MFP Ads

springlering62

Do you guys get the crazy ads via MFP that I get? This one really tickled me. Who clicks on this stuff?

briannekc

Yes, I got that one too. I really dislike all these ads, they are super weird and the imagery is gross. And it’s difficult to report them. I miss having blog content in the feed.

apullum

Is that a gigantic liver staring at where it's supposed to be?

I have to admit it looks more like a huge nose, complete with nasty green stuff hanging out.

Personally I'm amused by the surrealist turn that these ads have taken.

briannekc

That’s a good point, apullum. I will try and focus on the absurdity. 😂

MikePTY

I like to think "who clicks on these type of ads", but then I realize I've clicked on a lot of sponsored type content like this before, not on these rediculous type ads but on other sites that have more revelant referral network ads to me. Given how ubiquitous they are, I would imagine that the economics of them work out for both the advertiser and the hosting site.

No ads is the main reason I am glad to have premium. It seems like they at emaking the ads even more insufferable to try to get more people on it.

NorthCascades

springlering62 wrote: »

Do you guys get the crazy ads via MFP that I get? This one really tickled me. Who clicks on this stuff?

Sometimes I'm trying to click to like something in my feed, but everything hasn't loaded yet, what I'm after shifts down, and it registers my click on the ad instead. I bet they set it up that way on purpose.

BarbaraHelen2013

I’m not using premium but I didn’t realise MFP had adverts! Where do these show up? That looks like it’s in the home feed, all I get are ‘do this exercise’, eat this ‘superfood’🙄 type articles, which sometimes have dubious science-y info. I rarely pay attention to the feed.

kshama2001

No, my internet experience has been mostly ad-free for, oh, 10 years now.

cmriverside

If you use the browser with the little red panda as its logo you don't get ads.

cmriverside

But I guess that ^^ would only work on the web version. I deleted the app years ago - way too buggy.

MikePTY

As a website owner, I find ad blockers to basically be like stealing. Sure, ads are annoying, but they are the reason why the vast majority of the content on the web is free right now. If everyone started using ad blockers, the internet as we know it would drastically change.

My website gets around 20,000 views per month, which only generates $60-$70 a month on average, but it justifies keeping the site open and paying for hosting. I'd probably have pulled it down by now if not for ad revenue.

So I'd encourage people not to ad block. It negatively affects content creators, both big and small.

pinuplove

cmriverside wrote: »

But I guess that ^^ would only work on the web version. I deleted the app years ago - way too buggy.

I quit letting the app update automatically. Worked like a charm

cmriverside

Sorry Mike, I don't use the internet so you can stay in business.

And, yeah, UA probably looks at it that way too.

That's why I didn't use the name of the browser, my posts have been deleted in the past when I do. Somehow that browser has found a way to stay in business.

I've never clicked on an ad on MFP, so why have them available for myself?

I also don't buy magazines or newspapers or network and cable TV for the same reason. I'd rather pay to NOT have them.

cmriverside

Okay, I gotta ask...is it this?

MikePTY wrote: »

I like to think "who clicks on these type of ads", but then I realize I've clicked on a lot of sponsored type content like this before, not on these rediculous type ads but on other sites that have more revelant referral network ads to me. Given how ubiquitous they are, I would imagine that the economics of them work out for both the advertiser and the hosting site.

No ads is the main reason I am glad to have premium. It seems like they at emaking the ads even more insufferable to try to get more people on it.

or is it this?

MikePTY wrote: »

As a website owner, I find ad blockers to basically be like stealing. Sure, ads are annoying, but they are the reason why the vast majority of the content on the web is free right now. If everyone started using ad blockers, the internet as we know it would drastically change.

My website gets around 20,000 views per month, which only generates $60-$70 a month on average, but it justifies keeping the site open and paying for hosting. I'd probably have pulled it down by now if not for ad revenue.

So I'd encourage people not to ad block. It negatively affects content creators, both big and small.

"I like no ads."


"Please don't block ads."

:huh:

kshama2001

MikePTY wrote: »

As a website owner, I find ad blockers to basically be like stealing. Sure, ads are annoying, but they are the reason why the vast majority of the content on the web is free right now. If everyone started using ad blockers, the internet as we know it would drastically change.

