Majority of Americans now use ad blockers(theregister.com)
theregister.com
Majority of Americans now use ad blockers
https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/27/america_ad_blocker/
71 comments
"Personalized" advertising is just plain dumb --- and it is only a matter of time before advertisers are forced to reach the same obvious conclusion as consumers.
I'm not a fan and block ads but doesn't it make sense to advertise people something they are likely to want?
I've seen it work fairly well on facebook with them popping up holiday suggestions that match fairly well with what users tend to book.
I've also had the awful version where I bought an oven and then for quite a while after all ads were for ovens. Which of course I had no interest in having just bought one. I don't know how long that went on for as I blocked them all.
I wouldn't mind the ad industry recommending me cheap and competent lawyers near me as I'm haveing issues with the expensive incompetent ones but that seems beyond the realms of possibility.
I've seen it work fairly well on facebook with them popping up holiday suggestions that match fairly well with what users tend to book.
I've also had the awful version where I bought an oven and then for quite a while after all ads were for ovens. Which of course I had no interest in having just bought one. I don't know how long that went on for as I blocked them all.
I wouldn't mind the ad industry recommending me cheap and competent lawyers near me as I'm haveing issues with the expensive incompetent ones but that seems beyond the realms of possibility.
doesn't it make sense to advertise people something they are likely to want?
Your oven experience is a perfect example.
Showing you oven ads when you are searching for an oven makes some sense. This is called "context sensitive" advertising.
Showing you oven ads on totally unrelated web sites long after you already bought one is the dumb "personalized" advertising that most people are now blocking.
Your oven experience is a perfect example.
Showing you oven ads when you are searching for an oven makes some sense. This is called "context sensitive" advertising.
Showing you oven ads on totally unrelated web sites long after you already bought one is the dumb "personalized" advertising that most people are now blocking.
I agree, but I've been waiting for this moment to arrive for over a decade...
It's coming. Progress is being made. A decade ago, the majority of Americans weren't using ad blockers.
This is true, but I predicted we'd get to 50% much faster than we did.
Remember that half the public is of below average intelligence.
Only if the distribution isn't skewed. It might be substantially more than half...
Yes, the technically correct phrase is "below median" --- but a lot of people don't understand the difference so why bother?
> "Personalized" advertising is just plain dumb
Could you elaborate? Imo it is the most efficient way of advertising..
Could you elaborate? Imo it is the most efficient way of advertising..
Searching for a product or visiting a web site can trigger "personalized" ads that follow you all over the internet --- even on totally unrelated web sites --- even after you've already made a purchase and no longer have any need for the product.
This violates your privacy, wastes your time and communication bandwidth and squanders advertiser's money. In other words, it is just plain dumb --- and most consumers are now blocking it.
A much more reasonable/sensible alternative --- "context sensitive" advertising. Only show ads when the consumer specifically expresses an interest --- not next week or next month, not while he is doing something totally unrelated, not long after a purchase has already been.
This violates your privacy, wastes your time and communication bandwidth and squanders advertiser's money. In other words, it is just plain dumb --- and most consumers are now blocking it.
A much more reasonable/sensible alternative --- "context sensitive" advertising. Only show ads when the consumer specifically expresses an interest --- not next week or next month, not while he is doing something totally unrelated, not long after a purchase has already been.
> squanders advertiser's money
advertisers know how to count money. If those Ads won't be efficient, you wouldn't see them. If you see them, it means they are efficient and lead to actual user engagements.
> it is just plain dumb --- and most consumers are now blocking it.
Consumers are blocking them because companies abused them, this also applied to "contextual" Ads like on youtube and google search, if company put too many of them, users will be blocking them regardless of targeting approach.
> A much more reasonable/sensible alternative --- "context sensitive" advertising. Only show ads when the consumer specifically expresses an interest
Advertisers obviously run those campaigns too. If that interest is very strong and well monetized, advertiser will shift funds to that slice, but that's not always the case, hence we see "personalized" Ads, because they are more efficient in many cases.
advertisers know how to count money. If those Ads won't be efficient, you wouldn't see them. If you see them, it means they are efficient and lead to actual user engagements.
