8 years ago
31
Ad blocking has grown 41% in the past year and it's costing publishers tens of billions of dollars
The number of consumers using ad blocking software worldwide has increased 41% year-on-year to 198 million monthly active users, according to a report published Monday by PageFair and Adobe. While that figure may only represent 6% of the global web population, ad blocking is expected to cost publishers more than $21.8 billion in 2015 in lost revenue.
Continue Reading
http://finance.yahoo.com
Join the Discussion
This makes the false assumption that if people didn't block ads, they would make purchases from ads just like people who don't in the first place. That is the only way they can justify a loss of revenue. They can't get it through their thick heads that people who use ad blockers will not buy what they are selling at any price.
I own the network connection to my house. I own the OS running on my computer, and I own the web browser that displays web pages. It is my conscious decision not to look at ads.
Bill Hicks was right. Advertisers and Marketers should kill themselves. They add nothing good to the universe.
Though a large amount of the advertisements out there, whether it's online or offline, annoy me a lot, I don't agree with that last statement. There are plenty of advertisers and marketers who don't treat consumers like brainless zombies. Marketers that respect their audience and really know what their audience need can actually be quite helpful to the business as well as the customer.
Thing is, for every "good" marketer out there, there's another five hundred "not quite as good, but half the price". Not to mention the "not really good at all, but damn, they can shovel out the ads!" marketers. Now. you're a small company with a limited ad budget. Who are you going to choose? The well-crafted, one shot TV ad that will either bring in a trickle of new revenue and otherwise break the bank for the year, or the company that can guarantee they can put your name in front of millions for less than half the price?
to put it another way, I see the internet as a big pool (if you consider bandwidth as pool water). We all share the pool together. Everything done affects the others in the pool. I think that people who pee in the pool should be kicked out. Others might say "what about if they pee just a little bit. Is that okay?". No. There is no amount of pee in the pool that is okay.
Today, advertisers aren't just peeing in the pool, they're projectile vomiting everywhere. Diarrhea fountains with flashing lights and screaming "look at me". They're doing everything they can to push their message across. Hijacking browsers, circumnavigating ad blockers, forcing people to disable blockers to view content. Advertisers and marketers are doing everything in their power to stop people from doing anything other than to view their content.
While I appreciate your viewpoint, I feel that it's fundamentally flawed. I remember an internet when there was no ads. It was nice.
Fundamentally flawed viewpoint? What viewpoint? I mainly stated that the statement that advertisers and marketers should kill themselves is something I don't agree with because not all marketers are the same. That is not supposed to be a viewpoint...
I can understand your frustration and I myself use ad blocking software as well because I got sick of all the intrusive ads, and yes, the internet is definitely been the pool a lot of marketeers peed in or worse. But if some people pee in the pool, that doesn't mean that everyone who is swimming in it is contributing to that. That is what I'm trying to say. Honestly, I think that a comment that people should kill themselves is absolutely inappropriate, no matter whether you fully mean it or not.
My apologies! Looks like I got the message wrong. You thought that convincing marketers to kill themselves was inappropriate- not everything else. Glad that's been sorted.
But anyway yes, Bill Hicks was right. They should kill themselves. Quietly, if possible.
I agree...Like when Avatar was pirated out the wazoo, still it made boat loads of money. And like you, I own all that jolly good stuff as well. And at the end of the day, I decide what shows up in my browser,not some money grabbing,snooping corporation. When I had a tv,I muted ads and ignored them since I was a kid because I found then annoying,irritating and demeaning. At the end of the day,I do not want,or need some company telling me to buy bla bla to be happy. And think how the price of stuff would change if the cost of the ad was not included in the price of the product. Anyway,they need to realize the computer user is in charge and we are not here to buy their stuff.
I don't want to see ads.. Any ads.
[This comment was removed]
Well said!
Hey man. I'm in advertising.
I agree that there are awful advertisers out there, but I wouldn't lump them all in together. I've made ads with 95% likes on YouTube. I've convinced brands to donate over a million dollars to charitable causes. I've worked with non-profits to raise awareness of human rights abuses and other social problems.
Good advertising is just an extension of PR: Apple has a new phone, Dominoes has a new pizza, Tide has a new detergent. A lot of people want to know about these things, so we try to tell them in a way that connects with them. Lots of advertising is awful, and predatory, and misleading, and harmful. But then there's stuff like the Old Spice Guy, or This Girl Can, or #LikeAGirl, or this GE lightbulb ad made by Tim and Eric. I'm sure you can name plenty of ads you love.
But holy shit, do I hate internet advertising.
It's a no-holds-barred, free-for-all, anything-goes wasteland. Banner ads are so ineffective that getting a 0.03% clickthrough rate is exceptionally good. "YOU'RE THE 1,000TH VISITOR!" and "SCIENTISTS HATE HER!" ads make the whole medium looks like a joke. Legitimate businesses have to comply with loads of standards and laws, but illegitimate ones operate on those same webpages, and try to trick you with fake download links or misleading ads. And the ads are getting increasingly bandwidth and processor intensive to the point where disabling them shows a marked increase in page load speeds.
I also hate what it has done to the internet. It's turned everything into clickbait. It's made eyeballs more important than quality. It's turned news into a race to get it out first, regardless of accuracy or integrity. I really miss when the internet was a place for hobbyists, and I think that's why I prefer reading comments and conversations on forums to "sponsored" content on Buzzfeed and the like.
They really need to figure how to monetize the net in a way that makes everyone happy, because pissing off consumers with awful ads doesn't work. I think letting people turn off this shit is awesome, though. It's forcing brands to create ads that people want to see, instead of making ads that people have to see.
