back to article Google Contributor: Ad-block killer – or proof NO ONE will pay for news?

Google has offered to charge people a monthly subscription fee to read articles and gawp at photos online. Paying for published news and features has never been attempted before, which makes Google's Contributor system a milestone for civilization. People who subscribe to websites using Contributor will see "thank you" …

  1. Snowy Silver badge

    If I was paying for the site I would want ads gone completely not replace by any "This was an add thank you". The removal of Ads gives more screen for the content which you would be paying for the the pat on the back which you paid for.

    Also ads can run far to many scripts (doing far to many things) which do too many things which is why people run ad blockers in the first place.

    1. VinceH
      Big Brother

      "Also ads can run far to many scripts (doing far to many things) which do too many things which is why people run ad blockers in the first place.

      This is the important point: What Google is hoping to see with this trial isn't so much prove whether or not people will pay for content without advertising, it's to guage whether or not people will pay for content without advertising while not blocking that advertising - and therefore not blocking their scripts.

      If enough people will do that, it's a win-win for them; they (and the websites) still get [some of] the income they would have from advertising and, more importantly for Google, they get to track the people gullible enough to fall for it.

  2. Michael Habel

    I have a better Option...

    1) Root your Phablet.... Assuming you still can... Android 5. May or may not apply here....

    2) Install AdAway....

    3) ????

    4) PROFIT!! No more Ads in, or outside of any Apps or the Browser...

    On a side note, about the All Top 100 Apps being Hacked / Cracked... Did they count that little Gem too? 'Cause this is perhaps THE NUMBER ONE APP that always gets installed on everything.... EVERYTHING!

  3. phil dude
    Joke

    huh?

    What's an ad?

    P.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Holmes

      Re: huh?

      There must be a huge number of people who don't use their online time like I do for online ads to be worth any money at all.

      The last time I saw an online ad?

      Can't remember - years. Probably more recently, but I didn't notice. AdBlock really works.

      The last time I read an online ad I inadvertently saw?

      Can't remember - years.

      The last ad that I remember any information from?

      Can't recall any in particular. Some of the old Microsoft ads were annoyingly funny in their attempts at tech-speak and their lack of truthfulness. Those old Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld online videos were almost humorous.

      1. the old rang

        Re: huh?

        I would be more than happy to pay for access to 'journalism' sites, (hereafter called 'deadstream' media), if they accurately reported the news, rather that exercises in how many ways to lie and how to help fellow liars get elected..

        NOTE: I am referring to the US media in almost total, not UK media.

        If they could tell the truth for a change, they would not be hitting the red ink category in business so often.

        It seems that even the US populace is getting wise to their sins.

        1. Ole Juul

          Re: huh?

          I would be more than happy to pay for access to 'journalism' sites, (hereafter called 'deadstream' media), if they accurately reported the news, rather that exercises in how many ways to lie and how to help fellow liars get elected..

          So ignore the ones that don't fit your wishes and only go to the ones that do. There are indeed a few good ones out there. Why not send them five bucks once in a while? That would help them become more prominent.

        2. Thought About IT

          Re: huh?

          "I would be more than happy to pay for access to 'journalism' sites, (hereafter called 'deadstream' media), if they accurately reported the news, rather that exercises in how many ways to lie and how to help fellow liars get elected."

          Are you insinuating that Fox News is not "Fair and Balanced", and when they say "We report, you decide", they only report stuff that fits their agenda? I'm shocked!

          1. the old rang

            Re: huh?

            I see the lib tin hats are posting... mentioning only FOX, not the deep miasma of deadstream like abcnbccbscnnnytwapolatyada yada nada.

            1) To be fair - I don't do FOX either...

            2) BUT.. I would not trust the nyt for base ball scores... and msnbc competing so leftly with cnn for last place, shows REAL reporters and reporting are needed... not lib readers of what their handlers tell them. (how many pink slips, this month, oh deadstream media? any more theories on that plane crash? and little to nothing on your dnc corruption cover-ups?)

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: huh?

            Fox News - is that like Fairfax media? Unwind the "Newspeak" from their banner slogan and it reads "Socialist Forever".

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: huh?

      "What's an ad?"