> it is just plain dumb --- and most consumers are now blocking it.
Consumers are blocking them because companies abused them, this also applied to "contextual" Ads like on youtube and google search, if company put too many of them, users will be blocking them regardless of targeting approach.
> A much more reasonable/sensible alternative --- "context sensitive" advertising. Only show ads when the consumer specifically expresses an interest
Advertisers obviously run those campaigns too. If that interest is very strong and well monetized, advertiser will shift funds to that slice, but that's not always the case, hence we see "personalized" Ads, because they are more efficient in many cases.
advertisers know how to count money.
Consumers are blocking them because companies abused them
Sorry, does not compute.
If advertisers *really* knew how to count money, they wouldn't be paying to abuse and provoke more and more consumers to block them.
They leave consumers no alternative but to keep blocking until they do figure it out.
Consumers are blocking them because companies abused them
Sorry, does not compute.
If advertisers *really* knew how to count money, they wouldn't be paying to abuse and provoke more and more consumers to block them.
They leave consumers no alternative but to keep blocking until they do figure it out.
Its different cohorts of companies.
Publishers: put excessive ads on their websites.
Advertisers: those who buy ads views from publishers on various platforms/exchanges, they don't have much control over how much ads individual publisher put on his website.
Publishers: put excessive ads on their websites.
Advertisers: those who buy ads views from publishers on various platforms/exchanges, they don't have much control over how much ads individual publisher put on his website.
This is all issues for the ad industry to sort out.
More and more consumers will simply block the "dumb" advertising until the industry figures out that the solution is easy and has been available from the start --- it's called "context sensitive" advertising.
More and more consumers will simply block the "dumb" advertising until the industry figures out that the solution is easy and has been available from the start --- it's called "context sensitive" advertising.
I worked for two companies that turned off Google ads. Revenue didn’t even change at all. It was never turned back on.
Advertisers know how to count money, but they are too scared to turn off advertising to find out if they even work.
Advertisers know how to count money, but they are too scared to turn off advertising to find out if they even work.
they are too scared to turn off advertising to find out if they even work.
Scared --- or self interested?
If the ads aren't working, the people responsible for the ads might lose their jobs. Best to keep quiet and keep advertising and hope no one notices.
Scared --- or self interested?
If the ads aren't working, the people responsible for the ads might lose their jobs. Best to keep quiet and keep advertising and hope no one notices.
In both cases, we leveraged our ad skills and sold those skills to our customers and spent their money. In one case, we eventually built our own ad network, and in the other case, we ended up controlling entire markets making ad spend ridiculously low.
> Advertisers know how to count money, but they are too scared to turn off advertising to find out if they even work.
its publishers, not advertisers. Publishers see what share of revenue comes from Ads, and can decide to keep them or not.
its publishers, not advertisers. Publishers see what share of revenue comes from Ads, and can decide to keep them or not.
Ah, fair distinction.
Though also, attribution to ads is bullshit. When we turned off our ad spend at both companies, it became clear that most of new revenue was from direct (organic) sources. We had been advertising to people who were going to buy our products anyway.
Though also, attribution to ads is bullshit. When we turned off our ad spend at both companies, it became clear that most of new revenue was from direct (organic) sources. We had been advertising to people who were going to buy our products anyway.
You don't need attribution to see this. You could just create some landing page for your Ads, and see impact for users coming to that landing page.
Attribution is very useful for Ads platforms (e.g. Google) to build more efficient targeting models.
Attribution is very useful for Ads platforms (e.g. Google) to build more efficient targeting models.
The original report: https://www.ghostery.com/blog/privacy-report-advertisers-and....
Curiously, only "76% of experienced cybersecurity professionals and 72% of programmers also reported using an adblocker, compared to just 52% of Americans."
Curiously, only "76% of experienced cybersecurity professionals and 72% of programmers also reported using an adblocker, compared to just 52% of Americans."
I don't use an ad blocker at work because I have had it affect my work and lose time trying to figure out why something isn't working right.
If you’re a developer that’s very important information, since if you deploy an app that breaks with ad blockers, it’s not going to work for 52% of users.
