My 2 cents
I agree with most answers here, in particular with Mithical's answer that:
Native ads, by definition, are designed to look and feel like a natural addition to a site. As you can see in the image below, the team worked very hard to make the ads feel like a part of the site
That's the problem. A tiny bit of grayscale text saying "Sponsored" does not count as clearly delineating advertisement content and actual content. You are sacrificing the reputation and reliability of the network by presenting ads in the same style as actual content instead of them being clearly distinct.
this kind of design makes accidental clicks far more likely, something many(including me, who has difficulty seeing details sometimes) had enough of.
A little diagram to show what this is all about
On the ethical part of these "native ads"
- Is this a good-faith ad?
I wouldn't call ads good faith, if they achieve the following(which the native ads do check)
- [x] camouflaged (inline ads in questions place)
- [x] difficulty to adblock (inline ads in questions place)
- [x] increasing accidental clicks
- [x] increasing difficulty for people who might have difficulty seeing details (a small, small, gray text "ad")
I don't think this is in "good faith". Which is why its so much more important to at least, try to find ways to fix this not just "do it". Practically? one can just "do it" but - if people can't block the ad without also blocking questions (cuz of "inline/camo ads") - then people might actually leave the site or at least, use it less often. Both of these outcomes = decreased engagement which, ironically speaking, ads is for increased engagement (in some sense).
Why is this a problem?
Because this will make users feel tricked:
In 2 different ways.
- (More known) Accidental clicks = hence tricked
- (Lesser known) Psychologically = tricked, psychologically(in the context of trust)
I think (1) speaks for itself, but (2) needs expansion: What do I mean by psychologically tricked? Well, trusted, long-term users here, might feel tricked in the sense of, "having built this place through contribution" and then "just to see it get turned into a ad site".
What happens when someone gets tricked?
When users get tricked - They might not like the site as much as they would have before (and, in my honest opinion, should have, because I believe ads can be done, but it has to be done the proper way.)
The goal of Ads - is already to get paid.
The goal of ads is to get paid already, so maximizing it (especially this way) doesn't really make any sense, in my honest opinion. I mean in the sense of making users less likely to want to engage with the site.
Note, one exception where I "am okay" with "Maximizing ads" is: IFF (If and Only If) Its done in a appropriate way.
For example, an AD (imo) which is acceptable (to me) should be:
- clear it is an ad.
- not intrusive (say, a big ad taking up content).
- not malicious in some way ("the user will click more here so place it here").
Note: "malicious" here is a strong word, I know, it's mostly to express how users feel that these ads would be.
The natural reaction is either:
- they simply turn on ad-blockers. Not because they dislike the site or the ads, but because they can't reliably tell the difference between real posts and inserted ads. Or
- they leave the site or use it less, (less likely if you was here much before, but if you are new? Maybe.)
Analogies
I like analogies because they often explain in a more easy-to-read manner.
Analogy 1:
You go to a site to download a file, and all ads say "Download here!" It becomes very very difficult to see where to click.
Analogy 2:
Imagine we walk into a grocery shop (or some other shop) where half the price tags look identical, except some are actual prices, and some are ads, pretending to be prices(for, maybe a product, which is very "small text" hence "camo ad").
Now..This analogy isn't so good but it hopefully still gets the point across.
Outcome
I guess there really are 2 outcomes:
- People continue and is not bothered (which, based on this thread, is not likely.)
- People are bothered and either use site less or use adblock or if its very intrusive/problematic ads, leave the site and try to find alternatives - hence doing the opposite of what the goal with the ads was.
Smaller outcome
- I don't know if this is how it goes but maybe some might get adblock right now just to be prepared, so they don't have to "wait" for some decision, (maybe psychologically? It would be perfectly understandable if people do that).
- A hypothetical, yet scary (though purely speculative) outcome of this, might be that the decreased engagement, might reach a (critical?) threshold where, its not good for any one (not good for the company, but also not good for the people needing help with programming questions) again, purely speculative. See the diagram above, as it explains the cause n effect already.
Take care!