Internet users are increasingly blocking ads, including on their mobiles(economist.com)
economist.com
Internet users are increasingly blocking ads, including on their mobiles
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21653644-internet-users-are-increasingly-blocking-ads-including-their-mobiles-block-shock
95 comments
I think this misses an important aspect from an InfoSec perspective. Ad networks are very lucrative targets for spreading malware, and examples of malware being distributed via ad networks are abundant ("malvertising"). For companies (and individuals aware of the risk), ad blocking is an important security measure.
One of the things that made google's ad network successful in my opinion was the fact they're text based and were obviously ads. I've never had a reason to block em and its the main reason I don't get upset when people complain about adblock plus's whitelist.
I wish more advertisers would follow in google's footsteps, the full screen video ads are reminding me of the days leading up to the .com bubble burst.
I wish more advertisers would follow in google's footsteps, the full screen video ads are reminding me of the days leading up to the .com bubble burst.
Absolutely. I run adblock, and HTTP Switchboard but I am absolutely OK with Google's ads (and actually, Facebook sponsored posts as well) because they're consistently framed as ads and they don't impose a big cognitive load. I even click on them sometimes, and even make purchases sometimes! If you tell me your commercial message politely, well, I may or may not be interested but I don't mind. But if You engage in the visual equivalent of shouting with eye-catching designs, animation, faux-interactivity and so on - then I will tune you out. I guess advertisers use these techniques because they work on enough people to be profitable, so they don't care about the sales they lose by irritating people like myself to the point of being blocked. But I don't think they're doing their clients any favors.
The one thing from Google that I do block is advertising on YouTube. Just give it up and try something else already - why would I want to import everything that sucks about television/radio advertising?
The one thing from Google that I do block is advertising on YouTube. Just give it up and try something else already - why would I want to import everything that sucks about television/radio advertising?
As an advertiser and publisher I resisted ad blockers for a long time and YouTube ads drove me so crazy that I had to install them feel finally..
So the guy who converted YouTube to a TV channel coated Google and all the publishers a huge sum.
So the guy who converted YouTube to a TV channel coated Google and all the publishers a huge sum.
>> Just give it up and try something else already - why would I want to import everything that sucks about television/radio advertising?
I think they are trying payment based schemes. But for people who prefer not to pay - what is there other than ads and freemium[1] ?
[1]that's usually exchanging user advertising versus free service - but Google doesn't need advertising.
I think they are trying payment based schemes. But for people who prefer not to pay - what is there other than ads and freemium[1] ?
[1]that's usually exchanging user advertising versus free service - but Google doesn't need advertising.
> The one thing from Google that I do block is advertising on YouTube.
Which annoy(ed) you most? The leading ad-video or the banner at the bottom?
For me it's the second by far, although I don't see how the leading ad-video can have any decent conversation rate. Even with the best possible contextual placement.
Is it safe to assume there just isn't a good way to make ads work on a site like YouTube? 'Good' meaning what you described for regular AdWords (+Facebook) ads (text and display): being reasonably interesting/properly timed and generating a decent conversation rate.
Which annoy(ed) you most? The leading ad-video or the banner at the bottom?
For me it's the second by far, although I don't see how the leading ad-video can have any decent conversation rate. Even with the best possible contextual placement.
Is it safe to assume there just isn't a good way to make ads work on a site like YouTube? 'Good' meaning what you described for regular AdWords (+Facebook) ads (text and display): being reasonably interesting/properly timed and generating a decent conversation rate.
For me the leading video. The bottom banner is also an annoying distractionbut at least it's relatively minor (compared to the lower-3rd monstrosities employed on entwork TV in particualr).
The problem with the lead-in video is worse than a TV commercial, IMHO. On TV you go to watch a program, and the ads are an annoyance but you wait for them to be over and then the program starts at a fixed time, if you're not watching DVR, eg I usually watch a news program in the evening. But on YouTube, you make a selection of the video you want to watch next, and then instead some craptastic advert appears first. I don't understand why advertisers think this is a good way to reach people; yes, you get their attention by appearing as a surprise, but now consumers associate the brand with concepts like interruption and unmet expectations, before they begin processing any of teh semantic content of the ad. I frequently don't even notice what the ad is for because after the initial annoyance, my attention is fixated on finding the Skip button and counting down the few seconds before I can click on it. Many ads haven't introduced any product or branding by the time I skip away, and those which did so have already generated a reflexive mutter of 'Fuck off, Brand_owner!'
Now that I mention this, just thinking about previous Youtube ad annoyances brings several specific brands to mind, brands which I would otherwise feel neutral about because I've never purchased any products from them. Instead they're now firmly coupled with swear words. Think about that if you're ever considering a video ad campaign; the people who click out early are probably not just disinterested, but may actively resent your brand and your campaign might result in a net loss of business.
The problem with the lead-in video is worse than a TV commercial, IMHO. On TV you go to watch a program, and the ads are an annoyance but you wait for them to be over and then the program starts at a fixed time, if you're not watching DVR, eg I usually watch a news program in the evening. But on YouTube, you make a selection of the video you want to watch next, and then instead some craptastic advert appears first. I don't understand why advertisers think this is a good way to reach people; yes, you get their attention by appearing as a surprise, but now consumers associate the brand with concepts like interruption and unmet expectations, before they begin processing any of teh semantic content of the ad. I frequently don't even notice what the ad is for because after the initial annoyance, my attention is fixated on finding the Skip button and counting down the few seconds before I can click on it. Many ads haven't introduced any product or branding by the time I skip away, and those which did so have already generated a reflexive mutter of 'Fuck off, Brand_owner!'
Now that I mention this, just thinking about previous Youtube ad annoyances brings several specific brands to mind, brands which I would otherwise feel neutral about because I've never purchased any products from them. Instead they're now firmly coupled with swear words. Think about that if you're ever considering a video ad campaign; the people who click out early are probably not just disinterested, but may actively resent your brand and your campaign might result in a net loss of business.
I believe that running the ad after the end of a YouTube video might want to make me watch the ad. I've never skipped an ad that came after the end of a TED video, partly because the ads that come there are generally very well made and grip my attention right from the first second.
For websites as well as videos, I believe if the main content is showed first without any distracting elements and then the ad is showed at the bottom of a page or at the end of a video, I would not mind the ad at all and it would increase the likelihood of paying attention to the ad, provided I reach the end of the content.
For websites as well as videos, I believe if the main content is showed first without any distracting elements and then the ad is showed at the bottom of a page or at the end of a video, I would not mind the ad at all and it would increase the likelihood of paying attention to the ad, provided I reach the end of the content.
That sounds like a much better idea. Views might be significantly less, but conversion rates might go up. You no longer annoy people and it is much more like a regular banner ad: it never blocks the main content.
But you would expect they tried everything and the current ads are the ones that work best. Which is a bit disturbing (and the base for my earlier question).
But you would expect they tried everything and the current ads are the ones that work best. Which is a bit disturbing (and the base for my earlier question).
I agree with you completely. I get that its hard to find a decent way for Google to monetize YouTube without being blocked and throwing ads in the users' faces. But when I have to watch a 30 second ad for a popular video that may only be a few minutes in length, I get pretty frustrated and just wait for the skip button without even taking in the ad. If most users are like this, which it seems so, then Google would be better off trying to come up with a different scheme because this isn't even effective advertising anymore.
