
Ad Blockers Will Change How Ads Are Sold - robin_reala
http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/11/09/ad-blockers-will-change-how-ads-are-sold/
======
lotsoflumens
They are still in the denial and fight-back stages. He says: "The study should
also confirm that people who are ideologically opposed to advertising are a
minority compared to the ones who have installed an ad blocker simply because
digital promotions and tracking have become unbearable".

This shows that they still don't see the big picture - that it's not just in
digital media that ads have completely crossed the line, it's everywhere, from
TV, radio and print, to billboards, jumbo-trons and corporate names on
structures and landmarks. They are still clinging to the idea that they can go
back to good times if they just reform some of their practices.

This is the end result of one group (publishers) relying on a revenue stream
(advertisers) that destroys their own service and credibility. They still
don't understand this.

~~~
efaref
I was with some friends travelling to central London recently, and we exited
the tube system at Tottenham Court Road station. This station is currently
undergoing refurbishment as part of the new Crossrail extension, and you now
leave through a recently constructed exit.

On the way up the escalators, we all commented to each other how the station
felt considerably different to other tube stations. It felt better, nicer,
more pleasant. This was strange, as the fit and finish is no different to
other new tube stations. Eventually one of my friends realised the difference:
there was no advertising.

I think we underestimate the mental load that advertising clutter causes us,
even when it's merely in the background. We're so used to it that it's not
until it's gone that we realise how burdensome it actually is.

~~~
corin_
I actually quite like adverts in the underground... in London I always look at
the posters when on an escalator to see if any shows (musicals/plays) look
interesting, and I still enjoy looking at adverts on the Paris metro now I
live here, again mostly for shows/art exhibitions/music (but also partly to
absorbe French culture).

I work in marketing / previously worked in more direct advertising, yet most
of the time find adverts annoying. But not on the underground.

~~~
mattkevan
Agreed. Tube ads are the only ones I'm happy to view as they're mostly for
museums, galleries or theatres.

Otherwise I actively avoid advertising wherever possible – I haven't watched
broadcast TV or commercial radio in years and block all the things online.

Interestingly, the other day I was on the tube and every single ad was for
web-based services. No physical products or pre-Internet companies at all.

------
jacquesm
> We know the oldest segment of the internet doesn’t block ads very much. By
> contrast, the rate will skyrocket for a younger, more tech-savvy crowd.

That's so contrary to my own experience, I wonder what evidence they used for
that.

It's also interesting that they see the 'kind' of ads as a problem, rather
than the industry and its way of applying technology as a whole. Ads are a
bunch of payload requiring bandwidth (sometimes in short supply), cpu power
(and so reduce battery life), waste the recipients time, have been used to
spread malware and viruses and are used to track people and build profiles on
them. None of those factors have anything at all to do with the content or the
format of the ads, and each of those by itself is a very valid reason to
install an adblocker, combined the decision is an absolute no-brainer.

For a day or so I used chrome (where I normally use firefox but that browser
is currently occupied with a rather long running macro) and my chrome install
does not have an adblocker. It's absolutely incredible how much worse the
situation has gotten since I started using adblockers.

The advertising industry _is_ the problem, not the ads themselves and I fail
to see how they're going to get us out of this mess short of running into a
very solid wall.

The fact that the largest advertising company on the planet makes a browser is
telling, that may be in the long run the only way ads will survive, by being
tied directly to a browser manufacturer which presumably will give them some
way to force ads onto your screen. Personally I can't wait for the implosion
of the advertising industry, sooner is better. Then we can go back to a web
that 'just works' instead of this continuous barrage of commercial junk.

If the web were a radio station we'd be listening to 10 second music fragments
interrupted with 12 minute advertising blocks.

~~~
geditdk
>Personally I can't wait for the implosion of the advertising industry, sooner
is better. Then we can go back to a web that 'just works' instead of this
continuous barrage of commercial junk.

100% agree.

