Slashdot Mirror

I recall reading recently that the online ads actually weren't working, and that companies were realizing they weren't getting much value.

It is well known that hated ads on television and radio work. But is that because people don't know any better, or because the audience is captive? That is still being hashed out, and you can find research claiming to support both claims.

Advertising generally is a hundreds of billions of dollars industry because advertising generally works. That tells us nothing at all about newer forms of advertising that have disrupted the industry. The history of advertising is not only full of success stories, but also failures, even failures that damaged the company.

It is known that, as you say, otherwise-intelligent people who are dumb enough to believe they can listen to the ad without being affected are still affected. But is the affect the same when they feel like they're controlling the content as when they feel like they're passively watching it? Not well established. They might wrongly believe they can ignore it, but then resolve the cognitive dissonance with an ad blocker!

Are people with higher incomes more likely to install ad-blockers, because they're more used to being in control of their experience? Oh, that is already established: Yes, (outside of France) higher income people are more likely to install ad blockers. https://marketingland.com/ad-b...
It looks like a small difference, but when young people are also more likely to install blockers, and young people generally earn less than older people, it might actually be much worse than the numbers show.

(In defense of France, their rich people weren't more likely to install ad blockers than their poor people, but only because their adoption rate is so high across all income levels; highest outside of Asia!)

I mean, really, who didn't see this coming?

Not Danny Sullivan. He is a Founding Editor of Marketing Land and a widely cited authority on search engines and search marketing issues who has covered the space since 1996. Danny also serves as Chief Content Officer for Third Door Media, which publishes Marketing Land and produces the SMX: Search Marketing Expo conference series. He has a personal blog called Daggle (and keeps his disclosures page there). He can be found on Facebook, Google + and microblogs on Twitter as @dannysullivan.

This is not an ad for Danny Sullivan.

What proportion of internet users use a PC to begin with?

Hint: http://marketingland.com/digit...

why does YouTube still require a fucking Google- account to post?

By "Google- account" are you sarcastically referring to Google+? I thought YouTube dropped the Google+ requirement.

Or by "Google- account" do you mean a Google account that is "minus" the Google+ profile?

Adblocking is coming to the iPhone with iOS 9

The next version of Safari will let users block ads on iPhones and iPads.

With the roll-out of iOS 9, Apple is giving app developers an easy way to create mobile ad blockers for Safari on iPhones and iPads. The new "Content Blocking" feature allows developers to pass a JSON file with a set of rules for images, popups, cookies, resources and other elements in Safari.

Sources like The Next Web point out that such a feature would allow ad blocking and privacy apps "to exist on iOS for the first time since launch".

On the other hand the Marketing Land warns that this move "could chip away at Google's and other ad networks' mobile ad revenue from iOS devices", NiemanLab calls it "a blow for mobile advertising" and Cult of Mac asks if that is a good thing and proposes as an answer:

Is that a good thing? Well, maybe for the average user, for a period of time. But when you block ads on the web, you prevent content providers from earning any revenue from them. If we all did that, our favorite sites would have to find other sources of revenue, or stop supplying content altogether.

I have no idea why, in a technical and privacy oriented forum as ours, the focus of the accepted submission was not on the fact that this is an "Adblocker app enabler" move instead of a "Google killer move".

No worries about Getting modded down. I have excellent Karma now, I had excellent Karma in the past, and in between I've had BAD Karma. Easy come easier go. The time it took me to go from Excellent to bad was about two days (experiment), to get back to Excellent took about a month.

Which only proves one thing, it is easier to lose Good Karma Points than it is to get it back.

The thing that I change wasn't my view, it was simply how I presented my view.

I have been trying to rid myself of karma! Thanks for the tips. Now if only I could get Google to pay me for modding down the swack of microsoft shills out to defame google here on slashdot and even on TV. Oh to hell with it there is most likely more money being spent on patent trolls, shills, artificial corporations masquerading as organizations and payola to politicians by microsoft than the money it collects from everyone who actually produces real devices like Android phones. So microsoft's spending on trolls, shills, shell companies, lawyers and the like is good for the economy!
QUACK

Mod me down shills, if you have the karma to get the mod points. I am sure as west Texas starts to lose lawyer dollars because the patent trolls all get their balls cut off some will actually thank Google for doing the job that Microsoft says they are doing but in truth is little more than software patent leaches who happened at one time to actually be able to create an operating system that put the IBM pc out of business and almost bankrupted Apple. For this I thank Microsoft, but they are no longer capable of anything original they are little more than the biggest software patent troll on the planet. Something which is lost on the mindless zombies that dismiss the abusive monopolistic nature of Microsoft or worse are paid to stroke it!