Hulu during the their beta days had the best solution in my opinion. They would show 5 second ads before your video starts. The ads were so short there was no reason to skip them or divert your attention to a different window to browse facebook.
They were text-based, that is. AdSense seems to almost alway ends up placing graphical ads now, though...
> Websites’ use of ever more in-your-face advertising formats (videos that play automatically, pop-ups that obscure the text you are trying to read) have driven ever more people to seek ways to block them. Younger consumers seem especially intolerant of intrusive ads, and as they get older, overall ad-blocking rates are bound to rise further, predicts Peter Stabler of Wells Fargo Securities, one of the authors of a recent report on the phenomenon.
Yep. Stop the "in your face" ads, stop the tracking, and people are less likely to block the ads and the tracking. It is really simple as that.
I despite all ads that start playing videos, gif animations, etc. It distracts me from being able to read the article. I'm okay with Google Ads, it's purely text and not annoying. But the only reason I block it is because of the tracking. It scares the shit out of me when I saw something related to what I was doing on a completely different site on a different day.
Fuck that.
Yep. Stop the "in your face" ads, stop the tracking, and people are less likely to block the ads and the tracking. It is really simple as that.
I despite all ads that start playing videos, gif animations, etc. It distracts me from being able to read the article. I'm okay with Google Ads, it's purely text and not annoying. But the only reason I block it is because of the tracking. It scares the shit out of me when I saw something related to what I was doing on a completely different site on a different day.
Fuck that.
The thing to remember is that the Internet was never designed as a commercial, ad-friendly place. As many of its architects have noted, it would look very different if it were. That means trying to build an ad-supported business in a place that is - if not hostile - than at least fundamentally indifferent to the needs of ad-supported content producers was always going to be a tough row to hoe.
If you succeed, well good for you. If not, don't feel too bad - the cards were stacked against you from the outset.
In either case, the most important thing to remember is that Internet does not owe you a living. Nor does it owe advertisers an easy and easily controlled environment in which to operate. It has purposes that are significantly higher and deeper than hustling cheap, fast content while trying to make quick buck by selling your audience's personal details to fly-by-night ad networks.
Not everyone operates like this, of course. Google, Facebook, and BuzzFeed are all examples of places with far cleaner models. All they sell is access. None of them make information available to others. Indeed, they all guard what they know very jealously. And Google aside, they haven't been vectors for piracy.
But on balance, the Internet has been pretty terrible for people who work in the content industries, and the new media industries - in partnership with advertisers - have been pretty terrible for the Internet. You really need to go outside of this mutually debilitating flustercluck to find the truly awesome and wonderful things that the Internet makes possible. And many of these are things around which very good businesses can be built. For genuinely daring and visionary people, it's an extraordinary time to be alive.
Here's what's not visionary, or helpful, or beneficial to humanity: trying to turn the Internet into a cheaper, faster, dirtier, amalgamation of print and broadcast media, only with much crappier advertising and a large helping of surveillance and malware thrown in. You're not saving the world with that crap. Indeed, you're the bad money that drives out the good, and the sooner your business model collapses, the better off the world will be.
AdBlock on.
If you succeed, well good for you. If not, don't feel too bad - the cards were stacked against you from the outset.
In either case, the most important thing to remember is that Internet does not owe you a living. Nor does it owe advertisers an easy and easily controlled environment in which to operate. It has purposes that are significantly higher and deeper than hustling cheap, fast content while trying to make quick buck by selling your audience's personal details to fly-by-night ad networks.
Not everyone operates like this, of course. Google, Facebook, and BuzzFeed are all examples of places with far cleaner models. All they sell is access. None of them make information available to others. Indeed, they all guard what they know very jealously. And Google aside, they haven't been vectors for piracy.
But on balance, the Internet has been pretty terrible for people who work in the content industries, and the new media industries - in partnership with advertisers - have been pretty terrible for the Internet. You really need to go outside of this mutually debilitating flustercluck to find the truly awesome and wonderful things that the Internet makes possible. And many of these are things around which very good businesses can be built. For genuinely daring and visionary people, it's an extraordinary time to be alive.
Here's what's not visionary, or helpful, or beneficial to humanity: trying to turn the Internet into a cheaper, faster, dirtier, amalgamation of print and broadcast media, only with much crappier advertising and a large helping of surveillance and malware thrown in. You're not saving the world with that crap. Indeed, you're the bad money that drives out the good, and the sooner your business model collapses, the better off the world will be.
AdBlock on.
> Yep. Stop the "in your face" ads, stop the tracking, and people are less likely to block the ads and the tracking. It is really simple as that.
I think it's too late.
Ads have an irreparable PR problem.
As soon as users find out about the existence of Ad Blocking, they will simply enable it and never look back because they've been burnt by deceptive and intrusive advertising for far too long on the internet.
Whitelists, exceptions, even the very act of even thinking about turning off their Ad Blockers, are things that only principled, technical users will ever bother with, and we all know they represent a mere rounding error on the total internet population.
It will probably be a more fruitful effort to start exploring other alternative methods of monetization than to try to make Ads work again.
I think it's too late.
Ads have an irreparable PR problem.
As soon as users find out about the existence of Ad Blocking, they will simply enable it and never look back because they've been burnt by deceptive and intrusive advertising for far too long on the internet.
Whitelists, exceptions, even the very act of even thinking about turning off their Ad Blockers, are things that only principled, technical users will ever bother with, and we all know they represent a mere rounding error on the total internet population.
It will probably be a more fruitful effort to start exploring other alternative methods of monetization than to try to make Ads work again.
Ads that you don't pay attention to are useless to the advertisers so they won't stop doing intrusive ads
You can't seriously be saying that Google's text ads don't work? What are you getting at.
I think the parent wants a reasonable balance between effective ads and ads that don't degrade the content by being obtrusive.
I think the parent wants a reasonable balance between effective ads and ads that don't degrade the content by being obtrusive.
Advertisements are useless to advertisers if I refuse to buy their products based entirely on the fact that I've seen an ad for their product. So the jokes on them.
I keep a spreadsheet where I add products/brands that have somehow snuck past my adblocker. I avoid buying from them altogether and will look for similar or offbrands.
I do have a few exceptions to this rule. If enough of my friends/coworkers can testify on the products behalf, I may purchase it because it seems to be a good product. If I already have purchased the product in the past and enjoy it and later see it in an advertisement - I already know I like and buy the stuff so it doesn't get added.
Imagine how fewer advertisements you'd see if more people kept a personal blacklist? :)
"But how will you hear about _____"? The same way anyone eventually hears about any great product: word of mouth.
I keep a spreadsheet where I add products/brands that have somehow snuck past my adblocker. I avoid buying from them altogether and will look for similar or offbrands.
I do have a few exceptions to this rule. If enough of my friends/coworkers can testify on the products behalf, I may purchase it because it seems to be a good product. If I already have purchased the product in the past and enjoy it and later see it in an advertisement - I already know I like and buy the stuff so it doesn't get added.
Imagine how fewer advertisements you'd see if more people kept a personal blacklist? :)
"But how will you hear about _____"? The same way anyone eventually hears about any great product: word of mouth.
You are absolutely not the norm. Ads do work and the data for decades has proven it. Many people do benefit from eventually finding and buying products/services that they want/need.
> Ads do work and the data for decades has proven it. Many people do benefit from eventually finding and buying products/services that they want/need.