If you know how the sausage is made you don’t want to eat the sausage.
I was once a security engineer at Google. So many people really believed ad blocking is like, actual theft. Got into an argument about that with my manager once lol.
> So many people really believed ad blocking is like, actual theft.
If copyright infringement is considered theft, then AdBlock would've to be considered akin to theft too. They're inherently the same thing. You're consuming the content without providing the expected revenue to the owner.
From my perspective, neither can be considered theft. Which is why I use AdBlock, too. But if either is theft, then the other would've to be too.
You could very well argue that AdBlock is technically worse then copyright infringement, because you're still using the bandwidth of the provider. With "piracy" you're sharing the content through other avenues.
If copyright infringement is considered theft, then AdBlock would've to be considered akin to theft too. They're inherently the same thing. You're consuming the content without providing the expected revenue to the owner.
From my perspective, neither can be considered theft. Which is why I use AdBlock, too. But if either is theft, then the other would've to be too.
You could very well argue that AdBlock is technically worse then copyright infringement, because you're still using the bandwidth of the provider. With "piracy" you're sharing the content through other avenues.
> You're consuming the content without providing the expected revenue to the owner.
Just nitpicking here, but that does not make adblocking and copyright infringement similar. Copyright is not inherently about revenue. It's about who has legal control over the distribution of the work.
Just nitpicking here, but that does not make adblocking and copyright infringement similar. Copyright is not inherently about revenue. It's about who has legal control over the distribution of the work.
Isn't that a difference without a distinction? All copyright infringement lawsuits are centered around the loss of revenue the infringement caused.
Not at all. The distinction is very real. Many copyright infringement lawsuits are not about the money, but are about the use of copyrighted material in a way, or by an entity, that the copyright holder doesn't approve of. They aren't upset that they weren't getting paid, they're upset at their work being used in a way they oppose.
It's also true that (outside of criminal copyright infringement) the only remedy that a court can offer is monetary. But that fact doesn't mean that money was the real issue at hand.
It's also true that (outside of criminal copyright infringement) the only remedy that a court can offer is monetary. But that fact doesn't mean that money was the real issue at hand.
And to provide a concrete example: Rage Against The Machine demanded that Rush Limbaugh stop using their music on air. Because those performances were not licensed, they qualified as an illegal performance of the work. But RATM certainly didn't issue that cease and desist because they were concerned about lost revenue.
[deleted]
That's not how copyright works.
Copyright is violated when a work is distributed or reproduced (or performed or... there's a few categories).
If I take a website, duplicate it, then publish it myself, I am engaging in copyright infringement.
If another person comes along and views my website, they are not engaging in an illegal act. It's the act of distribution that is infringing, not the act of receiving.
In your example, if a publisher creates a website and distributes their content, that publisher is exercising their rights to distribute that work. But there's no strings attached, there. Unless I sign some sort of binding contract that stipulates that I must view ads in order to receive the content, there is nothing in copyright law that says I'm in any way stealing or breaking the law by blocking those ads.
And if such a contract was in place (say, a click-through ToS... though whether those are enforceable is a question), my blocking those ads would be a contractual violation but it would not be "theft" in any meaningful sense, nor would it violate copyright law (it would be a violation of that specific contract).
So no, they are not "inherently the same thing". A publisher publishes their content. As a receiver of that content, I can do whatever I wish with it, including censoring/redacting the portions I don't want to view. Similarly, if I bought a newspaper and cut out all the ads before I read it, no reasonable person would consider that "theft".
Copyright is violated when a work is distributed or reproduced (or performed or... there's a few categories).
If I take a website, duplicate it, then publish it myself, I am engaging in copyright infringement.
If another person comes along and views my website, they are not engaging in an illegal act. It's the act of distribution that is infringing, not the act of receiving.
In your example, if a publisher creates a website and distributes their content, that publisher is exercising their rights to distribute that work. But there's no strings attached, there. Unless I sign some sort of binding contract that stipulates that I must view ads in order to receive the content, there is nothing in copyright law that says I'm in any way stealing or breaking the law by blocking those ads.
