It's not ad revenue. If you're on a site to buy something, and you see an ad and click away from the site where you can buy the thing, someone's fucked up terribly; there's no way the ad revenue was worth the lost potential lost chicken sandwich.
They're irritated because your ad blocker is preventing third-party tracking devices from linking your chicken purchase back to a wider consumer profile of you from other ad activity on the internet.
linking your chicken purchase back to a wider consumer profile of you from other ad activity on the internet.
Based on the time spent on KFC.com, the lingering cursor sweeps over the images of chicken, and the occasional clicks to purchase but failure to put payment information, we have determined that user mozz is a fox.
I honestly never encounter this? It's so rare for any website to flag me as using and ad blocker. I use Firefox and ublock origin which I assume to be pretty standard
Hello there, sounds like you're experiencing survivorship bias.
Its rare for you to see this, sure. Same for everyone else. But people aren't here to post screenshots of "look at this website where I didn't get flagged for having an ad blocker." So we just see a lot of screenshots where it is a problem, because that's what is noteworthy. There isn't someone out there getting flagged on every single website they open, we're just sampling a large population of user for only the websites where people do get flagged.
Why are we talking about this at all? Because it is becoming more common and more intrusive. This example is particularly egregious because you're already on the website to give them money. They're complaining to the user they they don't get to make money off of them while taking their money, which is ridiculous.