What is the advantage of having good "karma" instead of bad "karma"?

If you are a Microsoft shill you can actually hide comments that tell the truth about how Microsoft operates and mod down posts that defend google...got the idea.

You just wait until Win 10 launches and practically insists on MSN and THE CLOUD, Xbox for media integration, your mic as a default on device with cortana and sparton, ten tentacles hooked into your nuts and brains for every web service that defaults to bing,

Ok, yes, that's a problem. But its also not a problem.

I accept Microsoft might develop all that crap.
I accept Microsoft might turn all that crap on, or make the default rout. Note I don't necessarily LIKE it.

I also know it all going to be something I can turn off because: enterprise and government.

Those customers aren't going to put up with xbox integration, or MSN cloud signin, or always on microphones, or desktop search talking to bing. Or any of that crap... so I know that not only will I be able to turn it all off, but that it will be pretty easy too. No hacking, probably even GUI tools for it, with preset policy's I can just flip, save, and apply to any computer I buy, easily.

So while I know Microsoft might WANT 'my brainz' I also know they'll ensure they fully support not giving them 'my brainz' in a way that Google never will.

Sure google has apps for enterprise but its a bastard stepchild that is peanuts compared to their search and advertising division.

Microsoft will provide for what the enterprise wants. So when I read about horrible Microsoft feature X... I ask myself "would an enterprise put up with that?" and if the answer is no, I don't worry about it. And so far that's never let me down.

I do worry about Windows as a subsription service. -- Enterprises by and large are already on one. And I figure the 4k drm garbage will be real... enterprises by and large won't give a shit whether the pc's will play hollywood 4k movies or not.

But requiring an MSN account to sign into windows? Yeah I'm not worried about that. Requiring xbox integration? Nope. Not worried. Requiring always on Mic? Nope.

Yes you are correct it will be up to the user to chose as it is with all google services. The way the google search engine works I can turn on anon browsing in both FF and Chrome and google does not give a shit sideways it still does the same job SO I CALL BULLSHIT. Slashdot is starting to become a haven for Microsoft shills. GMAIL does not plaster my ass with adds or track the shit out of me and all this bullshit that has been spread by the SCROOGLE crowd here and elsewhere will eventually come to light when Google gets mad and strikes back by telling consumers the truth about the FUD campaign that Microsoft launched, financed, lobbied in Government and in general started a culture of MUD SLINGING bullshit because they really want to gain traction in web services and advertising revenue.

I am running ten tech preview and even the so called PRO is completely web centric and essentially a PITA to run for purposes like a DAW or workstation. The OS is a bloated mess of integrated web apps that constantly get in the way of everything you try to do with the system and don't work worth shit unless you have connection to the web. Every PC service interface is a royal pain in the ass. BUT I will give them this you can still access control panel but you have to make it work old school to do anything useful and the system configuration utilities are buried so deep that it makes VISTA LOOK GOOD! It can be customized but you have to go at it with a sledge hammer to make into a real operating system. And do follow the links that I posted as that tells the real tale and if it wasn't for Android revenues Microsoft would not even be in the cell phone business because to tell the truth the real dead boat anchor with baggage that they are trying to integrate into the Windows experience is their cell phones. This is what is really going on they are turning into a bi

You mean like promoting internal products in their search results?

http://www.zdnet.com/article/y...

Or forcing a company to use their location services over a competitor (Android has 80% of the worldwide market)?

http://www.androidpolice.com/2...

Or not allowing a company to manufacturer non Google approved Android devices if they manufacturer Android approved devices?

http://marketingland.com/googl...

Google doesn't give me meaningfully different results if I use Microsoft's OS and Mozilla's web browser. I haven't tried this myself, but I hear you can use Google's browser and/or Google's OS to get the same results from Microsoft's search engine that you'd get if you were using the "Microsoft stack."

Unless somebody pays Google that their products get "included" in the search results of their "topical" searches. http://marketingland.com/once-deemed-evil-google-now-embraces-paid-inclusion-13138

And Google have an effective monopoly on search and are abusing it.

You say this like it's been proven. I believe you are rigit in some sense, (Google has a monopoly on good search, as anyone who tried using DuckDuck Go for privacy or any other search engine for more than a few weeks knows; Google is getting major benefits from the strength of it's brand and using that to strong arm other companies), however when I compare with the legal standard that has been used for other companies I think what you are saying is rediculous.

"Monopoly" you say: On every computer I have seen where Google is available, DuckDuck Go, and Bing can be used. You just have to type a different string in your URL bar. "the competition is crap" is hardly an argument for monopoly.