Rather nebulous claim. And it's not clear that the second sentence is even talking about the same thing as the first.
Rather nebulous claim. And it's not clear that the second sentence is even talking about the same thing as the first.
The reason there's so much spending on digital ads is because its returns so many accurate metrics on how the ads are being seen and interacted with. If you're referring to whether people respond to ads, that's also been proven by hundreds of studies and the entire advertising industry.
It's pretty easy to quantify sales before and after something as simple as a billboard to show that there's an increase. Nielsen alone has done lots of in-depth scientific analysis on this. This industry is pretty advanced and uses lots of science and data, contrary to what you might imagine.
What is wrong with the 2nd sentence? Lots of people find what they're looking for through ads. They dont just have to be digital, simple things like coupons in newspapers still have massive reach and sales ROI. There's nothing wrong with it.
It's pretty easy to quantify sales before and after something as simple as a billboard to show that there's an increase. Nielsen alone has done lots of in-depth scientific analysis on this. This industry is pretty advanced and uses lots of science and data, contrary to what you might imagine.
What is wrong with the 2nd sentence? Lots of people find what they're looking for through ads. They dont just have to be digital, simple things like coupons in newspapers still have massive reach and sales ROI. There's nothing wrong with it.
This is a larger issue with how easily impressionable people are. They are largely influenced by advertisements - even the people who deny that ads have any affect on them to purchase products they've seen in ads (can't remember where the study was done).
It works because of all the wrong reasons, in my opinion. Which is why I go so far out of my way to avoid purchasing things from ads.
It works because of all the wrong reasons, in my opinion. Which is why I go so far out of my way to avoid purchasing things from ads.
I do pay attention to low-profile ads. And I feel well-disposed towards those advertisers, whereas intrusive advertisers go on my mental blacklist and I select against their offerings when I go shopping.
Anyone know of any studies on the effects of ad overload / negative associations with brands / products which are heavily advertised? There seems to be a line beyond which advertising more heavily does more harm than good (that's my theory, anyway).
I wholeheartedly agree and I'm sure others do, too. There are many sites which I have on my whitelist but tracking and the risk of malware causes me to maintain a whitelist as opposed to a blacklist.
The reaction from many websites is often to either more aggressively target those without ad-blockers - thus leading more people to turn to ad-blocking, or to switch revenue models - a risky and IMO often necessary step. Eventually the pool of people who aren't blocking ads will be a deeply suboptimal demographic - as noted in the article the majority of people who use ad-blockers are at least somewhat tech savvy, fairly heavy internet users, one of the prime targets for advertising online.
I haven't thought a great deal about this but it's very interesting to consider that through increased use of such software, perhaps end users can truly take control of how they are treated. There is absolutely no reason why advertising should cease to be a successful revenue stream but changes are undoubtedly needed to guarantee it into the future.
FWIW, websites which I visit frequently that are transparent about their tailored advertising and sponsorships gain much more trust and respect from me.
The reaction from many websites is often to either more aggressively target those without ad-blockers - thus leading more people to turn to ad-blocking, or to switch revenue models - a risky and IMO often necessary step. Eventually the pool of people who aren't blocking ads will be a deeply suboptimal demographic - as noted in the article the majority of people who use ad-blockers are at least somewhat tech savvy, fairly heavy internet users, one of the prime targets for advertising online.
I haven't thought a great deal about this but it's very interesting to consider that through increased use of such software, perhaps end users can truly take control of how they are treated. There is absolutely no reason why advertising should cease to be a successful revenue stream but changes are undoubtedly needed to guarantee it into the future.
FWIW, websites which I visit frequently that are transparent about their tailored advertising and sponsorships gain much more trust and respect from me.
To monetize a website can anyone recommend decent advertisers that don't track viewers and aren't a nuisance? Perhaps like Google Ads but without the tracking?
Why is it scary? People always want more relevant ads... then say they dont like it when they get them. What exactly would be the better option?
Personally I want ads relevant to whatever content I am consuming, not relevant to my prior browsing habits.
I only installed Adblock about a year ago, after years of resistance. I'm happy to support the sites I visit regularly...but, when the trust I put in those sites is betrayed repeatedly with intrusive, disruptive and distracting ads, I get tired of it, and lose any sense of loyalty. If your site plays an ad with sound enabled on load you're no longer worth any concern from me.
I whitelist pages I trust not to be abusive (reddit mostly). But, otherwise I don't care to serve an abusers interests any longer. If a site doesn't respect basic decency with their ads, I will impose that decency on them with an ad block tool.
I whitelist pages I trust not to be abusive (reddit mostly). But, otherwise I don't care to serve an abusers interests any longer. If a site doesn't respect basic decency with their ads, I will impose that decency on them with an ad block tool.
You should just stop visiting the site instead. Your still taking their content, but it sounds like what's really not of any concern to you, is their monetization strategy.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Or, you know, keep visiting the site until they switch to making money in a way that is not annoying. And it's not just the sounds and the graphics and the non-obvious placement and framing. It's the bloody tracking as well. If they want to play dirty to make money off my ass, I can play dirty, too.
"Monetization strategy" makes it sound good. It's not. If it's so bloody disgusting, it's a ripoff, not a business done in good faith. It deserves about as much respect as a scam.
"Monetization strategy" makes it sound good. It's not. If it's so bloody disgusting, it's a ripoff, not a business done in good faith. It deserves about as much respect as a scam.
You don't think paywalls are annoying? Because that's the only other model.
The only possible choices are ads that flash, pop up, and play music, or a paywall? That is a false dichotomy.
It is possible to serve tasteful, malware free, silent ads. Most sites choose not to. I, and an increasing number of people are choosing not to view the invasive ads.
It is possible to serve tasteful, malware free, silent ads. Most sites choose not to. I, and an increasing number of people are choosing not to view the invasive ads.
The choices are paywall or ads. If you don't like the ads, don't visit the site. That's how you show them you don't like the experience.
How about:
* Free, but with ads.
* Paid, without ads
No paywall, no annoying ads, and I still pay my share if I want to keep away from the ads.
What about ads like Facebook's sponsored content? Non-flashy, clearly marked as advertising, in the upper-right portion of the screen or something, so that I can read the text without getting flashbanged.
* Free, but with ads.
* Paid, without ads
No paywall, no annoying ads, and I still pay my share if I want to keep away from the ads.
What about ads like Facebook's sponsored content? Non-flashy, clearly marked as advertising, in the upper-right portion of the screen or something, so that I can read the text without getting flashbanged.
I agree with all that. That's in fact all my company does. However blocking ads is a brute force approach that's causing more harm then good right now.
>what's really not of any concern to you
The requests I block are none of their concern.
The requests I block are none of their concern.
Nope. Don't care.
If they want to charge me something, that's OK. If they want to have reasonable, unobtrusive, ads without tracking, that's OK, too. But, what many sites currently do is not OK. So, fuck'em.
If they want to charge me something, that's OK. If they want to have reasonable, unobtrusive, ads without tracking, that's OK, too. But, what many sites currently do is not OK. So, fuck'em.
What is "not OK"? These are subjective concerns. If you're going to the site you're still showing you find the content to be of value, so why do you feel its ok for the site to not make any revenue?
You're conflating the ability to do something with whether it's morally right or not. Ad blocking will only hurt the long-tail and freedom of the internet that everyone currently enjoys.