Also, pretty sure I'm not the only one who has started boycotting a product
only because it's barrage of advertising is annoying.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Also, pretty sure I 'm not the only one who has started boycotting a
> product only because it's barrage of advertising is annoying._

You're not the only one. In my case, I for instance decided to never use
Groupon because of a barrage of pink and yellow ads I got once (before someone
asks again - I'm pretty pretty sure this was _way_ before I've heard any
controversy about Groupon).

------
m0nty
> more than eight out of ten admitted using an ad blocker

As if we should feel guilty about it.

~~~
jacquesm
Hey, at least he spread the knowledge to the remaining two.

We're a step or two away from getting internet content delivered as one giant
.png file with the ads embedded in the page and an oldfashioned clickable map
(remember those?) for links and advertising.

That's one way of delivering advertising that can't be blocked that I can
think of.

~~~
aikah
> We're a step or two away from getting internet content delivered as one
> giant .png

Well at least it would be a bit more secure ;) but they won't do this. They'll
first block users that use ad-blockers then they will just do some sponsored
article with brands or just paywall their news sites.

Either way it's the end of ad networks as we know them.

~~~
jacquesm
> They'll first block users that use ad-blockers then they will just do some
> sponsored article with brands or just paywall their news sites.

That requires a website _publisher_ to act against their visitors. Now, some
websites will no doubt do this but they're signing their own deathwarrant with
a strategy like that. The advertising industry is relatively powerless when it
comes to adblocking, the first ad network that blocks access to the pages of
the sites it is running on for users of adblockers will surely see a pretty
steep drop in the number of websites they're still allowed to serve.

So only publishers have that power (and I'm fine with that, if they wish to
force me to consume their ads I'm perfectly ok with getting my content
elsewhere, it's not as if there is a shortage of content on the internet).

Adblockers are forcing a whole class of websites into a variation of the
freemium model where the base service is free but only a small percentage is
paying because they are still consuming ads. The bigger the ratio between
free:paid users the higher the pressure on the remainder to monetize. This
will in turn drive some of the remainder towards installing an ad-blocker
themselves and so on.

This won't end well for the advertising industry, but it is self inflicted
wounds for the most part. If advertisers had not structurally overstepped the
bounds of the reasonable then adblockers would have never existed in the first
place. Sloppy oversight on what ads they allowed to be served up didn't help
either.

If they really wanted to fix this situation they could simply stop digging the
hole any deeper.

An actionable plan would look something like this:

\- immediately stop tracking and profile building, announce this very loudly
and _stick to it_ also in the future.

\- strict oversight on the kind of payloads they allow to be sent out

\- get rid of the crazy layering of the industry, stick to a simple 3 party
model, publisher, advertising agency, consumer (this is a very complex step,
agencies do not have the in-house knowledge required to actually serve ads)
and take responsibility towards publishers and consumers for the ads served.

Lots of people would lose their jobs, lots of websites would likely go under
but the industry as a whole would survive. If they can't make a move like this
they are in fact milking the cow until it dies and die it will, their actions
to date have only accelerated the process.

One of the problems that is hard to address is that the advertising industry
is in an arms race internally, if one party starts using a new and even more
invasive technique to outperform its competitors it gets all the business and
this then results in adoption of that technique across the board.

And all this to (sarcasm mode on) 'improve your online experience and serve
you more relevant content'.

~~~
bcoates
The problem is this would be admitting that the big lie (user targeting
produces relevant more effective ads) is a big lie.

User targeting destroys the social fear of missing out mechanic -- nobody
believes advertising affects them, but everyone believes that advertising
affects the other guy. I have to pay attention to untargeted ads because
anything they claim is something "everyone knows", even if it's a lie.

But once retargeting pulls back the curtain on the wizard the user realizes
that the ads they're seeing are individually selected just for them. Digital
ads drop from (pretending to be) a primary cultural information source to the
equivalent of a pushy door-to-door salesman, individually lying to you.

