
Forbes Tests New Tactics to Combat Ad Blocking - T-A
http://www.wsj.com/articles/forbes-tests-new-tactics-to-combat-ad-blocking-1463133628
======
philiphodgen
I now completely ignore any forbes.com link. The pain to get to the articles
outweighed the extremely modest value of the articles.

One wonders (he said) whether Forbes might want to pursue success by
publishing irresistable articles -- not by seeking new ways to attach ticks to
passers-by.

~~~
Silhouette
The thing is, if you also block ads and aren't going to pay them money (or
give them something else of value, as discussed here), Forbes are probably
_happy_ that you don't go to their site. A visitor that generates no revenue
is just a drain on resources.

~~~
nihonde
Maybe...just maybe...ads aren't a good business model for journalism any more.

~~~
antisthenes
I would be happy if 90% of the "journalism" died out, and the rest remained as
quality investigative content behind paywalls (which I would gladly pay for
and already do for 2 sites) and government subsidized strictly informational
reporting (sort of like we already have from NOAA, Orange alerts, emergencies,
closures, etc.)

~~~
javajosh
I'm sure that most everyone would be fine if 90% of X died out - but it's
usually a wildly different 90%. This is a corollary to Sturgeons Law (90% of
everything is crap).

Interestingly, we sort of know what this conflict is: it's yellow journalists
vs muckrackers.

* There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful.*

— Theodore Roosevelt

------
kinkdr
I guess it hurt quite a bit to find out that their content was not important
enough to make users turn off their Adblocker.

I wonder if they fired the arrogant prick who suggested to block all users who
have Adblock.

Maybe I am a bad person but I love seeing big corporations, used to bullying
their way around, finding out that their old dirty tricks don't work in the
new world.

~~~
mahranch
>> but I love seeing big corporations, used to bullying their way around,
finding out that their old dirty tricks don't work in the new world.

The problem with that mindset is that people tend to think it's also OK to
block the little guys who self-publish, or even places that have amazing or
great content who deserve the ad impressions. People always say "Yeah, I
unblock my favorite sites". Unfortunately, they're just 1 guy (and who knows
if they actually do it). The other 99.999% of people do not unblock their
favorite sites. They just don't give a shit.

Even the rare few who may give a shit due to stronger empathy or morality will
usually justify it away in their heads "Oh, I'm afraid of malware" or some
other BS excuse which works to trick themselves into feeling better about
blocking every ad.

~~~
sspiff
Calling ad blocking to prevent malware infection a BS excuse is ridiculous.
Ads are being used to distribute malware through reputable sites, and as an
average Joe user you have no feasible way to identify which sites pose a
threat.

I agree that the current ad driven free content model vs no ads ever stance of
the numerous ad blocking users are a problem for content creators big and
small, but I feel it is up to them to develop a sustainable business model to
defeat this stand-off without alienating or antagonizing their user base.

~~~
mahranch
> Calling ad blocking to prevent malware infection a BS excuse is ridiculous.

There are other (quite simple) plugins to stop any malware from running (like
noscript, etc) while _at the same time_ , not having an adblocker even
installed. The two are not mutually inclusive. Thus, it isn't ridiculous in
the least. It's actually ridiculous to imply that if you have one, you must
have the other.

More importantly, these days, you only find malware ads (consistently) on real
shady sites. When it makes it to big reputable sites, it actually makes the
news because of how rare it has been. There are dozens of other ways to get
malware (software downloads, etc) but you don't see people ceasing to download
anything off the entire internet, they take a risk because they want the
product. The risk is virtually identical -- it depends on where you go and
what you do.

> Ads are being used to distribute malware through reputable sites

Sure, that has happened. But it's rare and again, it makes the news when it
happens because of how rare it is. You make it sound like reddit.com,
facebook.com or news.google.com serves up malware every other day. That just
isn't the case. Not even close.

~~~
diffraction
Ok. Forget malware. How about malicious behavior? Stop Taboola and Outbrain
from serving pornographic ads and I will gladly disable Adblock.

