ReadWriteWeb needs to die. They just copy stories word for word, add a few lines and then produce some of the worst link bait titles on the web. Zero value.
Microsoft made him wealthy. People became amazed and dazed, willing to give him more money.
Good on him for not caring. FU money. He suckered Microsoft and that's enough. He's set for life.
But it's not the hoodie, it's who's in it.
If he's rejected by investment bankers, it's not because he wore a hoodie. It's because of who he is. Wearing hoodies to meetings is but one very small part.
Now, let's be serious. If we all block ads, whic is really trivial to do, then the web would cease to be an important medium, the quality of content found through the web would drop sharply and our lives would lose the enrichment that online advertising brings. It would just be terrible. Don't block ads. A kitten is tortured everytime you do.
I think you have your tongue in cheek, but I'm going to bite because I have something to say even if you're not being serious ;-)
I'm an online publisher who has a significant percentage of income that comes via advertising and I think ad blocking is a good force for the Web. I don't use it, but I don't have a problem with those who do.
Ad blockers typically block poorly performing display advertising (the CTRs on banners nowadays is ridiculously low and the levels of recall have been shown to be abysmally low in studies) and text link advertising from the big networks.
Ad blockers typically do not block 'content marketing', videos on sites like YouTube, editorial mentions of products, references to products and services within content, adverts in podcasts, job ads (usually), sponsors in e-mail newsletters, and a whole myriad of other ways that smart advertisers and publishers are using.
It's about time we killed off mass market display advertising online. Why? Because it gives publishers an incentive to actually work to provide experiences that benefit both readers and advertisers and not sit on their fat asses collecting checks for doing sod all.
I'm not sure I understand. Moving from obvious ads to "editorial mentions of products" and "references to products and services within content" is supposed to be an improvement of some sort? To me those seem like just about the sleaziest kind of advertising there is.
As with many things, it depends on how it's done. If there's no disclosure and editorial keeps referring to certain products or companies without any implication of a relationship, that's just payola. Sadly, there are plenty of outlets and magazines that are suspected of or have been caught doing this.
Increasingly, though, reputable media organizations are doing collaborations with brands, such as with merchandise, pull outs, giveaways, or in clearly marked 'products we like' sections (essentially advertising as content - super popular in fashion and women's magazines). It's a rapidly spreading model in the magazine space in particular. Monocle magazine is one of the exemplary examples - http://www.reallypractical.com/2009/07/06/is-monocle-the-fut...
The big traffic/small CPM model is still too lucrative online for the bigger online publishers to spend too much time on the newer ideas, but the hands of other media have been forced by tumbling revenues and, in a funny twist, are becoming more progressive.
On quality, though, the readership will ultimately vote with their feet (or clicks) - outlets that fall into the payola trap will suffer audience drops and legal trouble, outlets that transparently entertain or inform their readership in conjunction with advertisers will thrive (as Monocle is).
Separate from pairing up with media outlets, many advertisers are now going 'direct' to audiences with content-driven campaigns (not just videos, but entire content sites). Digitally prodigious companies and startups have been doing this for ages with blogs and the like, but the approach is now becoming mainstream and being taken on by the big brands.
Ad blockers are next to useless on all of this but, IMHO, the end result is better. Outlets and brands have to start telling interesting stories and sharing interesting content, instead of tricking us into clicking graphics and becoming leads.
If you don't believe this is an important issue, then please consider the example of public television. The damage it has caused by denying income to advertisers has been immeasurable. Not to mention that the programs they show serve only to dull the minds of the population. Please do not block ads. My kitten thanks you for your anticipated cooperation.
You might only need 1 in 10,000 ad views to result in a click to make money. It entirely depends upon what you're trying to get them to do/buy/sign up for on your site.
"We sell domain names too!"
Just one more thing they can add to their list of "services".
Does it increase security?
Just throw in some buzzwords that clients identify with security. Sold.
No one ever audits the auditor.
Maybe it increases security in the mind of the client or the end-user.
And that's enough to sell the services.