Slashdot Mirror
Study: Ad Blocker Use Jumps 41 Percent
Mickeycaskill writes: A report from Adobe and anti-ad blocking startup PageFair says the number of ad block users worldwide has increased by 41 percent in the past 12 months to 198 million monthly active users. The study suggests the growing popularity of ad blocking software is set to cost online publishers $21.8 billion in 2015 and could reach $41.4 billion by 2016. "About 45 million of them are in the United States, with almost 15 percent of people in states like New York and California relying on these services. The figures are even higher in Europe, where 77 million people use versions of the software. In Poland, more than a third of people regularly block online ads."
If something is good enough for consumers it will be known and used!
Many web sites complains about ad blocking today, but they have to be aware that they caused the need for adblockers themselves. Too many ads like "Your PC have a problem" hopping like it has Parkinson on the screen is stressful and false. Static ads are actually less of a problem.
Ads with sound and pop-ups covering the whole darn screen are a sure call for adblocker to be installed.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
You mean "deny". This is like saying a fence "cost" a wolf some chickens. I understand paying for content by watching ads... but the popups, the tracking, and the auto-play videos are getting out of hand.
“It is tragic that ad block users are inadvertently inflicting multi-billion dollar losses on the very websites they most enjoy,” said PageFair boss Sean Blanchfield.
Failure to generate revenue apparently is a loss.
Everyone on earth is losing trillions every second.
If something is good enough for consumers it will be known and used!
Many web sites complains about ad blocking today, but they have to be aware that they caused the need for adblockers themselves. Too many ads like "Your PC have a problem" hopping like it has Parkinson on the screen is stressful and false. Static ads are actually less of a problem.
Ads with sound and pop-ups covering the whole darn screen are a sure call for adblocker to be installed.
This is certainly correct. I would also add that sites load so much faster when using an ad blocker.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I have no objection of watching ads.
Really? Because I do. I particularly object to pop-up ads, interstitial ads, large banner ads, and ANY ad that tries to track my behavior or browsing activity. Ads waste my time, intrude on my privacy and sometimes are malware vectors. I never have any interest in whatever crap they are trying to sell me so pretty much all the ads are nothing more than a waste of my time. My attention is valuable to me and I don't give it out for free. I don't buy shirts with large brands on them because I'm not being paid to promote them. If an ad company wants to pay me directly for my opinion on a product we can talk but it's going to be a direct negotiation most of the time.
I'm willing to pay for content which I think I have a reasonable chance of finding valuable or enjoyable. I occasionally purchase/rent/go-see movies. I subscribe to some journals. I subscribe to a few websites I find valuable. But if a company wants to use ads as their primary revenue source then chances are good I'm going to block or otherwise circumvent their attempt to hijack my time and attention.
After all, it's the bread and butter to support a lot of sites.
Their shitty business model is not my problem. If your business depends on pushing obnoxious ads and tracking my activity then you deserve to be blocked.
Nobody calculated the cost of malignant ads taking over computers via the latest Flash/Java vulnerability. Perhaps, if they didn't actually their users more than it makes for the advertisers, then perhaps we wouldn't use adblockers nearly as much.
Ad networks are their own worst enemies.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Yeah, I hate it when they actually me.
Joking aside, I didn't start using an adblocker until ads started opening new windows, opening popunder windows, resize windows, and otherwise mess with the browser itself. Admittedly that was a long time ago, but I learned my lesson once and frankly as long as technology exists that lets me block ads I will block ads because of it.
The marketing industry has no one to blame but itself.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Ads cost nearly $100 Billion in lost time. Computing time and employee time. Malicious ads add an additional cost of $200 B/year.
(I made those numbers up. But so did the anti-blockers)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Advertisers are becoming increasingly harmful. They must find a balance between capturing the user interest and the degradation of the user experience. If they became too annoying, the user shut them up, with ad-block or simply the mute button.
Personally I don't use ad-block as I completely disable javascript, that automagically blocks 99% of ads (and other stupid messages) and let instant loading of web pages.
No, trust us, this is a good ad.
Those ads that hack your monitor, by taking up all the space? No, we promise this one won't do that. Oh no, we won't sign our name to it, or a sign a document saying so. But trust us, this ad won't hack your monitor. It uses up only some of the space, not all of it.
Those ads that hack your browser, by popping up or popping under? No, we promise this one won't do that. Oh no, we won't promise or be accountable, but this one doesn't ignore browser settings like that.
Those ads that hack your inputs, by spoofing a close icon, or tying events to it? Or by looking like a system message? No, we promise this one won't do that. Of course, it could, at any moment, if our jobs depend on it or we are paid off, but we promise it's a good ad.
No, this is a good advertisement.
It's designed to hack just YOU. You should allow this to happen. You believe that only gullible or weakminded humans are affected by advertisements. We believe otherwise, and we spend millions of dollars on this topic, but you're probably right. It probably won't hack you. It's just designed that way, crafted by decades of doctorates, trial and errorred in a multibillion dollar industry. That model of a homunculus in your head is probably correct. You aren't even gonna be affected by this advertisement. After all, if you could be affected by the advertisment, then it would mean you are a human. And humans clearly aren't affected by those, just as long as they are strong willed and intelligent. No, no study has ever shown that correlation, but trust us.
This advertisement will just hack you. It will create a sense of fear, and offer to calm you. It will create a sense of dissatisfaction, and attempt to satisfy it. Were you hungry? Did you have a need to eat? Here's a picture of some food. And people enjoying food. I'm sure that has no affect on you. Here's a picture of a willing mate, a happy family, some offspring. Certainly you aren't some emotional wet robot that is subject to this.
I'll just put all this ball of mind poison right here. It won't pop up, pop under, be boring, be annoying, ring bells, have a fake close key, stutter, install a toolbar, or anything else.
No, this is a good ad.
It just hacks *you*.
Especially if you don't think that's possible. Please don't think that's possible, or you might question this whole thing.
I didn't start blocking ads until lazy ad networks started allowing malware into their system. If you can't be responsible enough to not try to destroy my system, you shouldn't be on my system at all.