Btw, payments arent exactly some kind of perfect answer. It will always cost more than ads and is no less private, in fact you end up giving up even more of your details.
You're conflating the ability to do something with whether it's morally right or not. Ad blocking will only hurt the long-tail and freedom of the internet that everyone currently enjoys.
Btw, payments arent exactly some kind of perfect answer. It will always cost more than ads and is no less private, in fact you end up giving up even more of your details.
I view it as a negotiation, and this is me blowing out their proposed deal. Imagine you're sitting at the bargaining table and the first offer the person on the other side gives you is an order of magnitude more than you're willing to pay. Say, they want you to pay $50,000 for a car that you know is only worth $5,000.
This is the point at which you "blow out" their offer. You could say something like, "I don't think we're on the same page at all about the value of this good. I have to walk away if you consider that a reasonable offer."
The other party can counter with, "OK, what are you comfortable with?"
So, right now, in the ads vs. privacy negotiation I've said, "No. You're not even on the right page. You are asking an order of magnitude more than I'm willing to give you for this product."
They, of course, have the right to let me walk away. They can block me, if they'd like, and put such things in their terms of service. But, the fact is, they engaged in this first. The advertisers created this arms race, a race for the most tasteless, obnoxious, privacy-invading, and intrusive ads they could design. I am merely implementing my own disarmament plan and imposing it on them, whether they like it or not (they don't, obviously...but, again, I don't care; advertisers have destroyed any sympathy I may have had for them).
As I mentioned, I took years to install an ad blocker. I am willing to negotiate, but I gave them an inch and they took a mile. They didn't respect "do not track", they took steps to insure that I would be interrupted, even if I wasn't even looking at the tab where they're spewing their garbage with auto-starting audio ads (this was my personal tipping point, I had four or five of them happen in one day of browsing and decided "Never again.").
Advertisers did this to themselves. They have no one to blame but themselves. I don't know what comes next, but I've opted out of their system, and I'll continue to do so as long as the technology is used in the most nefarious ways possible.
This is the point at which you "blow out" their offer. You could say something like, "I don't think we're on the same page at all about the value of this good. I have to walk away if you consider that a reasonable offer."
The other party can counter with, "OK, what are you comfortable with?"
So, right now, in the ads vs. privacy negotiation I've said, "No. You're not even on the right page. You are asking an order of magnitude more than I'm willing to give you for this product."
They, of course, have the right to let me walk away. They can block me, if they'd like, and put such things in their terms of service. But, the fact is, they engaged in this first. The advertisers created this arms race, a race for the most tasteless, obnoxious, privacy-invading, and intrusive ads they could design. I am merely implementing my own disarmament plan and imposing it on them, whether they like it or not (they don't, obviously...but, again, I don't care; advertisers have destroyed any sympathy I may have had for them).
As I mentioned, I took years to install an ad blocker. I am willing to negotiate, but I gave them an inch and they took a mile. They didn't respect "do not track", they took steps to insure that I would be interrupted, even if I wasn't even looking at the tab where they're spewing their garbage with auto-starting audio ads (this was my personal tipping point, I had four or five of them happen in one day of browsing and decided "Never again.").
Advertisers did this to themselves. They have no one to blame but themselves. I don't know what comes next, but I've opted out of their system, and I'll continue to do so as long as the technology is used in the most nefarious ways possible.
This is the same argument from many people who pirate content, but here's the thing: Consuming the content if you find the negotiation unacceptable is not "walking away" from the deal. It's like they ask for 50000 for a car that's worth 5000, so you just take the car regardless. Neither side is right, but I would say taking something you find value in without the requested payment is more wrong.
The better way of walking away is to just not consume the content. That way the other side realizes their position is unacceptable without feeling ripped off.
The better way of walking away is to just not consume the content. That way the other side realizes their position is unacceptable without feeling ripped off.
"This is the same argument from many people who pirate content"
I disagree with this (utterly and without room for discussion), and the courts disagree with this as well.
The content in question has been made available publicly on the open web. It is up to me and my browser to decide which parts of the content I download and look at. Further, I'm unaware of any site which includes in their terms of service that they require visitors to view ads in order to see the content (even without bringing up the technical methods of enforcing such a rule).
I strongly suspect that most sites with ads would rather people visit than not, even if they don't see the ads. I certainly feel that way about all of my websites (though admittedly very few of my websites rely on ads for their value).
"The better way of walking away is to just not consume the content."
Which I also do. But, when it comes to browsing HN and reddit and clicking links off to sites I don't know, I have every right to proactively protect my privacy and peaceful browsing free of intrusive/noisy ads.
I disagree with this (utterly and without room for discussion), and the courts disagree with this as well.
The content in question has been made available publicly on the open web. It is up to me and my browser to decide which parts of the content I download and look at. Further, I'm unaware of any site which includes in their terms of service that they require visitors to view ads in order to see the content (even without bringing up the technical methods of enforcing such a rule).
I strongly suspect that most sites with ads would rather people visit than not, even if they don't see the ads. I certainly feel that way about all of my websites (though admittedly very few of my websites rely on ads for their value).
"The better way of walking away is to just not consume the content."
Which I also do. But, when it comes to browsing HN and reddit and clicking links off to sites I don't know, I have every right to proactively protect my privacy and peaceful browsing free of intrusive/noisy ads.
> so why do you feel its ok for the site to not make any revenue?
There are many, many ways to monetize. Ad blocking doesn't stop them from making any revenue for their content. If the company in question still didn't realize that people don't like ads and any decently informed person uses an ad blocker then they are probably behind the times. Why would they rely on ads exclusively to monetize their content?
Relying on ads to monetize might have worked in the past. Adopt new ways to make money, the trend nowadays is to sell software and content as a service. That is much better than forcing me to view some gifs / videos / annoying ads or even text ads that waste precious space on the website.
There are many, many ways to monetize. Ad blocking doesn't stop them from making any revenue for their content. If the company in question still didn't realize that people don't like ads and any decently informed person uses an ad blocker then they are probably behind the times. Why would they rely on ads exclusively to monetize their content?
Relying on ads to monetize might have worked in the past. Adopt new ways to make money, the trend nowadays is to sell software and content as a service. That is much better than forcing me to view some gifs / videos / annoying ads or even text ads that waste precious space on the website.
Guilt in this case is nonsensical. If the site wanted to detect, and then not serve, the users who block their ads, that's actually very easy to implement, technologically. But very few sites do this. Most site owners are, then, making a conscious choice to continue to serve these people who aren't making them money. If they want to give you something for nothing, let them! And if they want to not give you something for free, that's their choice to make!
It's actually not that easy, since the client has full control over what the server sends out.
Yeah, it's theoretically impossible to stop a determined extension-writer from perfectly blocking ads in a way that leaks no information. But current implementations are sloppy and leak all sorts of information. Usually you can just run some (inline!) Javascript to inspect the DOM and then do something.
Or, if the client won't run Javascript at all (and you might consider making your site require Javascript to render anything, just to stymie these users, if you're on this path already), you can still set a background-image property as a "default" for a banner div, in a way that it will never get requested if the ad does get rendered, but will get requested if it doesn't. (OKCupid uses this approach, if I recall.) You can then use that information just for analytics, or you can go further and change what the server serves that client from then on (i.e. make all further pages for that session return an error.)
