新聞媒體將對廣告攔截軟件說不
People using ad-blocking software who visited the The New York Times website in March were shown a message. This read: “The best things in life aren’t free”. It went on to explain that “advertising helps us fund our journalism” and gave the visitor two options to read the newspaper’s online content: disable their ad-blocking software or pay for a subscription.
3月份，那些訪問《紐約時報》(New York Times)網站時使用廣告攔截軟件的人們看到了這樣一則消息：“生活中最美好的事物都不是免費的”。接着它解釋道“廣告資助着我們的報道”。隨後，該網站給訪問者兩個選擇去閱讀報紙的線上內容：禁用他們的廣告攔截軟件或爲訂閱付費。
Many angry internet users took to sites such as Twitter and Reddit to vent their frustrations: “It’s not OK to show me ads that detract from your website design and make it ugly,” said one. Others argued that ads were more than just an irritation as they could compromise user privacy and security.
許多憤懣的網友跑到Twitter和Reddit這類網站上泄憤：“讓我看那些有損貴網站設計並讓它看起來很醜的廣告可不怎麼樣，”一位網友說。其他人認爲廣告不僅惹人討厭還可能危及用戶的隱私和安全。
Despite this opposition, the newspaper is pressing ahead with plans to block the blockers. Dozens of other global media companies are preparing to do the same to protect their online revenues from the rapid and unrelenting rise of ad blocking.
儘管面對這樣的反對，這家報紙仍在加緊推行阻止攔截軟件的計劃。其他許多全球性媒體也準備採取相同措施，以保護其在線收入不受迅猛崛起的廣告攔截技術的危害。
PageFair, a company that helps publishers overcome ad-blocking software, had estimated that more than 200m people now use some form of blocker on their laptop or desktop computers, as do more than 420m of the world’s 1.8bn smartphone users.
PageFair，一家幫助出版商應對廣告攔截軟件的公司，評估出目前有超過2億人在他們的筆記本電腦或臺式電腦上使用某種形式的攔截軟件，全球18億智能手機用戶中有超過4.2億人也是如此。
For years, there was little publishers could do about people using programs such as Adblock Plus and uBlock Origin, which are free to download and highly effective at eliminating ads from web pages. In most cases, the software works by blocking communication between a web browser and a “blacklist” of internet addresses that are known to serve ads. As a second line of attack, blocking software can also prevent the browser from executing certain types of code associated with ads. However, there is an Achilles heel: blockers cannot work if a website serves both ads and content from a single computer server and shields both using techniques such as encryption. In such circumstances, ad blocking software cannot block the ads without also blocking the content.
多年來，對於人們使用Adblock Plus與uBlock Origin這類程序，出版商無能爲力，這些程序都是免費下載的，並能非常有效地消除來自網頁的廣告。大多數情況下，這類軟件會阻止瀏覽器連接到一系列已知的投放廣告的網址，這些網址被列入一份“黑名單”中。作爲第二道防線，攔截軟件還能阻止瀏覽器執行與廣告相關的某些類型的代碼。然而，有一個致命弱點：如果某網站由一個計算機服務器同時提供廣告和內容，並用加密之類的技術保護兩者，攔截軟件就無法奏效。這種情況下，廣告攔截軟件就不能只屏蔽廣告而不屏蔽內容。
A flurry of start-ups — including Sourcepoint and Secret Media — now offer publishers ways to circumvent ad-blocking software.
一系列初創企業——包括Sourcepoint和Secret Media——現在均面向出版商提供規避廣告攔截軟件的方案。
Another of these, Oriel, in June launched an anti-ad-blocking tool for WordPress, the content management system and blogging platform used by more than 60m websites. This will allow small bloggers as well as large media companies to take action against blocker software.
另一家公司，Oriel，6月份面向內容管理系統和博客平臺WordPress推出了一個反廣告攔截工具，目前有超過6000萬的網站在使用WordPress。由此，不論小博主還是大型媒體公司，對攔截軟件都將能採取反制措施了。
Aidan Joyce, chief executive of Oriel, says: “Ad-blocking technology is a blunt instrument which, by default, makes no differentiation between poor and quality advertising. Most ad-blocking users do not object to a reasonable advertising experience in return for quality free content.”
Oriel的首席執行官艾丹•喬伊斯(Aidan Joyce)說：“廣告攔截技術十分粗暴，基於默認，它對劣質和優質的廣告不加區分。多數廣告攔截軟件的使用者並不會反對閱覽適當的廣告來換取免費高質量內容。”
The New York Times found in its March experiment that more than 40 per cent of adblock users agreed to “whitelist” the website — thereby allowing ads to appear on their screens — so they could see the content.
