&gt; if they can&#x27;t find out how their revenue is being affected,<p>Does &quot;being affected&quot; mean reduced? Because they&#x27;re not losing out on ad revenue they would otherwise gain. That&#x27;s the piracy argument with ads: if only everyone who used our product would pay us what we want, we wouldn&#x27;t be losing so much money. You can&#x27;t count browsers with ad-blockers as lost revenue. (You also can&#x27;t count search engines, REST and curl, etc... as lost revenue.)<p>&gt; then how can they decide if a change in revenue source is necessary?<p>Shouldn&#x27;t a change in revenue model be driven by the opportunities of a subscription (or other) model, not by issues with advertising?<p>It seems like you&#x27;re selling a service that will make your customers unhappy about reduced revenue, which they can&#x27;t do anything about. What can a customer do differently if they find 16% using ad blockers, or 34% using ad blockers? Their ad revenue is the same regardless of the percentage. Their other revenue models haven&#x27;t changed. All that&#x27;s changed is that now they&#x27;re mad about users with ad blockers. At best, if the percentage is going to drive a decision about changing revenue models, all they really need is a single data point, not a monthly service.<p>&gt; why are you opposed to websites knowing how many of their visitors are blocking ads?<p>Because people aren&#x27;t rational. They&#x27;ll get angry about a transaction cost of the advertising model, and do all the same stupid things we saw 2 or 3 years ago: rants of moral indignation, poorly implemented content blocking, big obnoxious pleas, etc...