Last week I discussed how publishers should respond to ad blockers, and mentioned several different strategies. But there’s another complication, called “pay to play.”
Ad blockers aren’t really ad blockers if some of the advertisers have the option to pay to get their ads seen anyway. See, for example, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are paying Adblock Plus huge fees to get their ads unblocked.
It’s nice to hope every once in a while that there are companies out there that are trying to provide a decent service that actually benefits people. Unfortunately, when there’s a conflict between doing something the consumer actually wants and making an extra buck, the extra buck usually wins.
That seems to be the case with the ad blockers.
“Install this plugin and do away with those pesky ads,” they say. “I did that, but I’m still seeing ads. Why?” the user asks. “Oh, they paid us extra.”
Another path for publishers
Consider another path that would allow publishers and readers to make the deals they want to make. E.g., if you want content with ads, fine. If you want it without ads, that’s fine too — you just pay a little extra, or register, or answer this survey, or … whatever deal the publisher and the reader agree to.
Think of a generic reader app (or possibly a dedicated device, like a Kindle) where the reader is in control and gets the content he wants on terms negotiated with the content provider. That is, not on Apple’s terms, or Amazon’s terms, but on the publisher’s terms.
If I’m a subscriber to Wired, or Brew Your Own, or Field and Stream, or The Washington Times, I would be able to enter my credentials for each of those subscriptions and get my content in a single reader app — rather than having to download an app for each subscription, or go here, there and everywhere to get it.
I could also read other articles, blogs, rss feeds, etc. The app would be like Evernote, or Readly, or Kindle, or Flipboard, or any of the other reader apps out there, except that it would allow the reader to include subscription content.
RIght now, if I want to clip an article from The Atlantic to read on my train ride home, I put it in Evernote. But if I want to read a magazine, I either need that magazine’s app, or I need one of the newsstand apps, like Zinio or Magzter. If I want to read a blog, I need a web browser or an rss reader. And if I want to read a book, I need a Kindle or Nook app.
That’s not very convenient. I would rather have one reader app that includes all my content — paid and unpaid, subscription or single purchase.
The main problem with this concept is that it’s intended to serve both the reader and the publisher and doesn’t lead to world domination for the app / device owner. Amazon, Google, Apple et al. want to force everyone into their walled garden on their terms. My concept is for a service that intermediates between the reader and the publisher and allows them to set their own terms.
If my app / device existed, when a visitor came to a site with an ad blocker, the publisher would have another option — i.e., direct the reader to get the ad-free version of the content through this paid service.
The benefit would be that the reader woud probably already be using the app / device because lots of other publishers would be doing the same thing, and lots of different publishers would be promoting the use of this common standard.