And if such a contract was in place (say, a click-through ToS... though whether those are enforceable is a question), my blocking those ads would be a contractual violation but it would not be "theft" in any meaningful sense, nor would it violate copyright law (it would be a violation of that specific contract).
So no, they are not "inherently the same thing". A publisher publishes their content. As a receiver of that content, I can do whatever I wish with it, including censoring/redacting the portions I don't want to view. Similarly, if I bought a newspaper and cut out all the ads before I read it, no reasonable person would consider that "theft".
Courts disagree with you there.
Then google is stealing my time, by showing me ads - I am very happy to bill them at my going hourly rate.
So is the excess consumption of my CPU cycles with asinine JS.
"use" is a funny word here, because the experience of using an ad blocker is very passive. It's not like you need to click a button to enable ad blocking on each page. Once you install the extension, it just happens.
I wager a lot of adblock users are non-technical people who don't even know they're using adblocking, but just had it installed by the local techie in their life to make both their lives easier.
I wager a lot of adblock users are non-technical people who don't even know they're using adblocking, but just had it installed by the local techie in their life to make both their lives easier.
Sure, but then again, most users are your mom and your uncle. Replace with "have an ad-blocker on their browser" if you wish; or "on their computer", as they would probably say.
Tell you more: most won't even know the difference between an ad-blocker and an anti ad-tracker, but this is exactly the battle that publishers and advertisers are losing: half the US Internet users are now "not reachable" by their ads.
Tell you more: most won't even know the difference between an ad-blocker and an anti ad-tracker, but this is exactly the battle that publishers and advertisers are losing: half the US Internet users are now "not reachable" by their ads.
Sounds like advertisement is something that people usually don't want to see or click on. I wonder why?
This link was already posted three times:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39877496
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39849944
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39846010
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39877496
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39849944
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39846010
This plus the third-party cookie apocalypse means advertisers are going to need to seriously reconsider the entire approach of personalization and targeting. For all of the billions and billions of dollars poured into ad-tech, I really don't buy that this stuff is any more effective than manually chosen or page contextual display ads. Maybe for juicing a few short term points on an A/B test, sure. But has anyone seriously verified that any of this stuff is effective versus control over the long term?
I suspect it’s very valuable for a small proportion of campaigns that very carefully use its features and are thoughtfully designed, and the same or worse than traditional advertising for the rest.
I further suspect a whole lot of the ones it’s very-good for are scams, or scam-adjacent.
I further suspect a whole lot of the ones it’s very-good for are scams, or scam-adjacent.
Even for those campaigns it might be cheaper to cast a wider net using a non-personalised ad scheme.
Cookies are as good as dead already, and have mostly been replaced with:
- native apps with device-level Mobile Advertising ID exposed
- login walls (e.g. Twitter)
- browser fingerprinting
- native apps with device-level Mobile Advertising ID exposed
- login walls (e.g. Twitter)
- browser fingerprinting
Cookies are very much alive (still the best way to do CSRF protection). I think you mean 3rd party cookies?
First party audiencing has indeed been used for a long time now. It works... to an extent. But it requires significant opt-in and will never replace what cross-site cookies could do. Same for fingerprinting.
>the third-party cookie apocalypse
Expand?
Expand?
Most browsers now do not allow 3rd parties to set cookies when you visit a first-party site. By end of 2024, Google Chrome will block all 3rd party cookies completely.
https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/3pcd
https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/3pcd
Adblocking is a security necessity.
The FBI has recommended the use of adblockers as well. Do your family a favor and install UBO on their devices.
The FBI has recommended the use of adblockers as well. Do your family a favor and install UBO on their devices.
Isn’t this extremely misleading based on the number of people they surveyed? That number is only 2,000 according to this PDF:
https://ghostery.cdn.prismic.io/ghostery/ZgP8q7LRO5ile652_Gh...
https://ghostery.cdn.prismic.io/ghostery/ZgP8q7LRO5ile652_Gh...
It would completely depend on the survey design and sampling process. If both of those are well considered N=2,000 is a large enough sample size.