Sorry, until your industry sets professional standards I will continue to
block ads and not feel bad.

~~~
mahranch
> Sorry, until your industry sets professional standards your crying has zero
> emotional pull for me.

Oh, sorry if I mislead you. I'm actually not in the industry at all. I used to
be a publisher though, had my own website until I sold it. My comments were me
empathizing and seeing things from the point of view of a content creator.
That's for whom I argue.

------
charonn0
> they can still access Forbes.com so long as they register for a Forbes
> account, providing personal information, or log in via Facebook or Google.
> [...] users agree to share information with Forbes including their email
> address, name, profile picture, age range, gender and other information
> [...] Forbes is also granted permission to manage users’ Google contacts.

This is an improvement? Stop conflating advertising with data mining and maybe
people wouldn't block your ads so much.

> “Email address is always very valuable and, with proper terms of service,
> figuring out a way to monetize these things in the right way could be
> interesting,” Mr. DVorkin said.

"Interesting", perhaps, but almost certainly not worth it for readers.

> Meanwhile, the company is focusing more effort on “native” advertising
> products such as its BrandVoice program, which allows marketers to publish
> content to its site. That content is not as susceptible to ad blocking
> because it is published directly to Forbes’s content-management system,
> instead of through “ad-serving” systems.

Native ads destroy the publisher's journalistic credibility. Is that not
plainly obvious to everyone?

~~~
3327
Forbes has turned from a respectable publication to a click-bait blog.

~~~
Spivak
They're riding on their old reputation as long as it lasts, then they'll cash
out before it goes under. Not necessarily bad business but bad for their
readers.

------
shostack
Looks like Forbes is at least testing things, whether people might like these
approaches or not. Native content is a very fine editorial line to walk in
terms of how it is identified. But if people are clicking the link from a
share on social, odds are that any sort of story label on the actual Forbes
site is not going to show up in the share, and thus they can pass it off as
real content even though it is paid for. Once they get the click or share on a
native story, they don't care.

The registration piece is also interesting. From a monetization standpoint,
they can then email the crap out of those people (including pushing native
email ads that they likely bill on a CPM rate for).

Logged-in users also give Forbes another interesting monetization option in
the form of cookie onboarding services like LiveRamp[1] and such. You can get
a CPM rate for simply linking logged-in users to the cookie onboarder's
platform which they then match against cookies from advertisers to help them
"retag" people for retargeting purposes that may have deleted past cookies, or
jumped across devices.

Cookie onboarding gets interesting because from a user standpoint, the impact
is perhaps a very slightly increased load time (loading the onboarding tag),
and ads that have more accurate targeting. But in theory this allows
publishers to offer content that is "ad free" because the user is paying for
it in the form of data. A lot of mobile providers include this as well which
is annoying because it is harder to detect and block, and they sure as crap
don't disclose it.

Not making a statement on whether these developments are good or bad, rather
just commenting on the interesting nature of them.

[1] [http://liveramp.com/blog/a-primer-on-data-
onboarding/](http://liveramp.com/blog/a-primer-on-data-onboarding/)

~~~
Silhouette
_But in theory this allows publishers to offer content that is "ad free"
because the user is paying for it in the form of data._

I agree this is an interesting idea, though not necessarily one I would
personally choose to use. It might be a short-lived one, though, if the
tracking shows that someone who isn't willing to view ads immediately also has
a low chance of conversion for any later ads targeted based on the data given
initially.

------
Animats
_" Meanwhile, the company is focusing more effort on “native” advertising
products such as its BrandVoice program, which allows marketers to publish
content to its site."_

Sponsored stories. Now that's hitting the bottom. It's an insult to the memory
of Malcolm Forbes Sr.

~~~
fucking_tragedy
Sponsored content and PR pieces being paraded around as actual news along side
real content has been occurring for years.

I would honestly doubt that this is an entirely new thing for Forbes and most
publishers or outlets.

~~~
gtufano
It's definitely not a new thing... The article says: "About 35% of our digital
advertising dollars are associated with native". I think it takes time to ramp
it up to this amount.

------
mikro2nd
Logging in via Google allows Forbes to "manage users’ Google contacts".

What possible good could come of that?

------
mirimir
> We noticed you still have your ad blocker on, please log in to continue to
> the site.

