I guess it worked ok for them, given that they are still doing it. I can never open a Forbes link. Not in a 'disable ad blocker pop-up' sort of way, but it just redirects to the home page. Sometimes it would work after a couple of tries. The upshot is that I never open Forbes links any more.
No, but I use the anti-adblock killer. Is this better ? While it's a good exercise academically, in the long run, I just don't visit sites that block ad-blockers.
The userscript that accompanies it catches a bunch of things that AAK misses. Ctrl-Fing through the script, I see there's a section specifically for "forbes.com".
That's a great question: They're still a company that I read articles from every now and then, so I personally assume they're doing well enough to still exist. How did it work out for them? Not trying to be a snarky bastard here, I genuinely want to know how it worked out for them, because I don't know this story and am too lazy to do research on it right now, and given the tone of your comment, I'd imagine it'll be easier for you to provide me some starting material to give me a head start.
I'm not who you replied to, but I was genuinely curious too. This is the best evidence I can find [0][1]... It looks like it probably did negatively impact Forbes (and other websites that have blocked adblockers).
But if they're sticking with that behavior, maybe it's not so bad? I also saw that their physical magazine readership is up (while other competing magazines are down or flat).
That doesn't seem like as big a deal. Ad blocker users are not uncommon, but not the majority either. "Google users" is quite possibly the broadest demographic you could possibly lose.
I wouldn't be so sure. They probably rely significantly on enterprise/university/library subscribers. Journals haven't gone anywhere despite being paid forever. This will also switch to the journal bait and switch model. Show the abstract in google results, but require money to read the full article.