Compare this with the "Windows Monopoly" which was established but was only treated as a limited monopoly. In this case, in almost every shop you would go to you would only find computers with Windows on. If you tried to order a computer from a major supplier they would refuse to remove Windows. Furthermore there was hard evidence in terms of exclusivity contracts and co-advertising subsidies which firmly showed that Microsoft deliberately set out to create this monopoly. Compared to just choosing if you want to in the case of Google, Microsoft's monopoly was much more real and clearly much stronger and much more obviously deliberately established.

"Abusing" you say: If you don't like Google's web site then you can set up your own and it will work on any consumer's computer. In the case of Microsof, almost every consumer PC had their operating system so you had no alternative. Try doing a default Windows install and then running "wordperfect" in the search. You will find that the only thing you see (as you type) is "wordpad"; a Microsoft product. Microsoft was clearly caught making it difficult for their competitors to run; Google has done nothing like.

Whilst Google's "monopoly" was established in a competitive equal access market place (remember they had to beat AltaVista and the result was not obvious to begin with) and was done by simple product quality, Microsoft's onopoly has been clearly shown to have been established by illegal tactics (see "Judge Jackson's Finding of Facts"

There's no problem with the EU getting involved with Google; there is clearly some danger here and a judgement should be made. However, before they even think about doing this they should first handle other much more obvious cases like breaking up Microsoft. It's very funny the way that this whole stuff is showing up after things like Microsoft's Scroogle campaign and their anti Google lobbying.

This looks like a fit up between the EU and Microsoft to avoid having to punish the actual offenders here.

And Google have an effective monopoly on search and are abusing it.

You say this like it's been proven. I believe you are rigit in some sense, (Google has a monopoly on good search, as anyone who tried using DuckDuck Go for privacy or any other search engine for more than a few weeks knows; Google is getting major benefits from the strength of it's brand and using that to strong arm other companies), however when I compare with the legal standard that has been used for other companies I think what you are saying is rediculous.

"Monopoly" you say: On every computer I have seen where Google is available, DuckDuck Go, and Bing can be used. You just have to type a different string in your URL bar. "the competition is crap" is hardly an argument for monopoly.

Compare this with the "Windows Monopoly" which was established but was only treated as a limited monopoly. In this case, in almost every shop you would go to you would only find computers with Windows on. If you tried to order a computer from a major supplier they would refuse to remove Windows. Furthermore there was hard evidence in terms of exclusivity contracts and co-advertising subsidies which firmly showed that Microsoft deliberately set out to create this monopoly. Compared to just choosing if you want to in the case of Google, Microsoft's monopoly was much more real and clearly much stronger and much more obviously deliberately established.

"Abusing" you say: If you don't like Google's web site then you can set up your own and it will work on any consumer's computer. In the case of Microsof, almost every consumer PC had their operating system so you had no alternative. Try doing a default Windows install and then running "wordperfect" in the search. You will find that the only thing you see (as you type) is "wordpad"; a Microsoft product. Microsoft was clearly caught making it difficult for their competitors to run; Google has done nothing like.

Whilst Google's "monopoly" was established in a competitive equal access market place (remember they had to beat AltaVista and the result was not obvious to begin with) and was done by simple product quality, Microsoft's onopoly has been clearly shown to have been established by illegal tactics (see "Judge Jackson's Finding of Facts"

There's no problem with the EU getting involved with Google; there is clearly some danger here and a judgement should be made. However, before they even think about doing this they should first handle other much more obvious cases like breaking up Microsoft. It's very funny the way that this whole stuff is showing up after things like Microsoft's Scroogle campaign and their anti Google lobbying.

This looks like a fit up between the EU and Microsoft to avoid having to punish the actual offenders here.

But then you have to pay hundreds of USD for an iPhone (or maybe one hundred for a compatible Android phone) and hundreds of USD per year to upgrade from voice-only cellular service to smartphone service. Or what am I missing?

That most people already have a smartphone.

The data plan issue is a bigger one, I think.

According to this survey, 56% of all US adults have smartphones (61% of cell-phone users). So yeah, "most", but not exactly an overwhelming majority. Note also that smart phone ownership is heavily skewed toward the upper income brackets, especially among older age groups.

I thought I'd seen that somewhere. Here's a source: http://marketingland.com/googl... I won't be installing one of those nifty little gadgets anytime soon. It isn't enough that the cost of a Nest Protect is exorbitant, they need to make still more money by selling ads to display on it? Evil, or just a corporation doing what it does?

I really don't think that browsing the web on a mobile phone is all that popular, or even something that people want to do.

Quickly checking my Google Analyitics shows that, over the past month, about 52% of my traffic came from desktop users, about 35% came from mobile users, and about 13% came from tablet users. Yes, this is one case, but this article indicates that mobile use is now 28% of traffic. While mobile isn't overtaking desktop, it certainly is a large enough percentage of traffic that it shouldn't be ignored.