Or, if the client won't run Javascript at all (and you might consider making your site require Javascript to render anything, just to stymie these users, if you're on this path already), you can still set a background-image property as a "default" for a banner div, in a way that it will never get requested if the ad does get rendered, but will get requested if it doesn't. (OKCupid uses this approach, if I recall.) You can then use that information just for analytics, or you can go further and change what the server serves that client from then on (i.e. make all further pages for that session return an error.)
Then you'll have to explain why I see "You seem to have an ad blocker running. Would you consider turning it off, or subscribing" on many sites.
The usual way sites do it is have a script that checks for any loaded ads and displays that message. This script itself can easily be blocked if sites decide to do more with it, and it has because the list is maintained by groups that decide what goes on it. They're willing to let simple messages slide but blocking the content has already proven to not work.
I think this article by Douglas Adams from 1998 is in hindsight very inspiring on this matter: http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/980707-05-a.html
The industry simply disregarded the opportunity Adams recognized and just moved what we all hate from paper media to the Internet. However, in the Internet we have a tools we can use to defend ourselves. It's really no wonder that we, users, increasingly reach for them and it's only a stupidity (and/or greediness) of ad companies that prevented them from predicting that.
The industry simply disregarded the opportunity Adams recognized and just moved what we all hate from paper media to the Internet. However, in the Internet we have a tools we can use to defend ourselves. It's really no wonder that we, users, increasingly reach for them and it's only a stupidity (and/or greediness) of ad companies that prevented them from predicting that.
I don't see why we should assume they haven't predicted it. Web advertising was and continues to be a billion dollar business, and until ad blocking usage grows enough to kill it, people will continue to sell ads, even if they expect it to end eventually.
Once the advertisers pay for the bandwidth they use on my mobile plan, they can send me ads.
Doesn't this argument work both ways: "Once the visitors pay for the bandwidth they use accessing my websites, they can visit without adverts"? And if so, isn't the solution that if you're not happy with advertisements using your bandwidth (but you don't or can't pay to opt out of advertisements) then you should just not visit websites with advertisements? Seems like a fair compromise.
Disregarding the other obvious problems with this idea, how do you get to know whether or not a site serves ads without visiting it?
That's a funny thought, I wonder if in the case of mobile, the ad revenue is lower than your data cost. In which case micropayments for the content would be less aggravating and cheaper.
I disabled ad blocking recently and websites that normally load lightning quick would not even load or would lag tremendously.
I don't know why nobody can figure out a workable, voluntary microtransactions model. If you like a piece of content instead of (or in addition to) upvoting or "liking" or retweeting, you send a few pennies to the content creator.
The model now is simply people not savvy enough to install ad blocking subsidizing content consumption of everybody else. That is probably not stable.
I don't know why nobody can figure out a workable, voluntary microtransactions model. If you like a piece of content instead of (or in addition to) upvoting or "liking" or retweeting, you send a few pennies to the content creator.
The model now is simply people not savvy enough to install ad blocking subsidizing content consumption of everybody else. That is probably not stable.
The overwhelming population wants things for free. Ads have allowed that to happen by monetizing attention to pay for the content.
Every time a site has tried a paywall approach, it's met with backlash and a huge decrease in users. Only some of the top publishers have been able to monetize this way.
Micropayments have been tried and even Google is on it's second run with the Contributor program but it's still proven hard to get anyone to sign up.
When the alternative is to just install adblock, why try harder or pay money? Users are just as greedy as anyone else, free will always be the biggest draw.
Every time a site has tried a paywall approach, it's met with backlash and a huge decrease in users. Only some of the top publishers have been able to monetize this way.
Micropayments have been tried and even Google is on it's second run with the Contributor program but it's still proven hard to get anyone to sign up.
When the alternative is to just install adblock, why try harder or pay money? Users are just as greedy as anyone else, free will always be the biggest draw.
It's an interesting situation, no?
So many people want quite a few things for free while at the same time so many also immediately agree the creators of those things should be appreciated/respected/supported.
Take a random well respected journalist: people will often want to read his/her stories for free at the very moment they are released, while those same people overwhelmingly want the journalist to have all possible opportunities to continue their work (financial backing being a large part of that).
I have absolutely no experience in sociology/psychology, but I think it is fascinating.
So many people want quite a few things for free while at the same time so many also immediately agree the creators of those things should be appreciated/respected/supported.
Take a random well respected journalist: people will often want to read his/her stories for free at the very moment they are released, while those same people overwhelmingly want the journalist to have all possible opportunities to continue their work (financial backing being a large part of that).
I have absolutely no experience in sociology/psychology, but I think it is fascinating.
Unfortunately the issues with micropayments is that even if a service comes out that manages to solve the rather substantial technical hurdles, nobody will be willing to trade the free+ads model they can just abuse with adblock for voluntary payment.
Cost has time and again been proven to be an extreme obstacle vs free and people will go to great lengths to acquire stuff without paying (ie: piracy). When it's as easy as a browser extension, then it's tough to see a way out.
Cost has time and again been proven to be an extreme obstacle vs free and people will go to great lengths to acquire stuff without paying (ie: piracy). When it's as easy as a browser extension, then it's tough to see a way out.
Spotify already handles micro payments to artists. They could offer digital magazines and send payments back to the author when a reader clicks on it.
Micropayments for web/editorial content is a much harder problem. There's no central egress point for this content, it's spread over all the sites and a tracking system needs to be in place (but people hate that) as well as massive scale to touch all those sites and check the usage.
This is something that would need massive cooperation and integration between websites, ad networks and even ISPs to get right. If it was that easy, the industry would've already done it. The fact that Google is on it's second approach with their Contributor program and still not finding any luck is telling. (And Google owns a ridiculous amount of the layers in the modern web so they're probably in the best place to pull this off).
This is something that would need massive cooperation and integration between websites, ad networks and even ISPs to get right. If it was that easy, the industry would've already done it. The fact that Google is on it's second approach with their Contributor program and still not finding any luck is telling. (And Google owns a ridiculous amount of the layers in the modern web so they're probably in the best place to pull this off).
"people not savvy enough"
Or people who are plenty savvy, but simply don't mind ads and chose to contribute to the creators of the content they consume...
Or people who are plenty savvy, but simply don't mind ads and chose to contribute to the creators of the content they consume...
Watching ads isn't contributing to content creators. That ad money didn't materialize from nowhere, that's a percentage of revenue being diverted to the ad company. Bought Product X? See that Product X ad? You helped pay for it. You could make a strong argument that ad networks are parasitic drag on the economy, but that would probably be dismissed as crazy talk.
"Destroy your Internet economy with this one weird old tip..."
>don't mind ads and chose to contribute to the creators of the content they consume...
The current ad economy favours clickbait over original content.
Paradoxically, there's a lot more original content than there used to be in the days of print. But that's down to Wordpress and the low cost of entry to web publishing, and not so much because there's an infinite number of content monkeys trying to monetise an infinite number of articles of the Twenty Things About Hacker News You Just Won't Believe kind.
>don't mind ads and chose to contribute to the creators of the content they consume...
The current ad economy favours clickbait over original content.
Paradoxically, there's a lot more original content than there used to be in the days of print. But that's down to Wordpress and the low cost of entry to web publishing, and not so much because there's an infinite number of content monkeys trying to monetise an infinite number of articles of the Twenty Things About Hacker News You Just Won't Believe kind.