I would feel guiltier, but as soon as I browse the web without it on, a world of obnoxious, loud, and plain unwanted ads actively block or distract me from the content I came onto the site for.
Now there are some small time sites I have on my safe list, because they have ads for stuff I would like and don't yank me by the scruff and rub my face in their god awful ads.
I don't feel guilty at all. I never gave these companies permission to use my personal data and browsing history to target ads at me, so I'm going to ignore them when they try. Plus, I have fundamental disagreements with the capitalist mindset of "buy buy buy, more more more!" There is no such thing as unlimited growth, and we need to stop treating the world like there is. The planet would be better off for it. If they really want me to buy their shit, they should tell me how they're helping the planet, reducing waste, making their products last longer so replacement waste is minimized and how they are helping their workers earn a living wage. Instead I get crap advertisements about walmart rollbacks.
And the money this is supposedly costing advertisers, is that real money or projected revenue? Because projected revenue was never theirs to begin with, and they shouldn't be counting that as a monetary loss.
Actually, chances are you have given those permissions. Ever sign up for pretty much anything Google (Namely installing Chrome or browsing while logged in to a Google (GMail) account)? Then you gave those permissions. With the installs of both of those you accept terms and conditions that Google AdSense (Which is used for a large majority of internet-based advertisements) is allowed to use your browsing history to personalize ads for your viewing experience.
I agree. I felt so guilty recently I tried turning adblock off and using the internet without it...and was constantly bombarded with video ads that ate up my bandwith and wouldn't shut up no matter what I did. I'm fine with ads for sites I really love, but I can't see how anyone who knows about adblock would willingly not have it at this point.
I kind of feel the same way about this. I've seen marketeers laughing on TV, being chosen by consumers to have the most annoying ads. All proud they say that this means that consumers remember the ad and that their goal was accomplished. On the internet it doesn't seem much different. No wonder people start looking for ways to block ads. They've been pushed around for far too long, because some (not all!) marketeers thought they had free play forever. And now the ones that do try to make it interesting for consumers and the websites that really do need the ad income are the victims here.
I agree. As long as web advertising in intrusive, distracting and spammy, people will continue to use adblock software, and that figure is only going to rise.
[This comment was removed]
[This comment was removed]
This comment has been removed
Marketing 101: You chose the demographic you are advertising to. So your demographic is apparently people who like loud, annoying auto-play ads. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that is a pretty small demographic. This could lead one to surmise that it isn't about selling a product advertised, you are selling the ad. So your "billions" lost are off the revenue from ads served, not the product. Cry me a river on that.
I am tired of attempting to read internet pages, only to hear loud dialogue and obnoxious music coming from Autoplay Ads elsewhere on the page - like being in a public library getting followed around by people with megaphones and noisy toys. It's annoying and intrusive, and smacks of desperation. I can understand that ad people must be frustrated and somehow need to be 'seen' in a way that requires dramatic intervention. There doesn't seem to be an easy answer, but I refuse to be even remotely interested in anything that is so blatant. The problem is that too many advertisers simply view the internet as another potential source of revenue, even if that only means hijacking someones bandwidth . Which makes advertisers the real pirates.
I've never felt guilty about this, 6% of people cost them 22 billion dollars, BILLION... not to mention the fact that those bastards are constantly tracking me, analyzing my internet history, scanning my browser ID and fingerprint and then selling it on to other ad firms... they only have themselves and their invasive privacy moves and invasive ads to blame.
For what it's worth though, Google Ads are ok in my book... not really intrusive and not loud and obnoxious autoplay stuff.
Sweet.
Besides the obvious annoying pop-up and auto-playing ads for which I originally decided to block ads, my other major concerns about privacy and security are now my primary reasons to continue blocking ads.
I use NoScript, Ublock Origin, and Privacy Badger. Yes it seems like overkill but I feel it's necessary. For websites I frequent and trust I will disable ublock, but as it turns out the ad networks on those sites often stealthily track me so Privacy Badger will block it.
Advertisers only have themselves to blame for the increasing ad blocking use. Give me reasonable ads without the privacy invasion and security risks and I'll allow you to show me your ads.
I didn't really even care about ads until I noticed some sites I frequented (e.g. Wikia) were so bogged down by them that sometimes they'd cause my computer to hang and/or Chrome to crash. Only then did I go, "Enough is enough!" and block them. I mean, seriously, maybe the advertisers don't care or have a clue, but the sites should know, right? Don't the people running them look at them from time to time to see how they're running, or do all the site owners have monster rigs and fat connections and don't notice the ads are making their sites nigh-unusable for people with lesser hardware and connections? Is the ad money for the large, resource-sucking ads that much better and/or worth the diminished user experience?
Let's not forget that ads can contain exploits and malware as Mozilla found out last week. All because of an ad from a Russian site.
I just bought a new laptop, cost me over a grand. Amongst the first things I did to it was install Malwarebytes Anti-Malware/Anti-Exploit and then Firefox along with ABP, WOT, Privacy Badger, and NoScript. Just like my precision machinist's tools, I have ZERO intention of letting my new laptop get all kinds of dirt and grit in it to grind it down and make it less and less usable. I take care of my stuff, and this is no different.
Not to mention, I only have a 6mbps Internet connection that I pay for. I am NOT wasting bandwidth on ads unless they are relatively seamless and unobtrusive.
well if they didn't try and sell me things I'd just bought, hijack the page and otherwise be loud and obnoxious I'd not have add blocking software installed.
Good. The less ads in this world, the better.