:24:48 +0000

If Its twitter, then I’d pay. But if its a website that I read everyday – like say Techcrunch, RWW or even Marketing Pilgrim – I’d prefer to keep the ads.

It might sound strange to you but I actually love to see ads – because kind of keeps me up-to-date with the new startups & services that are coming out. Every time I see a new banner ad, if the text/graphic is appealing to me – I always click and find out more about the company and their service.

Saad Kamal’s last blog post..Domain Registration Info – Does it have any Impact on Rankings?

By: Mike Volpe - HubSpot

Mike Volpe - HubSpot — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:19:51 +0000

I think they are asking the wrong question. People are less tied to a website than they are to a magazine. The beauty of the web and web 2.0 is you can jump around, subscribe to bits and pieces, etc. If I pay $29.99 for each of the 100+ sites I visit, that’s a ton of money!

The question should have been, would you pay $9.99 a month to have all advertising removed from all websites you visit. No banner ads, no text ads, no more advertising at all (except maybe search text ads). Given low CTRs on banners and other online ads, that is probably the right price.

Now THAT would be an interesting question to get answered.

AdAge is still tied to the old media thinking that people consume websites like a newspaper or magazine. That’s not quite right.

By: Jayson

Jayson — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:35:25 +0000

Not very surprising at all – I actually like some ads and find many of them useful. I wouldn’t pay to have any sites I visit ad free. It seems like the annoying ads have already made their way towards the trash can.

By: Terry Howard

Terry Howard — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 02:34:49 +0000

Not even sure why this survey even took place. That verdict has been out for a decade. This topic comes up every couple years or some company tries the pay for premium content business model and they get their lunch eaten by a free competitor. There is just too much of an upside to the ad supported model, namely not being obligated to provide support, less accounts receivable work, and efforts wasted securing your content from illegal distribution. The only reason I can see to use a pay for content model in this day and age is that you realy enjoy headaches. Terry Howard's last blog post..Flickr Tags Search Problem

By: Brandon Cox

Brandon Cox — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 23:54:09 +0000

I'd pay for Twitter, not more than $30 per month though. The reason I wouldn't pay for most sites is that they are offering information for my consumption to market themselves to me - why would I, as the observer, pay their marketing bill? I don't think pay-for-content sites will last much longer and certainly won't be the wave of the future. Brandon Cox's last blog post..Marketing Yourself Honestly

By: Anaokulu

Anaokulu — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 23:29:49 +0000

not likely to pay at all 69% does it suprised you?

By: Ray Metzen

Ray Metzen — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 23:19:16 +0000

Besides the funny figure of $39.99 the survey also failed to take ad blockers into account. The choice users have is not just between tolerating the ads or paying to have them removed, they can also remove the ads themselves — for free! Seeing that the AdBlockPlus extension for Firefox, for instance, has 300,000+ downloads a week, there are obviously many users who take that route.

By: Chris Berry

Chris Berry — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:29:40 +0000

Where did the ridiculous figure of $39.99 come from in the first place? At the very best, a single user of a popular website might represent a few pennies of annual revenue. The question to ask is how many users would be willing to $0.99? Chris Berry's last blog post..Government Intervention Will Only Make Things Worse For Big Three