      These days, it appears they are full sound and video auto-running presentations that completely obscure the article you want to read and are unstoppable. At least that was my experience on El Reg the other day using a fresh install of firefox for which I'd forgotton to add the "sanity" plugins.

      For sites like El Reg where ad revenue is important I'd happily not block the ads if they were not so intrusive as to either obscure the article or distract my attention with flashing animations. I found this site unusable wthiout ad/flash blocking. God only knows what it must do to screen readers for blind users.

      1. Dr. Mouse

        Re: huh?

        For sites like El Reg where ad revenue is important I'd happily not block the ads if they were not so intrusive as to either obscure the article or distract my attention with flashing animations.

        Here here!

        I have recently re-enabled ABP on el Reg due to the invasiveness of the ads.

        Instead of this Google initiative, I'd like to see sites do something like another of my regular reads: f1fanatic.co.uk. Here, they allow you to pay a small fee (£1/month) to remove all the ads. As I use it so often, and want to support the site, I pay this fee. I would do so for el Reg, if they had the option. Other sites I wouldn't bother with, but would allow (small, unintrusive) adverts. I will always block intrusive adverts.

        One of the most annoying types of advert on here is the "change the colour and put stuff in the margins" advert. If I select text, I have always clicked in the margins to deselect. On el Reg, without ABP: BAM! You are on some other site, who are trying to sell you some **** that you don't want!

  4. Detective Emil
    FAIL

    Lemme see. So I have to have a Google account in order to participate?

    usleep(1);

    Nope.

    1. Pseu Donyme

      Indeed. Not only does this greatly facilitate collecting a profile of one's browsing habits, but also allows tying one's real world identity to the profile (as an unavoidable side effect of paying for this).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Hypocritical on both Google and the web sites' part

        Yep, Google is trying to portray this as doing something for the consumer, but it is self serving for them and their real customers, the advertisers (who I'll bet share in this gold mine of demographic data getting information about people who are willing to pay to avoid ads)

        Not to mention, having ads replaced by "thank you" does absolutely NOTHING for me. Would TV be better if four minutes of ads were replaced by four minutes of thank yous? I'd still skip through them my DVR, still be annoyed at them when I'm watching something live, and still end up with less actual content per hour.

        For a real thank you, all the sites that arrange their content so you have to keep hitting "next" through pages that are 80% ad covered which will now be 80% thank you covered could put all their content onto single pages with content only. But they won't, because it would mean more work on their part.

    2. the old rang

      I have no google or other spy media accounts that sell info to highs bidder (or give freeeeeee to dnc - - no questions asked in deadstream about $150,000,000 database system with full software, hardware,staffing maintenance and database GIVEN to queen barries campaign. that amount is for an instant system, well in ex-cess of any non-reportable campaign contributions for the whole eletion, not just one candidate. )

  5. John Tserkezis

    Look at it from a user's perspective.

    The only ads that will go away are from Google inspired "Contributor" ads by participating vendors.

    As users, we don't give a rat's flying arse as to who gets what money, what we DO care about is of ALL the ads we see, which are Google's, and of those, how many are "Contributor" ads.

    Hardly any? Then why the fuck should be pay Google? Why?

  6. Shadow Systems

    Or use AdBlockers, a Hosts file, & NoScript for no ads whatsoever.

    I don't want ads in my face, so I ignore them when they show themselves. If I'm listening to the tv & a commercial comes on, I get up & leave the room for a bit. Refill the drink, go to the bathroom, find out what the cat's gotten up to, whatever. I don't listen to the ads, you don't get my eyeballs, you don't get my business.

    If I'm listening to the radio & an ad comes on, I switch the station. Scan until I find a song I like, listen until an ad starts to play, and hit the Scan again for more music.

    If I'm listening to my own stored music, there's no ads at all, and damn does that make for an enjoyable listening experience.

    If I'm online & someone shoves an ad in my face, I identify the domain serving it, add the domain to my Hosts file, refresh the page, & watch the ad go *POOF*. If it's not already blocked by the AdBlocker, NoScript, & Hosts file, and *still* manages to sneak through, those get sent to the Real Time Black Lists folks, and usually less than an hour later, that ad server gets nuked from my system; in the mean time, I ignore the ad, & probably add the site it appeared upon to my Personal Shit List.