I wouldn't mind ads so much if I had an easy way to pay $0.05 to get rid of them for a day, or $0.50 to get rid of them for a month.
As far as I can tell, that's way more money on a per user basis than companies are making on selling ads.
As far as I can tell, that's way more money on a per user basis than companies are making on selling ads.
While I would like something like this too, the $0.05 per day or $0.50 per month is the real problem. Would you be willing to pay $1.00-2.00 per day? $30-60 per month? These are the typical subscription prices sites need in order to stay in business.
There seems to be no midpoint where the sites get the money they want or need that is also going to be acceptable to the consumer. Advertising, for some reason, does pay enough.
There seems to be no midpoint where the sites get the money they want or need that is also going to be acceptable to the consumer. Advertising, for some reason, does pay enough.
I hate adverts.
My problem with adverts is that they are not information, they are selective truths or downright lies. I cannot trust adverts.
My problem with adverts is that they are not information, they are selective truths or downright lies. I cannot trust adverts.
Indeed.
Roughly, the whole idea of free market economy, a.k.a. capitalism, is based on theory of rational behavior of participants - and also on assumption of complete information about the matters which are being decided.
Advertisements heavily change that last assumption (lies, selective omissions or inclusions), so much that the whole system doesn't work as expected. Game-theoretically, everybody incentivized to advertise his goods, while together we make market working worse for everyone - conflicting goals. I wonder if there are theories modelling this state of things.
Roughly, the whole idea of free market economy, a.k.a. capitalism, is based on theory of rational behavior of participants - and also on assumption of complete information about the matters which are being decided.
Advertisements heavily change that last assumption (lies, selective omissions or inclusions), so much that the whole system doesn't work as expected. Game-theoretically, everybody incentivized to advertise his goods, while together we make market working worse for everyone - conflicting goals. I wonder if there are theories modelling this state of things.
Free market theory is not built on complete information, perfect behavior, strict reason, et al.
Quite the opposite in fact. It allows for and can easily withstand significant irrationality among participants, while still producing vastly superior outcomes. The 19th century in the US more than proved that fact; by ~1910 the US was embarrassing every major economy of Europe in terms of median incomes, growth, wealth production, etc. The free market results in an economy with far greater flexibility across the board. It can absorb shocks from irrational behavior better than any other system. The more distance you get from the free market, the harsher the penalties for irrationality: just ask all the Socialist, Communist, and Fascist systems of the 20th century.
The free market system has no opinion on the behavior of individuals, that's a relationship that exists among people and not with the system itself. In actuality there is no "free market" that you're interacting with, such that it punishes you for being irrational, there are only other people with economic interests of some sort that may take advantage of your irrationality.
Reputation is the answer to your last issue with the free market, regarding both advertising and complete information. Nearly every economic structure in any market system depends on reputation, and even more so in the free market. The free market doesn't require instant or perfect information, or expect participants to possess such god-like powers - the free market runs on eventual consistency, eventual recognition of reputation. Over time customers will come to know you as either honest, or dishonest, and they will vote with their money depending on the grievance.
Try running a typical business in a free market, lie to your customers non-stop, over-charge them compared to what you advertise, and see what happens to you. Your reputation will destroy you over time. This happens every day to businesses of every size in every city in America.
Quite the opposite in fact. It allows for and can easily withstand significant irrationality among participants, while still producing vastly superior outcomes. The 19th century in the US more than proved that fact; by ~1910 the US was embarrassing every major economy of Europe in terms of median incomes, growth, wealth production, etc. The free market results in an economy with far greater flexibility across the board. It can absorb shocks from irrational behavior better than any other system. The more distance you get from the free market, the harsher the penalties for irrationality: just ask all the Socialist, Communist, and Fascist systems of the 20th century.
The free market system has no opinion on the behavior of individuals, that's a relationship that exists among people and not with the system itself. In actuality there is no "free market" that you're interacting with, such that it punishes you for being irrational, there are only other people with economic interests of some sort that may take advantage of your irrationality.
Reputation is the answer to your last issue with the free market, regarding both advertising and complete information. Nearly every economic structure in any market system depends on reputation, and even more so in the free market. The free market doesn't require instant or perfect information, or expect participants to possess such god-like powers - the free market runs on eventual consistency, eventual recognition of reputation. Over time customers will come to know you as either honest, or dishonest, and they will vote with their money depending on the grievance.
Try running a typical business in a free market, lie to your customers non-stop, over-charge them compared to what you advertise, and see what happens to you. Your reputation will destroy you over time. This happens every day to businesses of every size in every city in America.
I mostly block for the tracking. In theory, a google text ad doesn't bother me so much. But since my profile, built up from analytics-- fonts-- jquery-- recaptcha, and so on, is being sold to the highest bidder, I block everything I can.
I would bet that all the marketing and ad departments have seen this coming for a very long time.
Considering that, it's absolutely no surprise that native advertising is becoming so popular on platforms targeting the 18-36yo demographic. This is where Snapchat hopes to start making big money. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Reddit is cashing in on this already.
As much as we hate waiting 5 whole seconds before a YouTube video, I think it's much less sinister than having brands shoved into your subconscious.
But this is the internet we've created. I think that we'll solve it with time.
I'm still not apologizing for using my adblocker.
Considering that, it's absolutely no surprise that native advertising is becoming so popular on platforms targeting the 18-36yo demographic. This is where Snapchat hopes to start making big money. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Reddit is cashing in on this already.
As much as we hate waiting 5 whole seconds before a YouTube video, I think it's much less sinister than having brands shoved into your subconscious.
But this is the internet we've created. I think that we'll solve it with time.
I'm still not apologizing for using my adblocker.
The interesting item in that article is that in 2013, "Free", the French mobile service, did ad-blocking by default. Not in the article: AdBlock's company is coming out with an IOS browser with integral ad-blocking.
That's something worth doing in the GNU fork of Firefox. From within the browser, you can do ad blocking and pop-up blocking more successfully. Add-ons currently do it as an after-the-fact change to the DOM. With better browser support.
As ad-blocking becomes more widely used, we may see a decline in clickbait sites. No loss there.
That's something worth doing in the GNU fork of Firefox. From within the browser, you can do ad blocking and pop-up blocking more successfully. Add-ons currently do it as an after-the-fact change to the DOM. With better browser support.
As ad-blocking becomes more widely used, we may see a decline in clickbait sites. No loss there.
I will try and block every piece of network traffic i don't want on my devices, including ads.
This conversation keeps coming back and I'm not sure there's ever anything new to say. I'm just going to summarize this the way I see it:
1) There are only two viable business models for digital publishers - free content with ads, or paid access. Yes some can survive on donations and ecommerce, but those are exceptions. Direct paid models also only work for some very large and high quality publishers, the long-tail of great small sites only exists because of ads.
2) The main reasons of adblocking usually are performance, security and privacy. Performance is a given, loading less means loading faster. Security is definitely a problem along with privacy, but mostly because this is a global industry that has largely gone without any real regulation. Things are slowly changing but a few bad actors have ruined a lot of trust by coming up with increasingly intrusive formats and allowing malware on their networks from shady advertisers.
3) Blocking ads absolutely does hurt publishers. It's not fair nor "right". It might not be illegal but just because it's easy to do doesn't condone the usage. Lots of sites have terms of service where they explicitly state the content is available in exchange for the ads. The fair choice would be to not visit the site if you don't find the ads acceptable, a choice that has always existed. By visiting with adblock, you are showing that you find value in the content but don't want the publisher to recoup the costs of production.
