Is Google selling the rope that we plan to hang them with?

Google is currently conducting an online experiment in alternative funding for the internet, which it has called Contributor. The program, which allows website viewers the option to a monthly fee of a few dollars to have ads removed from the site, is deemed “an experiment in additional ways to fund the web.”

When I stumbled upon this article while researching a topic for this blog post, I thought to myself “this seems to be the exact opposite direction the web is going.” Google, the company that brought me the free software platform (Google Docs) that I am writing this blog post on, is now experimenting with paying for ad-free website access.” Certainly, the old saying about how “a rich man will sell you the rope you plan to hang him with” did cross my mind as well.

After thinking about the program for a little while, I thought that the concept of paying to remove ads raises a valuable question of in regard to internet ethics: Should only those who can afford to pay, be allowed to block ads? And if the more affluent – the ones advertisers usually want to reach the most – are suddenly able to opt out of seeing advertisements, what does this mean for the future of web advertising? And lastly, seeing as how Google users pay for the privilege through Google, does it raise ethical concerns about the objectivity?

In regard to the first issue, the same issue has been raised with toll roads; the idea that the rich should not be able to buy their way out of traffic. Some might argue that being forced to view an ad is not a big deal, however, it could be a slippery slope. It could be only a matter of time before certain areas of a site are available to the ad-viewing public. Eventually, turning (or returning) the free and open internet to a pay-to-view domain.

From an advertising aspect, it also raises the question of the continued viability of online advertising. According to this article from AdWeek, 94 percent of ads on YouTube are skipped after the preroll. From an advertising perspective, if the only people who will see your ads are the people who won’t shell out $1 to make your ad go away, it serves to believe they won’t shell out the cash to buy your product either. Websites would probably claim to advertisers that the quantity of viewers may be diminished, but that the quality of those who are reached is heightened by the viewer not opting out of seeing the ad.

Lastly, should Google have the right to block ads for certain websites, but only if the site is willing to give Google a portion of the proceeds? There is no practical reason why a company would need to give Google a portion of the proceeds from the ad-removal sale. Any company can simply do this themselves. So it gives food to thought about how Google would protect this new business model. Google supporters would likely claim that the company would maintain a competitive advantage in this new business model by developing a comprehensive partnership across numerous channels to insure ease of transition from one site to another. Whereas Google detractors would likely claim that the more probable scenario is that Google will drive users toward sites that are on the payroll in a form of internet extortion.

The entire concept is odd, as Google still generates a large percentage of its revenue through ads. Are they selling us rope to hang them, setting the groundwork for internet extortion or just demonstrating, as they have done time after time, that they are far ahead of the curve.

While paying for internet is seemingly the internet returning to its roots, the easiest sign to grasp from the Contributor is that the business of the internet is constantly evolving; never content to rest on it laurels. And as things in the internet change, the more they stay the same . . .