> Login with Forbes

But they don't actually say how to signup. For that, you need to hit the
"Terms of Service" link. So I created a blog account, but I still can't login
to the front page.

They're wedged.

And then there's this gem:

> We will never post on your behalf without first obtaining your explicit
> permission.

Just exactly WTF does that mean? How would any sane person want a site to post
on their behalf?

~~~
soared
> Just exactly WTF does that mean? How would any sane person want a site to
> post on their behalf?

Many justifiable uses. Every time I go skiing snow.com posts a fb update for
me, then my friends know I'm skiing and call me. Not for forbes though.

~~~
mirimir
I guess. Not for me, though.

------
koolba
> “We’ve had a lot of people converting. Around 40% of users were turning off
> their ad-blockers,” said Lewis DVorkin, Forbes Media chief product officer.

Those numbers are bogus. There's no way 40% of people will disable ad blocking
just to read Forbes.

~~~
lordnacho
Could it be incognito browsing? Or you just use an alternative browser, eg I
use Chrome normally but Safari when trying to view Apple WWDC videos.

~~~
aexaey
Do you mean - just open websites that are displeased with your ad-blocker in
your secondary browser? Nice idea.

Or, instead of two different browsers, you can use xraru [1] to ad-hoc launch
as many independent ephemeral "incognito" sessions with the same browser as
you like. This way, next to enhanced privacy, you also get as a bonus some
protection from malicious websites stealing your cookies/local files/etc...

[1] [https://github.com/teran-mckinney/raru](https://github.com/teran-
mckinney/raru)

------
mtkd
If a primary player, like Google, created a micropayments mechanism for
content - that worked like Google Voice - where users can make a $10 payment
and automatically topup - it would solve a lot of the issues

This would allow Forbes etc. to use Google Micropayments for payment and
visitors would pay 0.5¢ or something for every page viewed

A popup would show the first time you visit the domain to ask if you're okay
with paying for content in future

I wouldn't have to pay specific subscriptions then, I could choose not to view
sites I don't think are worth the value, sites I only ever visit infrequently
could get something back for my visit

~~~
ianlevesque
There's Google Contributor but it sucks. They replace all banner ads
with...placeholder banners that say "Thanks for using Google Contributor".
What a waste.

------
Tobold
So in exchange for not distributing malware they want my email address.

What could possibly go wrong?

~~~
bogomipz
Nice.

------
abhi3
None these media companies will innovate on micro payments but instead try
fancy/annoying tactics.

Well atleast they didn't start a food delivery service like NYT:
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-05/new-
york-t...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-05/new-york-times-
to-start-delivering-meal-kits-to-your-home)

~~~
Silhouette
_None these media companies will innovate on micro payments but instead try
fancy /annoying tactics._

It seems the big problem with micropayments is that it looks like a single
content provider _can 't_ do much in the area on their own. I suspect that to
become an established and useful payment method, micropayments will need a
safe, reliable, standardised, and trivially easy to use mechanism, something
that several big players can get behind and create some momentum.

------
estefan
Newspapers are suffering the same fate as the music industry. Everyone can now
be a journalist and get widespread visibility. Pre-internet, there was a
massive barrier to entry in terms of distribution.

Musicians can at least still monetise gigs since not every kid who records a
song in his bedroom can fill a stadium. But for newspapers there doesn't seem
to be much of a defensible position left beyond brand, and the pressure to
keep producing new content is obviously impacting their ability to keep
producing high-quality, investigative stories, etc. Instead, lots just seem to
fill their web sites with a continuous stream of not particularly
differentiated articles. So I think newspapers do have a big problem on their
hands, and the solution isn't obvious (beyond diversification perhaps)...

------
Overtonwindow
At first I would use other tactics to get around the anti-ad blocking
measures, but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that it's not worth it
anymore, and I would rather keep my ad blocking and go somewhere else.

------
eva1984
“We’ve had a lot of people converting. Around 40% of users were turning off
their ad-blockers,” said Lewis DVorkin, Forbes Media chief product officer.

Well, for Forbes, it works.

~~~
nissehulth
It also means that 60% (whatever metric used) left the site and didn't come
back.

~~~
x0x0
Since they earned Forbes $0, I'm really unclear on why you think Forbes should
care.