4) Going forward, advertisers are getting better with less intrusive formats and better security. Regulation is also finally appearing along with things like fraud and viewability tracking. This should all help, but it's a long road. The other option is micropayments but this isnt as easy to solve (needs massive scale, partnerships with sites, perhaps ISP help, etc).
Overall: ads work, it's a giant industry, adblocking does improve performance, security and privacy but costs the publisher and does endanger the wider web of original content. I don't agree with using adblock but I do consider the reasons valid and that its at least pushing for a better industry (and perhaps future model).
Edit: Downvoters, what exactly is the issue? Interesting that anyone advocating that adblockers aren't an absolute good thing gets dismissed here on HN.
1) There are only two viable business models for digital publishers - free content with ads, or paid access. Yes some can survive on donations and ecommerce, but those are exceptions. Direct paid models also only work for some very large and high quality publishers, the long-tail of great small sites only exists because of ads.
2) The main reasons of adblocking usually are performance, security and privacy. Performance is a given, loading less means loading faster. Security is definitely a problem along with privacy, but mostly because this is a global industry that has largely gone without any real regulation. Things are slowly changing but a few bad actors have ruined a lot of trust by coming up with increasingly intrusive formats and allowing malware on their networks from shady advertisers.
3) Blocking ads absolutely does hurt publishers. It's not fair nor "right". It might not be illegal but just because it's easy to do doesn't condone the usage. Lots of sites have terms of service where they explicitly state the content is available in exchange for the ads. The fair choice would be to not visit the site if you don't find the ads acceptable, a choice that has always existed. By visiting with adblock, you are showing that you find value in the content but don't want the publisher to recoup the costs of production.
4) Going forward, advertisers are getting better with less intrusive formats and better security. Regulation is also finally appearing along with things like fraud and viewability tracking. This should all help, but it's a long road. The other option is micropayments but this isnt as easy to solve (needs massive scale, partnerships with sites, perhaps ISP help, etc).
Overall: ads work, it's a giant industry, adblocking does improve performance, security and privacy but costs the publisher and does endanger the wider web of original content. I don't agree with using adblock but I do consider the reasons valid and that its at least pushing for a better industry (and perhaps future model).
Edit: Downvoters, what exactly is the issue? Interesting that anyone advocating that adblockers aren't an absolute good thing gets dismissed here on HN.
I suspect you are being downvoted because you are not arguing very well.
"There are only two viable business models" - and then you admit a third, and a fourth, and claim that they are exceptions. There can't possibly be a fifth? There can't be a sixth that someone will invent next year and become the dominant mode of funding digital publishing?
You claim a moral right for web sites to show you ads, but no equivalent moral right for people to use programs to ignore the ads. That's inconsistent, and also morally abhorrent to many people.
Finally, you say that you "don't agree with using adblock but I do consider the reasons valid" -- that appears to be another inconsistency. If ad blocking is immoral, there can't be any reasoning which will overwhelm your moral objections.
Perhaps you are using the word "moral" in an unusual fashion?
"There are only two viable business models" - and then you admit a third, and a fourth, and claim that they are exceptions. There can't possibly be a fifth? There can't be a sixth that someone will invent next year and become the dominant mode of funding digital publishing?
You claim a moral right for web sites to show you ads, but no equivalent moral right for people to use programs to ignore the ads. That's inconsistent, and also morally abhorrent to many people.
Finally, you say that you "don't agree with using adblock but I do consider the reasons valid" -- that appears to be another inconsistency. If ad blocking is immoral, there can't be any reasoning which will overwhelm your moral objections.
Perhaps you are using the word "moral" in an unusual fashion?
1) There are only two viable business models today. The exceptions are not viable; just because a few can do it doesn't mean they can be used for the mainstream. And I didnt say there can't be more nor was I implying it since I talk about possible future alternatives - it's just reality today only has 2. When more show up and actually prove to work, then there will be more.
2) Both options in a moral argument cant be moral. I don't think it's moral for people to use programs to tamper with what a content provider has given you in exchange for providing that content (which they have full rights to) for free. The usage of the programs isnt the issue, it's what and how it's used for. Modifying a site to make text bigger is fine for example, modifying it to circumvent the advertising explicitly is morally wrong.
3) The reasons why people want to block ads are fine. Most people want more performance, security and privacy. Adblock and it's blunt approach of blocking everything as well as the extortion businesses run by the adblocking companies is immoral. Wanting something and doing it are different, as well as the method. I'm arguing that adblocking as a method is wrong.
4) I'm not sure what other word I could use... it's based on principals since it's not law or hard rules, unless you count breaking terms of use on sites. But it seems nobody cares about those so morality seems to cover all of it.
2) Both options in a moral argument cant be moral. I don't think it's moral for people to use programs to tamper with what a content provider has given you in exchange for providing that content (which they have full rights to) for free. The usage of the programs isnt the issue, it's what and how it's used for. Modifying a site to make text bigger is fine for example, modifying it to circumvent the advertising explicitly is morally wrong.
3) The reasons why people want to block ads are fine. Most people want more performance, security and privacy. Adblock and it's blunt approach of blocking everything as well as the extortion businesses run by the adblocking companies is immoral. Wanting something and doing it are different, as well as the method. I'm arguing that adblocking as a method is wrong.
4) I'm not sure what other word I could use... it's based on principals since it's not law or hard rules, unless you count breaking terms of use on sites. But it seems nobody cares about those so morality seems to cover all of it.
> You claim a moral right for web sites to show you ads, but no equivalent moral right for people to use programs to ignore the ads. That's inconsistent, and also morally abhorrent to many people.
It's not inconsistent. People have a right to ask for whatever they think their product is worth. And people have just as much as a right to turn down the deal if they find it unacceptable. But people do not have a right to just go ahead and consume the product if they find the asking price unreasonable. The latter seems more morally abhorrent to me.
It's not inconsistent. People have a right to ask for whatever they think their product is worth. And people have just as much as a right to turn down the deal if they find it unacceptable. But people do not have a right to just go ahead and consume the product if they find the asking price unreasonable. The latter seems more morally abhorrent to me.
> the long-tail of great small sites only exists because of ads.
The internet, as it existed before ads, has shown this to be false. As has Wikipedia - an ad free site which displays the writings of millions of individuals. Oh, and book authors - they run sites without ads, and frequently even post web-first stories, supported by following them with e-books purchased by their fans.
> By visiting with adblock, you are showing that you find value in the content but don't want the publisher to recoup the costs of production.
Personally, I'm showing that the producer has lost all of my trust that they can pick ads which are appropriate to their content. Most web site owners are lazy when it comes to ads - they just allow through whatever the ad company wants to put up. It devalues their site, and the fact they don't notice this indicates their lack of respect for me as a consumer.
> advertisers are getting better with less intrusive formats
Not in my experience. Full page interstitial ads, inter-article highlight ads, auto-playing sound and movie ads, ads for crappy Clash of Clans clones advertised by busty, half dressed women... it's as bad as it ever was.
> ads work
No, they really don't. The payout per impression has been going down for years, as more and more companies realize that ads just don't work (regardless of the fraction of a percent of people who block them). The only reason ads are still viewed as a remotely viable model is because the ad sellers are lying to the people purchasing ad impressions.