Isn't that how surveys work?
And from what I can tell, Censuswide is a credible market researcher.
2000 is 0.0007% of 260M adults living in the USA.
“Majority of Americans” is a bit off the rails, imo.
“Majority of Americans” is a bit off the rails, imo.
The margin of error when using a random sample of 2000 people out of a population of 260M is less than 2.19% with a 95% confidence level.
You are probably making the common mistake of thinking that the larger the population the bigger a sample needs to be to accurately poll. That is true for lower populations but the "sample needed vs. population size" curve is asymptotic.
For example, suppose we want to determine what percent of people believe X, with a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level. Here's a table of the random sample size needed for various populations:
You are probably making the common mistake of thinking that the larger the population the bigger a sample needs to be to accurately poll. That is true for lower populations but the "sample needed vs. population size" curve is asymptotic.
For example, suppose we want to determine what percent of people believe X, with a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level. Here's a table of the random sample size needed for various populations:
Sample Population
80 100
278 1 000
370 10 000
383 100 000
385 1 000 000
385 10 000 000
... ...
385 ∞Thanks for pointing that out. I honestly don’t know anything about surveys. Someone vouched for the company that did it for them, but I am still skeptical that their claim is true or that it deserves such a sensational title.
If the survey process was published also then I would have zero issue with it.
If the survey process was published also then I would have zero issue with it.
2000 is a pretty generous sample size if it's a well constructed poll, and of course entirely useless otherwise.
Imagine you land from another planet, and you discover that humans come in two major varieties.
How many of the 8 billion people would you need to survey to discover that roughly half were male?
It actually doesn't depend on the population. You could have landed 1000 years ago when the population was much smaller, and carry out a survey with the same number of samples, coming to the same conclusion.
How many of the 8 billion people would you need to survey to discover that roughly half were male?
It actually doesn't depend on the population. You could have landed 1000 years ago when the population was much smaller, and carry out a survey with the same number of samples, coming to the same conclusion.
My favorite part:
> 66 percent of experienced advertisers ... use ad blockers
> 66 percent of experienced advertisers ... use ad blockers
It's normal for people at FB/IG to not allow their children to use those apps. This is the same principle. TV ad execs probably have TiVo at home.
Favorite part and best part. When the large majority of advertisers block advertisements there's really no room to complain when anyone else does the same.
Could make sense if they're trying to see what methods make it past blockers. I probably would do that if I were in that industry.
Still true, but now for different reasons...
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/04/11/advertising/
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/04/11/advertising/
Is it sad that it's now a pet peeve of mine when I see a colleague sharing their screen over Teams/Zoom and observe that they have ABP installed rather than uBlock Origin?
I mean, it's one thing to see colleagues with no adblockers--they just need to be told the Good News. But those ABP users...they chose incorrectly!
I mean, it's one thing to see colleagues with no adblockers--they just need to be told the Good News. But those ABP users...they chose incorrectly!
FWIW I'm an AdNauseam guy... did I also choose incorrectly??
My objection to online advertising is that these are being served to us by third parties, not the site that we are visiting.
If the site I visit takes ownership and responsibility for the ads it shows, then I'm ok with that. But that's not what happens. If there is any issue whatsoever the site palms off the responsibility - "not my fault".
Either own it or foff.
edit - grammar
If the site I visit takes ownership and responsibility for the ads it shows, then I'm ok with that. But that's not what happens. If there is any issue whatsoever the site palms off the responsibility - "not my fault".
Either own it or foff.
edit - grammar
"Personalized" ads do move the needle. It just depends on the audience. eCommerce brand, for example, and DTC companies use them on the regular to drive consumers to action and complete that purchase.
For more technical audiences, cookie based personalization doesn't really work, and contextual advertising has higher conversions.
For more technical audiences, cookie based personalization doesn't really work, and contextual advertising has higher conversions.
> Feel free to add us [The Register] to your white list if you do use an ad blocker. We have full-time ops staff whose job it is around the clock to keep our sites clean of anything naughty.
Nah, I think I'll keep it on.
Nah, I think I'll keep it on.
[deleted]