But if you admit that all user targeting does is goose vanity metrics while
damaging the value the ad inventory generates, most of the jobs in the digital
ads industry evaporate overnight -- including most of the ad-adjacent staff at
both the publishers and the brands -- so everyone is incentivized to keep the
charade up.

~~~
jacquesm
I think retargeting was the turning point. Up to there the ad industry could
get away with what they were doing without the users wising up. But once
retargeting became the norm people realized that they are being targeted
individually and a whole raft of them switched on adblockers in response.
Nothing more irritating than an ill-timed retargeting campaign.

------
evook
It's not the website providers business what I do with the bits reaching my
network. I choose to display and render what I want, and they choose to
deliver what they want. It's not complicated. That is the most fundamental
principle of information technology. One decides what to send, another one
decides what to receive.

If a company dies because of adblockers, let the company die. That's economy.

~~~
wishiknew
In the music industry, technology and economy have worked hand in hand to 'let
record companies die'. The result is that most projects nowadays are home-
made, resulting in a generalized cacophony where it's so hard to find quality
content that people are giving up. This is what's going to happen here as
well. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Hopefully this will make people
go back to real-world local structures, which are going to be profitable
again.

~~~
jacquesm
> resulting in a generalized cacophony where it's so hard to find quality
> content that people are giving up.

I've never had an easier time finding great new music.

~~~
bluejellybean
I didn't understand this either, the quality and diversity of music has never
been better

~~~
wishiknew
I can understand that somebody being exposed to this idea for the first time
would be dubious. If you'd rather hear it from some of the world's top
creators, check out presspauseplay.com.

~~~
wishiknew
@icebraining: I never said that idea was new, all I said was that apparently
everybody hasn't been exposed to it. There are a few different opinions in
this documentary, from this arrogant writer who got famous with the old model
and is now in love with the new one because he can deal directly with his
audience, to art lovers who are humbly searching for new ways, in theory or in
practice. But this isn't the subject here, and you don't provide much to
support your point of view yourself, so I'll stop replying.

------
red_admiral
I use uBlock because it does more for my security than my antivirus suite. Fix
that problem and we can talk about everything else.

------
DanielBMarkham
It's interesting how problem-solving paradigms can lead somebody to places
they probably wouldn't go otherwise.

 _"... In a wide study to be conducted globally in the coming months, Google
will try to ascertain what exactly motivates a web user to install an ad
blocker..."_

I have many friends who train people. We agree on some things and disagree on
others. What I find among some of my trainer friends is that if I disagree
with them, the problem must be that I haven't been "trained" enough. They use
training to change the world. If the world doesn't look like it's supposed to,
then time to do some more training.

Google are data folks. If their business model doesn't work any more? Must
gather more data.

Why do people install ad blockers? If we could only identify the top 3
drivers, then make some kind of short-term trade with them to prevent this
behavior (The kid of short-term trade that looks good in the beginning but
sucks for the user later on.)? We can fix this.

We must be careful that we don't approach problems already knowing what the
solution is. This is especially tough in an established and crazy profitable
industry. If your tool is to give people free stuff while collecting data to
present them with ads, when presented with a problem, odds are that your
solution is going to involve giving people free stuff while collecting data to
present them with ads.

~~~
jacquesm
It's called 'institutional blindness' and the advertising industry will go
down in history as the poster child for that particular affliction.

Now let's hope they don't take a whole raft of publishers with them.

------
pjc50
_A modern news team should be financially rewarded for its contribution to
traffic progression as well audience quality and retention performance_

Clickbait forever!

The only way to end the arms race is to go back to simple display ads: you get
a JPG of a fixed size on the article, served from the same webserver. No
tracking, no javascript, no flash, no audio, no animation.