"Look at all of this (bot) clickthrough on your new ad on Facebook! How about all of these impressions (from click farms in China)! Now how about buying another 200,000 targeted impressions? What do you mean you didn't get any actual purchases from the previous 200k? You're just not realizing how much value you've gained from being in front of people's eyes. That's another $2,000, please."
Could I stop viewing sites which use ads? Yup. Should I? Hard to say. Perhaps I'm nostalgic for the old days where content was made freely available for the sake of being available, perhaps I'm just being vindictive against those who have displayed no respect for me. Either way, I'm not going to stop browsing the web because someone wants to make my eyeballs bleed for an insignificant fraction of a penny.
The internet, as it existed before ads, has shown this to be false. As has Wikipedia - an ad free site which displays the writings of millions of individuals. Oh, and book authors - they run sites without ads, and frequently even post web-first stories, supported by following them with e-books purchased by their fans.
> By visiting with adblock, you are showing that you find value in the content but don't want the publisher to recoup the costs of production.
Personally, I'm showing that the producer has lost all of my trust that they can pick ads which are appropriate to their content. Most web site owners are lazy when it comes to ads - they just allow through whatever the ad company wants to put up. It devalues their site, and the fact they don't notice this indicates their lack of respect for me as a consumer.
> advertisers are getting better with less intrusive formats
Not in my experience. Full page interstitial ads, inter-article highlight ads, auto-playing sound and movie ads, ads for crappy Clash of Clans clones advertised by busty, half dressed women... it's as bad as it ever was.
> ads work
No, they really don't. The payout per impression has been going down for years, as more and more companies realize that ads just don't work (regardless of the fraction of a percent of people who block them). The only reason ads are still viewed as a remotely viable model is because the ad sellers are lying to the people purchasing ad impressions.
"Look at all of this (bot) clickthrough on your new ad on Facebook! How about all of these impressions (from click farms in China)! Now how about buying another 200,000 targeted impressions? What do you mean you didn't get any actual purchases from the previous 200k? You're just not realizing how much value you've gained from being in front of people's eyes. That's another $2,000, please."
Could I stop viewing sites which use ads? Yup. Should I? Hard to say. Perhaps I'm nostalgic for the old days where content was made freely available for the sake of being available, perhaps I'm just being vindictive against those who have displayed no respect for me. Either way, I'm not going to stop browsing the web because someone wants to make my eyeballs bleed for an insignificant fraction of a penny.
I wouldn't hold Wikipedia as a good counterexample. They frequently run ads, annoying ones too, only nobody thinks of them that way because they are usually begging for donations. Additionally, Wikipedia is not in any way "long tail". How many websites do you think can survive on a donation model?
Also book authors: Their main business is not the website. In fact the website is a giant advertisement for their actual main business, which is books. This discussion is clearly about websites whose main business is producing online content.
How many online content sites do you know that run on alternative monetization methods like donations? Now how many sites do you know that run on ads? You'll find numbers will not support your view.
Also book authors: Their main business is not the website. In fact the website is a giant advertisement for their actual main business, which is books. This discussion is clearly about websites whose main business is producing online content.
How many online content sites do you know that run on alternative monetization methods like donations? Now how many sites do you know that run on ads? You'll find numbers will not support your view.
Most publishers (like the long-tail) cant sell or moderate every single ad. No advertiser these days picks a single site to run on, rather they purchase based on audiences.
Instead, publishers will blacklist certain advertisers but for the most part it's very automated based on context, behavior targeting, and other factors. Also even if a publisher is large enough to do direct deals, they still use the networks to "backfill" the remaining inventory because they would rather make some money than nothing.
With the cost of hosting going down and the growth of blogging platforms like wordpress, medium and others, it's becoming much easier for the long tail to publish. Still hard if they want to actually make money but at least they can publish without a problem today. I'm glad for that progress.
Arguing that ads don't work though, I just dont get it. What are you basing this on? The entire industry has increased by billions in spend, cost per impression is falling because there's so much more inventory and the shift to more performance based pricing. There are still triple digit CPMs depending on the placement + audience + format so it's not like everything is super cheap. If it's some crappy clickbait link running on some shady site, yea it'll be cheap. Buying ads on FT.com is very different.
Ad fraud is a problem sure, the same as fraud is a problem in credit cards. It's just a constant arms race. It's not like the industry is stupid. Please stop thinking that all of the very talented engineers, data scientists and analysts dont know anything. This industry is far more hard data-driven than many others where "gut" powers lots of decisions.
Edit: Side note: I know people hate clickbait headlines and all those crappy gossip articles... but guess why they're always around and sites like BuzzFeed are worth a billion? Because that's what people actually click on and read.
Instead, publishers will blacklist certain advertisers but for the most part it's very automated based on context, behavior targeting, and other factors. Also even if a publisher is large enough to do direct deals, they still use the networks to "backfill" the remaining inventory because they would rather make some money than nothing.
With the cost of hosting going down and the growth of blogging platforms like wordpress, medium and others, it's becoming much easier for the long tail to publish. Still hard if they want to actually make money but at least they can publish without a problem today. I'm glad for that progress.
Arguing that ads don't work though, I just dont get it. What are you basing this on? The entire industry has increased by billions in spend, cost per impression is falling because there's so much more inventory and the shift to more performance based pricing. There are still triple digit CPMs depending on the placement + audience + format so it's not like everything is super cheap. If it's some crappy clickbait link running on some shady site, yea it'll be cheap. Buying ads on FT.com is very different.
Ad fraud is a problem sure, the same as fraud is a problem in credit cards. It's just a constant arms race. It's not like the industry is stupid. Please stop thinking that all of the very talented engineers, data scientists and analysts dont know anything. This industry is far more hard data-driven than many others where "gut" powers lots of decisions.
Edit: Side note: I know people hate clickbait headlines and all those crappy gossip articles... but guess why they're always around and sites like BuzzFeed are worth a billion? Because that's what people actually click on and read.
Agreed on the nostalgia. Not so much on how hopeless ads are, though.
When you weed out bot traffic, unviewable ads, and arbitrage, your engagement metrics and ROI basically go off the charts. And there are a couple of firms that help digital advertisers do precisely that. e.g. http://enbrite.ly (Disclaimer: I work with them.)
When you weed out bot traffic, unviewable ads, and arbitrage, your engagement metrics and ROI basically go off the charts. And there are a couple of firms that help digital advertisers do precisely that. e.g. http://enbrite.ly (Disclaimer: I work with them.)
Well no shit, sherlock. When ad networks decide that mobiles are a fucking free-for-all and I get un-back-out-able popups like I'm on some warez or porn site, fuck yeah I'm gonna block that shit!
The worst is when they hack the browser history, so when you click back 20 times and you still see ads
We will just see more and more native style ads. If the ad is coming from the same location as the site, it will be really hard for ad blockers to block them.
If it's not dynamically generated, it can be blocked.
I will never use adblock for the reason that I'm a content creator myself; it's so very difficult to make money off of things online and pay for things like server costs.
I think ads are very important for keeping the internet free like it is now.
I think ads are very important for keeping the internet free like it is now.
The internet was free for a long time before pervasive advertising.
I think one of the worst advertisements is the Bank of America ads played before any video on the BBC app. It's always that one German lady singing "Dankeshon"...very annoying.
I wish there was something to block or at least flag all the advertisements masquerading as articles.
How do I block ads on ios?