~~~
ffumarola
Because sharing articles has no earned media value?

~~~
x0x0
Pretty much, except at enormous scale. Also, adblock users tend to share with
adblock users.

------
fulldecent
Can we talk about YouTube Red for a second? This is basically a micropayments
system for YouTube and it pays people whose videos you watch. Unfortunately,
Google markets it as a "remove ads" service. Does anyone see this as a
valuable micropayments platform?

~~~
izacus
"Not available in your country" model of monetization is not helping me give
them euros or disable adblock.

------
bikamonki
IMO, to combat ad-blockers is a silly effort. This is my reasoning: people
that install ad-blockers do so for two reasons: privacy concerned and/or
annoyed by ads. If these people would not install the ad-blocker, they would
most likely 'still' ignore the ads (the brain is a brilliant ever-adapting ad-
blocker!!!). On a pay-per-click model, they'd be wasting prints on a segment
very unlikely to click. On a pay-per-print model, it is an opportunity to turn
the argument on their favor and tell their advertizers: hey, we are going to
charge more per print b/c we now target a narrower segment 'most likely' to
see and click your ads.

~~~
cstavish
While I largely agree with you, not all ads need to be clicked in order to be
considered effective by the advertiser. Look at a Coca-Cola billboard, for
instance. There's no action item to call this number TODAY, etc. Just brand
reinforcement... And that's valuable to many companies.

~~~
bikamonki
Good point. I do read that lately this 'brand building' is the key value
offered by ad vendors. Although I am not so sure of its effectiveness (ROI),
maybe its just a sales tactic in response to a dying business model (PPP &
PPC). Yet, this is another subject.

------
screwforbes
I've been testing my own tactic, not going to forbes.com.

------
jordigh
I find the tactic of guilting me into watching ads to be so damn weird. Why is
it my duty to watch ads? Why must I allow myself to be open to the
manipulation to purchase something irrelevant (the _real_ purpose of ads) how
I must contribute to your website, blog, TV series?

I am not explaining this very clearly, but it's so, so bizarre that somehow it
becomes my capitalist duty to watch ads, because you're not some monster who
wants newspapers to crumble, are you? Watch your ads like a good boy.

~~~
soared
Because they are producing content for you, and it costs them money to make
it? They chose to monetize with ads, so view them or leave. Do you think
you're entitled to free content?

~~~
jordigh
"View them or leave", that's the kind of attitude that's very weird. "View ads
or the newspaper industry DIES!" Very Clockwork Orange, eyes forcibly peeled
open. Very antagonistic.

When I look at a physical newspaper, nobody is telling me either you look at
this ad-filled page or you must not open any page. Nobody is telling me, you
can't cover ads with your hands or a book. You must look at ads in order to
look at this magazine. If you don't carefully read all of the ads in this
magazine, you are not allowed to read this magazine.

It just so happens that with a computer I can more conveniently hide ads, but
that's somehow more wrong than covering them with my hand?

I also just find it fundamentally strange that by me viewing ads someone gets
money. Why? Well, because the person who made the ad is hoping that I will buy
something off them or entice others to buy something off them. This is also
strange, I don't want to buy anything or tell anyone else to buy anything. Why
is me being indoctrinated by a third party the way that the website gets
money? It's a bizarre situation. This is a very strange world we have built.
There's gotta be a better economic model that doesn't require guilting me into
viewing ads.

~~~
soared
I see your point. I think the phrasing would be "View ads or the newspaper
industry will KILL ITSELF!" because they aren't adapting. That analogy does
make sense, but the difference lies in that a physical newspaper presells ads,
so if you never see them they don't care. But in digital, they don't get paid
until you see them, so they do care.

Really blocking ads in the physical newspaper hurts whoever bought the ads,
blocking them online hurts the actual newspaper. Maybe newspapers should adapt
and presell ad space on their pages!

(My university online paper does this because pageviews are so low that they
wouldn't earn a dime on adsense. The local businesses who prebuy ads
effectively sponsor the website).

------
em3rgent0rdr
I close the tab when I get the message to disable ad-blocker.

To reach people like me, they will have to serve the ad from their own site.

