Ask HN: Why don't companies use hand-coded ads?
I personally detest ads and don't see myself ever using 3rd-party ads on my sites, but I have been seeing a lot of "please turn off your ad-blocker" banners the last year or two. I'm curious why companies don't use more hand-coded HTML ads with inline images and direct links to prevent blocking? Is it too expensive? Am I missing something else, ie are they still blockable somehow?
12 comments
Daring Fireball does this. Charges $8,500 per week.
See: https://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/
See: https://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/
Blimey. That's a good living for what is (I think) a blog with one author.
>why companies don't use more hand-coded HTML ads with inline images and direct links to prevent blocking?
Ad-blocking relies on knowing the origin of ads and blocking requests to the servers browser-side.
Regardless of where you shift the content it is just a matter of time until it is fingerprinted and blocked.
On the side of sites selling ads and hosting it co-mingled with other content, it is an issue of business priorities.
I know some sites that do this which causes the ads to be a feature rather than a bug. The ads are helpful and targeted specifically, requiring no fingerprinting of the user or tracking. The ad buyers get great throughput, the ad sellers get easy cash.
Ad-blocking relies on knowing the origin of ads and blocking requests to the servers browser-side.
Regardless of where you shift the content it is just a matter of time until it is fingerprinted and blocked.
On the side of sites selling ads and hosting it co-mingled with other content, it is an issue of business priorities.
I know some sites that do this which causes the ads to be a feature rather than a bug. The ads are helpful and targeted specifically, requiring no fingerprinting of the user or tracking. The ad buyers get great throughput, the ad sellers get easy cash.
> Ad-blocking relies on knowing the origin of ads and blocking requests to the servers browser-side.
Regardless of where you shift the content it is just a matter of time until it is fingerprinted and blocked.
Right but if the ad is simply an inline image with an anchor link, the image will have been loaded from the current origin, so the user will see the ad. And if they click on it, it's a direct link in response to user action, which I don't think I've ever seen an ad blocker interfere with.
Regardless of where you shift the content it is just a matter of time until it is fingerprinted and blocked.
Right but if the ad is simply an inline image with an anchor link, the image will have been loaded from the current origin, so the user will see the ad. And if they click on it, it's a direct link in response to user action, which I don't think I've ever seen an ad blocker interfere with.
Most ads are bought and sold based on impressions, and the measurement of impressions is done via a 3rd party to ensure the publisher doesn't over-report the amount of impressions they delivered. Advertisers also typically pay for some level of ad verification to ensure their ads appear on the sites they are targeting, and were in-view when clicked, etc.
The model you described works fine for a directly sold placement; the publisher places the ad for a fixed amount of time for a fixed fee. They may still want to have impression and conversion tracking via a 3rd party to measure performance across the multiple sites/ad networks they may be buying on. A pure HTML ad could absolutely work and be ad-block proof, but that doesn't really scale for pubs or advertisers. I have seen that model where the publisher represents a very specific audience, like a trade association. It really doesn't work on a general content site unless there is a high degree of faith from the publisher to the advertiser.
The model you described works fine for a directly sold placement; the publisher places the ad for a fixed amount of time for a fixed fee. They may still want to have impression and conversion tracking via a 3rd party to measure performance across the multiple sites/ad networks they may be buying on. A pure HTML ad could absolutely work and be ad-block proof, but that doesn't really scale for pubs or advertisers. I have seen that model where the publisher represents a very specific audience, like a trade association. It really doesn't work on a general content site unless there is a high degree of faith from the publisher to the advertiser.
I think you have a great question here and all the answers so far seem like a stretch.
My answer is that it’s human nature to be lazy and want to use an already existing ad ecosystem. Plus lots of systems are built around it.
And that ad blockers aren’t enough of a problem to justify leaving the ecosystem.
My answer is that it’s human nature to be lazy and want to use an already existing ad ecosystem. Plus lots of systems are built around it.
And that ad blockers aren’t enough of a problem to justify leaving the ecosystem.
Because advertisers would lose tracking people which would make very hard to measure ad effectiveness. Also, ad tech co would lose tracking which would make it harder to profile peoples behavior on line.
You can still track click-throughs on the destination site. If the source site sends you its stats then you get the click-through rate.
What you won't get is automation and profiling.
What you won't get is automation and profiling.
Or just have the ad selection happen server-side and for assets to be proxied via your domain. The content of the ad to be embedded with your sites code. And maybe a JavaScript library which is also proxied and gathers the metrics.
It’ll cost more bandwidth and hurt the site experience, but I’s imagine that’d fool adblockers.
It’ll cost more bandwidth and hurt the site experience, but I’s imagine that’d fool adblockers.
Unless you are running self-selected first party ads, _the ad companies do not trust you, the publisher, to not lie about proxied traffic_. Ths is one of the reasons they demand invasive, malware JS to run that loads Java, Flash, and all sorts of bullshit.