My website gets around 20,000 views per month, which only generates $60-$70 a month on average, but it justifies keeping the site open and paying for hosting. I'd probably have pulled it down by now if not for ad revenue.

So I'd encourage people not to ad block. It negatively affects content creators, both big and small.

I'm a little neuro-atypical and the presence of flashing/moving ads while I am trying to read something else "hurts my brain". I can't use the internet with this going on. So, I have them all zapped.

kshama2001

MikePTY wrote: »

As a website owner, I find ad blockers to basically be like stealing. Sure, ads are annoying, but they are the reason why the vast majority of the content on the web is free right now. If everyone started using ad blockers, the internet as we know it would drastically change.

My website gets around 20,000 views per month, which only generates $60-$70 a month on average, but it justifies keeping the site open and paying for hosting. I'd probably have pulled it down by now if not for ad revenue.

So I'd encourage people not to ad block. It negatively affects content creators, both big and small.

I'm a little neuro atypical, and flashing/moving images while I am trying to read something else "hurts my brain." So, I have them all zapped.

kshama2001

I'm a little neuro atypical, and flashing/moving images while I am trying to read something else "hurts my brain." So, I have them all zapped.

MikePTY

cmriverside wrote: »

Sorry Mike, I don't use the internet so you can stay in business.

And, yeah, UA probably looks at it that way too.

That's why I didn't use the name of the browser, my posts have been deleted in the past when I do. Somehow that browser has found a way to stay in business.

I've never clicked on an ad on MFP, so why have them available for myself?

I also don't buy magazines or newspapers or network and cable TV for the same reason. I'd rather pay to NOT have them.

They likely view it that way because that's what it is. People just have a mental disconnect about it to make themselves feel better.

Like nobody would walk into a store and take a product off the shelf without paying and go "sorry it's not my responsibility for you to stay in business."

Even most people who do internet piracy understand that it's stealing, even though there is no physical loss of the product.

But using a website while intentionally blocking the method by which they run their business? Somehow that's totally different.

MelanieCN77

It is pretty ironic - as we are all (mostly) aware, there's no money to be made from selling moderation in eating and being a little bit more active but this site has to monetize the ways that work just like anywhere else.

I question how effective ads like this are, like I can count on one hand the number of banner or pop-ups I have clicked through on in 20 something years. I'm told it's more about "brand awareness" but that's obviously not the case with clickbait. All this good faith I am putting in the general public might well be in error if this kind of ad gets a decent click through rate.

cmriverside

MikePTY wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

Sorry Mike, I don't use the internet so you can stay in business.

And, yeah, UA probably looks at it that way too.

That's why I didn't use the name of the browser, my posts have been deleted in the past when I do. Somehow that browser has found a way to stay in business.

I've never clicked on an ad on MFP, so why have them available for myself?

I also don't buy magazines or newspapers or network and cable TV for the same reason. I'd rather pay to NOT have them.

They likely view it that way because that's what it is. People just have a mental disconnect about it to make themselves feel better.

Like nobody would walk into a store and take a product off the shelf without paying and go "sorry it's not my responsibility for you to stay in business."

Even most people who do internet piracy understand that it's stealing, even though there is no physical loss of the product.

But using a website while intentionally blocking the method by which they run their business? Somehow that's totally different.

Um. Okay.

That is a ridiculous twist of thinking. I window shop all the time and don't buy anything. I'm guessing you do too. That's not stealing. Neither is using ad blockers. And no, I lose no sleep when Nordstrom closes a store.

I do feel that if you use a brick and mortar store to research a product, talk to its employees, use its knowledge, test it out, then go buy it on Amazon, that's unethical. I still hesitate to call it "stealing," though. I live in Seattle and dislike Amazon, think it needs to be broken up, charge fair market value for delivery etc.

If I pay to NOT have something does that fall into your logic, because I am not understanding why you say this? (below)

MikePTY wrote: »

I like to think "who clicks on these type of ads", but then I realize I've clicked on a lot of sponsored type content like this before, not on these rediculous type ads but on other sites that have more revelant referral network ads to me. Given how ubiquitous they are, I would imagine that the economics of them work out for both the advertiser and the hosting site.

No ads is the main reason I am glad to have premium. It seems like they at emaking the ads even more insufferable to try to get more people on it.

kshama2001

MikePTY wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

Sorry Mike, I don't use the internet so you can stay in business.

