Ad-Liberated
- Posted by: Jason Jude Chan
- on November 11, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Let’s face it: Online ads are eyesores—even when they don’t suddenly become animate and seize control of your screen. To our rescue comes a conceptual artist named Steve Lambert, with an idea to spread art at the cost of advertisers. “I’ve always had an eye for ads, but wondered why they were there,” says Lambert, the crusading founder of the Anti-Advertising Agency. He designed a free Firefox extension, aptly named Add-Art, which replaces web ads with curated artworks. Imagine, in the corner of your browser window, a Beaux-Arts masterpiece instead of an American Apparel faux-art ad. Now that’s thinking outside the box.
LEARN MORE add-art.org
DISCUSSION: 4 Comments
I’d rather do away with the adds and the space they take up on sites. AdBlock Plus takes care of this.
I am a fan of the AdBlock also, but I understand the need for ad sales. Free web subscription is better than no ads
Obviously, sites need to earn revenue from somewhere. Writers, editors, designers, etc. don’t work for free. NYTimes.com is a fantastic site and an incredible news source and if they are able to pay for all of that with advertising, I think that is a fair deal for users. The print version includes advertising and is not free.TV advertisers are combatting Tivo by making ads more subversive or integrated into story lines. I suppose that’d be an alternative for news sources – I suspect USA Today has a business model built around this idea – but it wouldn’t be my first choice. I’d prefer to read real news mixed with banner ads.
I would be willing to pay to hear or see the news if it meant that journalists, designers and editors got paid and I wasn’t being inundated with advertising, either via banner or context.Can’t say the same for most of the crap on TV though so clearly this isn’t an all around business model.