Is it wrong to make advertisers pay for ads not viewed?

[Dordo]

I like to use ad block extensions because it is way more convenient, and I am under the impression that youtube and other websites know when an ad is blocked and no advertiser has to pay for the blocked ad (though I only know for certain that this is the case with youtube). In this scenario, I get to enjoy the content, but the video creator doesn't get money and the advertiser doesn't get to advertise.

 

If for instance adblock still told youtube that the ad is being viewed, making the advertiser pay for nothing, would this be wrong or at least bad practice? This scenario means that I enjoy the content, the video creator gets money, but the advertiser now loses double, they paid and didn't advertise.

[BTGBullseye]

Sounds like this is really a topic for the Serious Topic forum...

 

I personally wouldn't care. I loathe the intrusiveness of modern advertising, and if the advertisers paying for unseen advertising will get rid of some of the intrusions, (or not, just so long as I don't have to pay for it) I'm for it.

[Meelis13]

Thats actually interesting topic, as on one side, person cannot see the ad, so it would be unfair, BUT on other hand, advertise is placed in visible spot and is intrusive unblocked.

I think closest comparison to that on billboards and such is when advertising company makes advertising and places it in middle of forest. Nobody (or very few) see it, but advertising company charges company for job done and legally speaking- if no location is specified- they have done their job. I admit, i dont know specifics of online advertising, but i imagine it wouldnt be that different (otherwise we'd have LOT less ads).

So im inclined to say it would be fair game, as advertising companies probably do charge companies anyways, viewed or not