This might not be a popular sentiment, but if people are installing ad blockers, doesn't that mean they would rarely buy anything or be influenced by an ad? For me, I find some ads useful, such as Google Adsense so they're not a real nuisance for me. But if someone found them only intrusive, and not useful, if they didn't view the ad, that means MORE higher quality eyeballs.
So in a strange way, Destructoid is getting its FAIR share of ad revenue, since it's ONLY being shown to the people who find ads useful, and would buy something from an ad.
I understand it's not "fair" to be paid less for writing high quality content, but ad revenue is not welfare, and it's not a mandatory tip jar. Ad revenue is an exchange of value between advertisers and publishers, and if there's no value, then you shouldn't complain about not getting enough ad revenue.
Most ads are paid CPC, not CPM. So the advertiser doesn't pay until someone actually clicks the ad. And while it may be true that people who block ads would be less likely to click them, I doubt it's the case that they wouldn't click them at all.
Right, but from the point of view of the advertiser, the user would be "Buying something" - access to the contents of the article, which is in principle being paid for by the advertising. This is the model that is failing - and why so much effort seems to be put into (mainly on videos) preventing you accessing the content without viewing the ads.
As for directly paying, this doesn't seem to be an option - see, the whole twitter thing, and the fact that having a paywall effectively prevents developing new readers (unless you are large/well known enough to avoid this problem)
Having a paywall doesn't prevent developing new readers: even if you charge for access, you always have the option of providing a sampling of your current or older content for free. For example, the NY Times has a paywall but lets people read a certain amount of free content before they have to subscribe.
So in a strange way, Destructoid is getting its FAIR share of ad revenue, since it's ONLY being shown to the people who find ads useful, and would buy something from an ad.
I understand it's not "fair" to be paid less for writing high quality content, but ad revenue is not welfare, and it's not a mandatory tip jar. Ad revenue is an exchange of value between advertisers and publishers, and if there's no value, then you shouldn't complain about not getting enough ad revenue.