《紐約時報》在其3月份的試驗中發現，超過40%的廣告攔截軟件使用者同意將該網站放入“白名單”——由此允許廣告在他們的屏幕上顯示——這樣他們便可以閱覽內容。
Mark Thompson, the group’s chief executive, said at a conference in June: “No one who refuses to contribute to the creation of high-quality journalism has the right to consume it. We are not there yet but, if we judge that it will strengthen the long-term prospects of that journalism to prevent non-subscribers who employ ad blockers and refuse to whitelist us from reading it, we’ll do it.”
《紐約時報》首席執行官馬克•湯普森(Mark Thompson)在6月份的一個會議上說：“拒絕爲創作高質量的報道做出貢獻的人沒有權利消費它。我們還沒有不讓那些使用廣告攔截軟件、並拒絕將我們列入白名單的非訂閱用戶閱讀我們的報道，但是，如果我們斷定這樣做會增進新聞事業的長遠發展，我們就會這樣做。”
To cater for people who hate advertising, the news organisation plans to introduce a higher-priced, advertisement-free subscription.
爲滿足討厭廣告的人，這家新聞機構計劃推出一份價格更高、但沒有廣告的訂閱。
Ben Barokas, chief executive of Sourcepoint, predicts that most publishers will have adopted some kind of technology to circumvent ad blockers by 2020. In his view, media groups should offer consumers a range of different ways to access content, including for-free with ads, micropayments and subscriptions.
Sourcepoint的首席執行官本•巴羅卡斯(Ben Barokas)預言，到2020年多數出版商將採用某種規避廣告攔截軟件的技術。他認爲，傳媒集團應提供給消費者一系列不同的方法去獲取內容，包括帶廣告免費閱讀、微支付閱讀及付費訂閱。
“Ad blocking is a canary in the coal mine for the media industry to be more transactional and more transparent in its relationship with consumers,” Mr Barokas says.
“廣告屏蔽好比礦井裏的金絲雀，讓媒體行業與消費者的關係更具交易性也更加透明，”巴羅卡斯說。
However, Sean Blanchfield, chief executive of PageFair, argues that publishers need to exercise care in how they use ad-blocker circumvention technology. He warns that such technology should not be used to preserve the status quo.
然而，PageFair的首席執行官西恩•布蘭奇菲爾德(Sean Blanchfield)認爲，對於如何運用規避廣告攔截軟件的技術，出版者需格外謹慎。他警告說這種技術不應用於維持現狀。
“Users have fundamental, legitimate concerns,” he says. “Ads that are served today have serious privacy and security problems.”
“用戶們的顧慮是最基本的，也是合情合理的，”他說。“目前的廣告投放確實存在嚴重的隱私安全問題。”
Mr Blanchfield says that PageFair aims to help publishers “redefine the advertising experience in a way that the typical ad-block user wouldn’t find objectionable”.
布蘭奇菲爾德說PageFair致力於幫出版者“以一種令典型廣告攔截器用戶不會反感的方式重新界定廣告體驗。”
He argues that publishers who fail to improve the ads they serve will alienate people and drive them towards platforms such as Facebook.
他認爲那些未能改進自身廣告的出版商，將會疏遠用戶並將他們導向Facebook這類平臺。
Publishers that ban ad blockers also risk losing their audience to rivals that take a more permissive stance. In some ways that matters little, since ad-block users do not generate ad revenues. But this argument ignores the fact that internet users are not just passive consumers; they often help distribute a publisher’s content by sharing links with friends through email, forums and social media.
禁用廣告攔截軟件的出版商們，也面臨着讀者向更寬容的競爭對手流失的風險。某種意義上而言那無關緊要，因爲使用廣告攔截軟件的用戶並不會帶來廣告收入。但是這一說法忽略了互聯網用戶不僅僅是被動消費者的事實；他們經常通過電子郵件、論壇及社交媒體向朋友們分享鏈接，從而幫出版商傳播內容。
More than half of UK adults using an ad blocker said they would switch it off if doing so was the only way to access a website, according to a survey by YouGov for the Interactive Advertising Bureau. But 39 per cent said they would not disable their ad blocker for any site.
輿觀(YouGov)爲美國互動廣告局(Interactive Advertising Bureau)所做的一份調查顯示，在使用廣告攔截軟件的英國成年人中，有超過半數的人表示，如果關閉攔截軟件是訪問某網站的唯一辦法，那他們會關掉它。但也有39%的人說他們不會爲任何網站禁用自己的廣告攔截軟件。
Meanwhile, Sweden’s biggest publishers will join forces next month to call the ad blockers’ bluff. In a month-long experiment the publishers will collectively block people who use ad blocking software. The idea is that by acting en masse, they will be able to turn the ad-blocking tide.
與此同時，瑞典幾個最大的出版商下個月將聯手叫板廣告攔截軟件。在爲期一個月的試驗中，這些出版商將一起屏蔽使用廣告攔截軟件的人。他們希望通過集體行動，可以扭轉廣告攔截的局面。