~~~
bambax
I too was extremely surprised by this assertion. It would make more sense if
he replaced "traffic progression" by "subscriptions progression"...?

~~~
Fiahil
That's a subtle hint to the extended corruption spayed by advertising.
Publishers' jargon is centered around CTR, CPM, and traffic, because of their
limited understanding of the technology powering their revenue. They grasp at
whatever simplified concepts other non-technical persons showed down their
throat (like "big data"), to keep their illusion of power and stability.

Hopefully it will be over very soon.

~~~
jacquesm
And they optimized for those numbers at the expense of everything else and now
they're somewhat surprised there is a counterforce to their optimizations.

~~~
Fiahil
I have witnessed these "optimizations" taking place in the previous ad-tech-
startup I worked at. The story goes like this, everything was (almost) fine,
the product worked and it wasn't obtrusive. But, the numbers (CTR,
conversions, etc..) were _a bit_ low, and since the revenue of the company
were based on these metrics ('cause they are easy to collect and analyse),
someone was tasked to find ways to increase them. Of course, this is where
everything goes through the door, because the _easiest_ way to increase
CTR/conversions is by adopting shady techniques like almost-nude-model or
underwear pictures, pop-ups (@#$&%$#!), modals, etc..

I can see multiple reasons why advertising like that is doomed to fail. First
is the business model; pricing for performance is not an option. Second is the
people; you gotta get rid of the nagging layer of incompetence/ignorance of
the ones making decisions. Last, the more business advertisers are losing, the
more they are using shady techniques.

In the end, better let the whole industry crash hard and fast, so we can build
something better after.

------
corin_
A comment on that page:

 _Publishers cannot blame advertisers 100% for this situation.

As an advertiser, I tried several times to offer, less intrusive ads in
exchange for lower CPM. Publishers never, not even once, would be willing to
reduce their price by even a penny in exchange for friendlier ads._

I think without any irony.

------
lifeformed
I wish I could just directly pay web content creators the equivalent ad
revenue that my pageviews would generate.

~~~
amelius
I always wondered why Google didn't build a micropayment system for that. But
then again, that might blow up in their face.

~~~
hamax
They're testing it:

[https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/](https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/)

~~~
jacquesm
I don't want to pay google. I want to pay the _publisher_ directly. All this
will do is give google even more power over publishers which is the last thing
we need.

~~~
soared
More power? The already use countless google products, AdSense being where
they currently serve ads from. Publishers don't lose power. Google relies on
publishers for revenue, I don't see them purposefully hurting a publisher.

------
Arnt
There's something strange about this.

We're at a point where ad blockers are used by a majority of the first parts
of the audiences. The article and the talks it references all seem to be about
how to slow down or halt the adoption of ad blockers so it won't get that to
that point.

But we have reached that point already.

~~~
mattlutze
I don't think we can safely suggest a majority of media consumers on the
internet are using ad blockers.

As the author states, we should be wary of most stated statistics on blocker
usage. Neither the 25% nor 90% numbers he gives represent the global internet
user base broadly enough for such an assertion.

~~~
Arnt
My statement wasn't about the world, only about the existence of such
demographic groups. I was thinking about groups such as "urban young German
laptop owners".

~~~
mattlutze
> We're at a point where ad blockers are used by a majority of the first parts
> of the audiences.

Ok. I guess if that meant urban young German laptop owners I was
misinterpreting.

Audiences of content, in general, really aren't yet close to being a majority
ad block users.

Of course, the trend will continue if media companies continue as they are or
become more belligerent. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine a browser
manufacturer partnering with / buying an ad blocker to install as default.
Then we'll certainly see these majorities.

------
jacquesm
Interesting. This article is now on page 3 of HN, apparently flagged to death.

~~~
robin_reala
There’s a filter based on the total number of votes and the ratio of comments
to votes, which I think this just tripped. It’s designed to reduce the
occurrence of front-page ‘flame wars’.

~~~
jacquesm
You were correct.

------
sfk
This thread dropped from number 3 to number 97 in 3 minutes right after I made
the Google comment.

Censorship at its finest.