    I don't want to see the ads, I'm not PAYING to see ads, and I sure as fuck won't pay to NOT see ads. There are too many free ways to make sure they never appear.

    Advertisers had their chance. I was fine with text based, non in-my-face ads that were relevant to my needs. But then you started the blinking, scrolling marquis, IN MY FACE, pop over/under, can't get rid of even after killing the browser, drive by virus installing, completely irrelevant to my needs *BULLSHIT* practices that earned you my eternal hatred. You fucked me over with a virus, you no longer get loaded by my computer. ANY computer I manage. Ever. Fuck you and the Sales & Marketing degree that you floated to the surface upon. Pardon me while I flush your worthless pile of shit back down where you belong.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Holmes

      Re: Or use AdBlockers, a Hosts file, & NoScript for no ads whatsoever.

      Yup, what he said. When ads started carrying malware and attempting to track my every move, that's when I pretty much flushed then all. You can advertise to me again when you:

      a. Secure your stuff so malware isn't being injected

      b. Don't try to drop anything - cookies, trackers, whatever - on my system

      c. Make your stuff non-annoying, by which I mean text based, no need for photos and autostart videos and do forth

    2. Florida1920
      Coffee/keyboard

      Re: Or use AdBlockers, a Hosts file, & NoScript for no ads whatsoever.

      Other than that, how did you like our site?

    3. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      Re: Or use AdBlockers, a Hosts file, & NoScript for no ads whatsoever.

      You must be spending a lot of time on the crapper then.

      Commercial TV is fast becoming a constant stream of adverts interrupted by other stuff which is also laden with advertising through product placement.

      I watched something on Sky as it was broadcast at a friends the other week. The 'other stuff' was ok but just as you were getting interested in the story, it was interruped by 5 mins od adverts. 20-25 mine per hour of this crap seems to be the norm these days.

      It is little wonder that I record just about everything I want to watch on TV.

      But it is increasingly closer to the time when I ask myself,

      Is it time to get rid of the GoggleBox?

      If the likes of Sky etc don't watch out, the level of adverts will reach a tipping point and people will realise that they can't stand being bombarded with Adverts all the time and they'll just switch off.

  7. Donald Becker

    I learned my lesson long ago. I don't mind paying for content, but it never works out.

    Paying for the content doesn't get rid of ads for very long. It just makes you more valuable to advertisers, and ends up provides two revenue streams. Just look at cable TV and satellite radio for obvious examples.

    It will be only a few months before subscribers start seeing just as many non-Google ads, 'sponsored stories', and a news-like headline on thinly disguised advertisements.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If this flops

    Which I think it will, look for Google and the advertisers to claim it means that people don't really mind ads and the current amount isn't "too much" after all.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Next!

    For only $20 a month Google promises not to break all the bones in your face.

  10. Turtle

    Onions

    "Google is running the subscription system on a "very limited" trial run. The handful of participating sites include The Onion..."

    Oh, I remember The Onion! I used to go to their site pretty regularly but that was a long time ago. Before they started to put less and less stuff to read in favor of more and more stuff to watch...

  11. Jan 0 Silver badge

    Google?

    I can see why I might pay Google to stop showing me advertisements, although I'm currently quite happy making a donation to AdBlock Plus. I have no idea how hideous raw Google is nowadays.

    Why would I need to pay Google to stop me seeing advertisements on "The Onion, Urban Dictionary, Science Daily, Imgur, wikiHow and Mashable". Are these Google owned sites? If not why wouldn't I pay the site owners?

    Just for the record, I'd be delighted to pay for sites without advertisements. There are plenty of sites I'd pay to read, with El Reg at the top of my list . Why are web micropayments so difficult? It's time to give the elbow to advertisers and deflate the price of goods. (Save me the bollocks about how advertising informs me of new products and promotes economies of scale, on the contrary it just prevents the best products from succeeding on their merits.)

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    To those who use ad-blockers, what do you do when a site with exclusive content starts using an ad-blocker-blocker or starts hosting ads locally (on the same domain) so they can't be blocked without blocking the actual content?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Ok

      If that starts happening then I'll take my business elsewhere as is my right.