And, yeah, UA probably looks at it that way too.

That's why I didn't use the name of the browser, my posts have been deleted in the past when I do. Somehow that browser has found a way to stay in business.

I've never clicked on an ad on MFP, so why have them available for myself?

I also don't buy magazines or newspapers or network and cable TV for the same reason. I'd rather pay to NOT have them.

They likely view it that way because that's what it is. People just have a mental disconnect about it to make themselves feel better.

Like nobody would walk into a store and take a product off the shelf without paying and go "sorry it's not my responsibility for you to stay in business."

Even most people who do internet piracy understand that it's stealing, even though there is no physical loss of the product.

But using a website while intentionally blocking the method by which they run their business? Somehow that's totally different.

Stores expect close to 100% of people to pay for the product (minus less than 2% of "inventory shrink".)

Clickthrough rates (CTR) are exceeding smaller. I am not part of that 0.35% and choose to not be distracted or worse by it. It's not my fault it's a terrible business model.

https://blog.hubspot.com/agency/google-adwords-benchmark-data

Across all industries, the average CTR for a search ad is 1.91%, and 0.35% for a display ad.

Luke_rabbit

I'm surprised they can't get relevant ads. Like exercise equipment, exercise clothing & shoes, clothing in general (since we are losing weight), healthy foods, restaurants with healthy options, protein shakes and bars, etc. A bunch of click bait ads makes me sad.

Just today, I ordered new clothes (down one size!). If I had seen an ad on here, I may have clicked through and provided revenue to the app. I'm never gonna click on stupid ads, though. I like free sites and apps and try to help when I can via ad income.

AnnPT77

boldknee wrote: »

I'm surprised they can't get relevant ads. Like exercise equipment, exercise clothing & shoes, clothing in general (since we are losing weight), healthy foods, restaurants with healthy options, protein shakes and bars, etc. A bunch of click bait ads makes me sad.

Just today, I ordered new clothes (down one size!). If I had seen an ad on here, I may have clicked through and provided revenue to the app. I'm never gonna click on stupid ads, though. I like free sites and apps and try to help when I can via ad income.

It's highly, highly unlikely that MFP's booking the ads directly. They're brokered. Likely some are delivered because this is a diet/fitness site, some because of what we've clicked elsewhere in the past.

I keep seeing plus-sized clothing ads on various sites, even though I haven't been plus-sized in several years; and Spanish-language ads because I've watched a few subtitled Spanish-language videos in the past. I'm not bothered by the business model (show me ads on free services), and I'm not creeped out by the privacy intrusion of something dumb enough to be as insensitive as the examples I mentioned.

MikePTY

cmriverside wrote: »

MikePTY wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

Sorry Mike, I don't use the internet so you can stay in business.

And, yeah, UA probably looks at it that way too.

That's why I didn't use the name of the browser, my posts have been deleted in the past when I do. Somehow that browser has found a way to stay in business.

I've never clicked on an ad on MFP, so why have them available for myself?

I also don't buy magazines or newspapers or network and cable TV for the same reason. I'd rather pay to NOT have them.

They likely view it that way because that's what it is. People just have a mental disconnect about it to make themselves feel better.

Like nobody would walk into a store and take a product off the shelf without paying and go "sorry it's not my responsibility for you to stay in business."

Even most people who do internet piracy understand that it's stealing, even though there is no physical loss of the product.

But using a website while intentionally blocking the method by which they run their business? Somehow that's totally different.

Um. Okay.

That is a ridiculous twist of thinking. I window shop all the time and don't buy anything. I'm guessing you do too. That's not stealing. Neither is using ad blockers. And no, I lose no sleep when Nordstrom closes a store.

I do feel that if you use a brick and mortar store to research a product, talk to its employees, use its knowledge, test it out, then go buy it on Amazon, that's unethical. I still hesitate to call it "stealing," though. I live in Seattle and dislike Amazon, think it needs to be broken up, charge fair market value for delivery etc.

If I pay to NOT have something does that fall into your logic, because I am not understanding why you say this? (below)

MikePTY wrote: »

I like to think "who clicks on these type of ads", but then I realize I've clicked on a lot of sponsored type content like this before, not on these rediculous type ads but on other sites that have more revelant referral network ads to me. Given how ubiquitous they are, I would imagine that the economics of them work out for both the advertiser and the hosting site.