> $1000 for a track being played 24/7? No wonder
> artists all think Spotify is a sick joke.

Old news. Check out this chart from 3 years ago.

Another fun fact: Spotify has 20 million songs. Twenty percent of them -- four million songs -- have never been played.

Do SEC filings count as credible references? Or Microsoft's own statements?

Google made over 43 BILLION dollars in ad revenue last year.

http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html

Microsoft made 1.45 billion in ad revenue last year.

http://marketingland.com/microsoft-q4-2012-earnings-online-advertising-revenue-up-12-16740

Microsoft themselves have admitted repeatedly to trying and largely failing in the contextual ads in your email business, and have publicly stated they've tried other tactics, such as these "deals" ads instead.

http://marketingland.com/seeking-to-banish-distraction-microsoft-replaces-hotmail-display-ads-with-deals-4790

I just read technology news daily and pay attention. And again, EVERY one of your posts on your account (a fairly newer account) is defending Microsoft data-mining while blasting Google and Apple for the same thing. So I ask again if you're an astroturfer or just ignorant?

I've had the same online identity since BBS days. I praise Microsoft when they do well (such as their surprisingly good anti-virus products as of late) and I blast Google when they fuck up (logging the SSIDs of wireless networks). I call them as I see them.

Do SEC filings count as credible references? Or Microsoft's own statements?

Google made over 43 BILLION dollars in ad revenue last year.

http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html

Microsoft made 1.45 billion in ad revenue last year.

http://marketingland.com/microsoft-q4-2012-earnings-online-advertising-revenue-up-12-16740

Microsoft themselves have admitted repeatedly to trying and largely failing in the contextual ads in your email business, and have publicly stated they've tried other tactics, such as these "deals" ads instead.

http://marketingland.com/seeking-to-banish-distraction-microsoft-replaces-hotmail-display-ads-with-deals-4790

I just read technology news daily and pay attention. And again, EVERY one of your posts on your account (a fairly newer account) is defending Microsoft data-mining while blasting Google and Apple for the same thing. So I ask again if you're an astroturfer or just ignorant?

I've had the same online identity since BBS days. I praise Microsoft when they do well (such as their surprisingly good anti-virus products as of late) and I blast Google when they fuck up (logging the SSIDs of wireless networks). I call them as I see them.

This "no-promotion" and "no buying of rankings" is no different from Google's "no links for money" policy.

With the difference that Apple actually follows through - http://marketingland.com/once-deemed-evil-google-now-embraces-paid-inclusion-13138

By that measure so is Google. If you want to release a phone with googles apps, you have to be a member of the 'open' hand set alliance. If you're a phone company that wants to fork Android, google won't let you produce an Android phone that's already happened in China. That's entirely anticompetitive

http://marketingland.com/google-acer-android-aliyun-21631

Haha, the same alliance with secret agreements that banned Acer from making Aliyun phones?

http://www.zdnet.com/cn/report-google-stops-acer-from-launching-aliyun-phone-in-china-7000004246/

http://marketingland.com/google-acer-android-aliyun-21631

How "Open" is the Open Handset Alliance? Not so much. Great branding and PR by Google though.

"I fart in your general direction!"

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!"

All they want is money out of Google. They can't tax the "services" that are provided, so they'll some how figure out how to extort money. I don't discount their arguments however this is France talking, not the EU, so I'd like to see what the EU bureacracy has to say about the Privacy concerns with Google services. Strange though, I don't see them going after Facebook yet... woops, they already have. http://marketingland.com/france-wants-to-tax-facebook-google-personal-data-collection-31196

Yes, Google has been sending out notifications encouraging sites to fill more of the screen with Google ads. I'm trying to find the link where someone reported getting a notification that they should put more ads on their page, because they had less than 3 "ad units". That included the "heat map" referenced above. I haven't found that yet, but I found this Google video "Monetize your content". "Ideally, every page on your site should have some form of AdSense on it". Yes, the Google sales rep actually says that.

In related news, Google is dropping their "domain parking" business, where Google hosts ad-filled pages for parked domains. Not because domain parking is evil. They're just outsourcing the hosting. Google suggest using another domain-parking company like Sedo, which serves Google ads.

> You can opt out of data sharing globally on Google.

Yes you can but you will have to sign out. So no more customized news and your search settings will be lost when the cookie expires.
That sucks! I'll be looking for a new search engine soon.

Chavez also clarifies that the new privacy policy will âoecovers users signed into their Google Accounts on Android phones just as it does users signed into their Google Accounts from a desktop computer.â

http://marketingland.com/google-replies-to-congress-privacy-policy-4854