      Stores, be they online or physical that are a pleasure to deal with and don't sell on your details are worth the repeat business. Yes we have to put up with some POS stores but IMHO it is better to keep doing business with places that actually seem to care about their customers.

      Small Business Saturday is coming up on 6th Dec. I'll be buying a lot of things for Christmas from local stores of the farmers market. The likes of Tesco, Asda, Aldi, Lidl etc won't see any of my business this year.

      for example, I'm just back from buying/ordering all my beer for Crimble from my local brewery (1 mile away as the crow flies). Even the hops they use are now grown locally.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: Ok

        But what do you do with a captive market, where the ONLY way to get the much-desired-and-exclusive content is to jump through their hoops? Will you jump the hoops or go without?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Ok

          I'll go without. I paid for and hosted my own content before "free online storage [costs covered by adverts" was around.

          I used "pay in/get out" websites, even though all I could "pay in" was time and effort to help the forums/news/updates coming.

          I buy my shopping, and don't steal it. I'll buy my media, but I have a limited budget, and the supply is already beyond the demand...

    2. phuzz Silver badge

      I've not seen an Adblock-blocker, and every site that's run ads from the same domain has been polite enough to serve them from www.somesite.com/ads or some other easily blocked url.

      If I couldn't find a way to block the ads I'd probably just go elsewhere, same as I do with paywalled sites.

  13. Tim99 Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Insufferable Smug Git Mode

    I use DuckDuckGo.

    On the occasions that I use Google (DuckDuckGo is not perfect) Google has to fight through a private mode browser, AdBlock, Privoxy, Ghostery, and a hosts file on a connection with a dynamic address.

    So, to them, I would appear to be a paranoid tight-arse who doesn't buy anything - Well the paranoid bit may be right...

  14. Christian Berger

    Will they still track you?

    I mean few people mind the ads, they mind the tracking by Google. This solution still means all requests will be known to Google.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Confused!

    "newspaper industry never thought of charging people for articles alongside ads; " AIUI quite a few newspapers do do this, but the from the rest of the article it doesn't seem to be sarcasm!

  16. David Roberts

    Aimed at tablet and phone users?

    On my tablet the most useable browser is Chrome.

    It handles tabs so much more nicely than Firefox.

    On Firefox you can install adblock plus.

    Strangely, on *cough* Google *cough* Chrome there doesn't seem to be the same option.

    I read that you can side load an ad blocker for Chrome, though.

    If you are happy side loading.

    Fortunately if you resize the screen the side bar ads are no longer visible.

    So perhaps this is Google offering a limited ad block for mobile users of Chrome, and not really relevant to you hairy arsed PC fettlers?

    1. Michael Habel

      Re: Aimed at tablet and phone users?

      Strangely, on *cough* Google *cough* Chrome there doesn't seem to be the same option.

      PROTIP: Google yourself up an, App called AdAway... It will not only make the Ads in your "Free" Angry Avions" Game go away... It will also rid you of such intrusive nastiness inside the AOSP, or Chrome Browsers too!! One wee little problem though... You have to be rooted to run it though...

  17. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    Can anyone suggest an adblocker / browser solution for Win 8 RT ?

    One of my many gadgets is a Surface 2 running Win 8.1, but it's the non-Intel RT version of the OS.

    I've not yet found an adblocker solution, making the Surface 2 and its lovely screen rather unusable for YouTube.

    Can anyone suggest an adblocker / browser solution for Win 8 RT ?

    Thanks.

    1. Aus Tech

      Re: Can anyone suggest an adblocker / browser solution for Win 8 RT ?

      Firefox with AdBlock+ and NoScript is what I use, and the combination does a great job, that is if you can get Firefox for your hardware.

  18. Eguro
    Thumb Up

    I'd probably not mind paying sites for an ad-free version (ad-free does not mean thank-you laden).

    I would mind paying Google to pay sites for an ad-free version.

    ElReg you could pave the way. However much you earn from ads per person/month = monthly subscription fee. That buys user ElReg lite. No ads, no trackers, no nothing. (granted it might cost a bit to set up - but think of the potential end result: "Vulture does, what Google can't")

    Payment options should of course include crypto coins, paypal, credit cards - to suit the assorted mix of people on here :)

    1. phuzz Silver badge

      I'd happily pay elReg a few quid a month to make up for never viewing their ads.