No ads is the main reason I am glad to have premium. It seems like they at emaking the ads even more insufferable to try to get more people on it.

You are not window shopping here though. You are actively using their product. You are choosing to get the service and not pay the price of admission.

I am not sure why you are confused by my comment about premium. MFP has a two pronged business model. One is a free, ad supported option where they make money by exposing users to ads. The second is a premium option, which as one of its main benefits, includes no ads. But you pay for that. So that is how MFP makes it money off of me using its service. Sure MFP offers other benefits for premium, but no ads is the biggest draw. There are a lot of sites that offer a subscription service where no ads is either the premium or only draw of it.

Option 3, which is to use the service but also not subject yourself to ads or pay the premium price for not having ads, is at the least unethical in my opinion.

Right now it more or less functions okay because only a small amount of users use ad blocking, so you all get to enjoy the benefits of that while everyone else supports the free internet for you. But if ad blocking continues to grow, it will radically change the internet as we know it. We've already started to see it happen with online news media. In the past, online news media from top news sources used to be free and ad supported. Now the vast majority have paywalls after a certain number of views. Ad blockers are certainly not the only reason for why the business model is changing, but it's made it that much harder to support sites on strictly a free and ad supported basis.

cmriverside

You are not window shopping here though. You are actively using their product. You are choosing to get the service and not pay the price of admission

Their product which is free. It was designed that way. When I joined there was not an option of "premium/no ads" MFP. Not sure why you think it's wrong to use a (free) browser that blocks ads, or even an ad blocker. I never clicked an ad, never bought anything from clicking an ad on MFP. So why would I want to see those ads?

We've already started to see it happen with online news media.

News media. LOL. If they can get people to pay for that crap, more power to them. Again, I'm not gonna pay for "news." I would pay if the weather channel decided to charge because I see value in weather info. I see Zero Value in "news" content.

cmriverside

This thread is being actively moderated. I'm not wasting any more time posting in this thread, as my posts are being deleted before even being allowed, as has been the case other times I've been involved in this topic.

This will be a one-sided discussion. Too bad.

kshama2001

cmriverside wrote: »

This thread is being actively moderated. I'm not wasting any more time posting in this thread, as my posts are being deleted before even being allowed, as has been the case other times I've been involved in this topic.

This will be a one-sided discussion. Too bad.

@cmriverside I think they are being auto-zapped due to certain keywords. What's interesting to me is that Mike's posts with those same keywords are allowed, but I can't quote them and disagree, even if I don't use those same keywords in my post, just in the post I quoted.

MikePTY

cmriverside wrote: »

This thread is being actively moderated. I'm not wasting any more time posting in this thread, as my posts are being deleted before even being allowed, as has been the case other times I've been involved in this topic.

This will be a one-sided discussion. Too bad.

I mean it's not one sided in the direction you seem to think it is. But I also had some of my posts "submitted for review" on this thread.

kshama2001

Re online news media: I do have a paid subscription to the New York Times. I used to have a paid subscription to America's Test Kitchen. In both cases, they offer super high quality content that makes it worth the subscription IMO. (I let go of America's Test Kitchen after they booted Christopher Kimble and I discovered NYT Cooking.)

I am certainly not going to pay to participate in a chat forum and none of the Premium features to me are worth what's being charged, which is about the same as the subscription costs I pay/paid for the other two sites.

If MFP were to clean up the glitchy and cluttered database, and reduce the price, I'd consider it.

kshama2001

.

cmriverside

MikePTY wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

This thread is being actively moderated. I'm not wasting any more time posting in this thread, as my posts are being deleted before even being allowed, as has been the case other times I've been involved in this topic.

This will be a one-sided discussion. Too bad.

I mean it's not one sided in the direction you seem to think it is. But I also had some of my posts "submitted for review" on this thread.

Yes, it is.. It's not worth it to me to continue on this discussion. And it is being skewed, because my posts are anti *their* way and are being disallowed. I probably will get warned for even saying that.

@cmriverside I think they are being auto-zapped due to certain keywords. What's interesting to me is that Mike's posts with those same keywords are allowed, but I can't quote them and disagree, even if I don't use those same keywords in my post, just in the post I quoted.

I know.