  19. Rich 2 Silver badge

    Why!

    Rather than giving google even more money, why don't the sites just run their pwn subscription service?

    Do we need google for everything????

    1. RyokuMas
      Devil

      Re: Why!

      "Do we need google for everything????"

      Google - and their brainwashed masses - are doing their damnedest to try and convince us that this is the case...

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not playing, had enough several years ago

    The internet is a communications network, not a business, and when you go too far trying or annoying me to 'inform' me (trying to trick me to buy useless, overpriced or irrelevant shit), I block you permanently...

    I have a fully battery of anti-script, anti-advert, cookies expire on leaving site, anti-beacons, anti-'images', anti-local_storage plugins etc.; if a site doesn't work with this, I ban it, or try it in a separate sandboxed browser or device if I really want to use the site. I find anti-ad-block nags just as childish as artists who expect wealth to magically appear by rentier methods via fictional concepts like IP, rather than by performance.

    Films do not have adverts, and other better presented video doesn't either, they have product placement, but I'll stop watching when this becomes clumsily obvious or not a sensible part of the story.

    Disciples of Edward Bernays, just die much sooner, preferably in a humiliating or painful ways to yourself and family!

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Not playing, had enough several years ago

      Films may not have ads, but they bombard you with ads before the feature, plus there's the matter of product placement, which is itself a form of advertisement.

      1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

        Re: Not playing, had enough several years ago

        What a niaive AC you are. Of course the internet is a business. It takes money to run that business. If you don't like the advertising that's fine, block it or ignore it as is your right. But just as it is your right to block advertising it is the content provider or hosts right to put it there in the first place.

        Films are chock full of advertising. Are you telling me you don't watch any film with product placement? If you are you must not watch many films at all. Sometimes product placement is more intrusive than an ad break. Shoehorning action or disalogue to fit in a product plug can be much clunkier than simply having a pause for a 30 second advert.

        And as for your battery of tools, that would be much more intrusive to you browsing enjoyment than the adverts themselves. But then I suppose having your tinfoil hat slip down over your eyes is pretty intrusive too.

  21. Rol

    Why not?

    There are many sites , like El reg, where I give as many permissions as possible to, within my NoScript environment, but the way things are set up, I can't allow Googles gubbins in El Reg without remembering every time I visit or setting as permanent, which would mean every site.

    The problem of allowing Mr Ad to fill my bandwidth to breaking point won't be lost on the readers here and no doubt the knowledge of your internet habits being recorded for eternity is also a bit off putting.

    But maybe if Google flung some money at the ad-block, script block people to assist in developing an "I love this site enough to permanently allow Google's shit on this site and this site only" option, then maybe we have a solution to keeping things "free"

    1. Fluffy Bunny

      Re: Why not?

      Adblock already has the ability to control what sites show ads. They put it in about a year ago.

  22. Teiwaz

    Best Ad-Blocker - the Human Brain

    The same ability that allows you to single out a single voice in a crowded room comes into good use for most ads.

    This has been well trained over the last half century with regards to conventional adss on radio then TV, and works much the same for ads on web pages as well.

    Web pages that play ads with audio get closed immediately, those sites are not worth reading anyway.

  23. Grease Monkey Silver badge

    Pretty pointless service really. Firslty Google's banner ads aren't particularly intrusive and are, therefore, easy to ignore. More intrusive ads are the main reason people use ad blockers.

    And secondly it only works for Google served ads, I'm betting Google's advertising will only mention that in the very small print.

    But really why pay Google to block their own ads when you can get several perfectly good ad blockers gratis?

  24. cs94njw

    Poor ElReg.

    Didn't ElReg do a trial or survey a while back about paid for content/advertising?

    I read an article a while back about why Google wouldn't create a paid-for business model. If you pay for something, you expect a service in return, and you can't change your business/T&Cs at the drop of a hat. So I'm surprised they're going for this.

    Otherwise I would be happy to pay a subscription (not much I admit) for Gmail/Keep/Google Drive if it meant no ads.

    I would pay ElReg too, but I admit it would also have to be a small amount.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like