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."

32 of 528 comments (clear)

  1. Good! by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Informative

    In this day and age of malware being delivered even by supposedly reputable third-party providers, using an ad blocker is just plain responsible browsing. I'm sorry that web site owners are out some revenue for it, but if you want to make money off of me, you're going to figure out some way to do it other than leaving myself open to attack from malicious users.

    There are a handful of web sites that I actually support financially specifically for this reason.

    1. Re:Good! by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Malware being #1, but another reason I use it is tracking. I have ghostery and i regularly see 10 or more tracking objects on a page. I don't see "better targeted ads" as a benefit.

      If im buying something, I do a specific search for it on Google/DuckDuckGo/SomeOtherSearch or Amazon/NewEgg/SomeOtherPurchaseSite. Then I'm done. If I'm browsing, I don't need to see the random items I've searched for in the past week. Either I bought them already or I decided not to buy. I've never seen an ad combat that problem, turn a "targeted ad since I know what you looked for last week" into a sale. They think that more data, more intrusion, less privacy is the answer, but it's not.

      So privacy being #2 reason, bandwidth and quality of browsing is #3 for me.

    2. Re:Good! by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google isn't reputable, they've served malware. They're right in line with option 2. And that's the reason why there's been such a surge in blocking all ads, because there generally is no clean source. The online ad industry has a serious problem, and they don't seem to want to fix it. If they did, they wouldn't be having such a problem with people blocking ads.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  2. Fed up by careysb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mute the TV. Fast-forward recorded TV. Screen the calls. Block the ads.
    Fuck'em if they cant take a joke.

    1. Re:Fed up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ads have gotten ridiculous. Hardly a week goes by where I don't get notified of an attempted malware attack on my comp while browsing, usually from malware on ad sites. And that's with adblock running. And if it's not malware, it's the fake security software and update notices.

      In some cases, ads take more than 70% of screen real estate. A quick check shows the /. homepage has 8 ads on it.

    2. Re:Fed up by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:Fed up by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re: Fed up by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    5. Re:Fed up by trek00 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Fed up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Last time I used some mainstream social networking sites without AdBlock in a VM, it took about 10 minutes before the virtual machine was chock full of scareware, its CPU was pegged, and it was scanning the LAN.

      AdBlock isn't just for ads, it is a vital tool in security, arguably more important than antivirus software, because it stops the malvertising before it gets on your machine. In fact, if one has AdBlock, a click to play utility, and sandboxes/VMs the Web browser, that takes care of almost all attacks out there, except for Trojans, which can be combatted by running questionable executables in a VM, or just pasting the file's hash into VirusTotal's site and seeing what comes up.

    7. Re:Fed up by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well I don't get many of the attempted malware attacks... But I get of a lot of poorly coded Javascript/HTML5 adds, that just slow everything down. I tend to use a laptop, so when the CPU starts kicking, so does the cooling fan, and then drains my batteries.
      I am OK with advertising, I get it, If I am going to use a site for free, Gettings adds is a way to keep revenue for the side. But when the Adds take up more CPU power than it would for a complex Database query and calculation of a million rows, There is a problem with that. So I put on an Ad Blocker, just for proper function of my PC.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Fed up by zachdms · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. "cost online publishers" by pem · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nope. Not how it works. Not getting revenue from someone who wouldn't have clicked on your link if it were full of adware (for them) is not a "cost." The actual cost is in bandwidth, etc. and is much less than beelions of dollars.

    1. Re:"cost online publishers" by userw014 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even more - Ad Blockers don't "cost" publishers anything. They just deny publishers the use of broken business process technology. While accountants might like to treat this as a "cost", it's really nonsense.

      However the continued use of "cost" in this way does reveal publishers to be whingy blood suckers whose protestations are of no merit.

  4. Hmm, maybe, just maybe by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's because ads are pollution of the mind, advertizing agencies (not just on the internet) commoditize people's brain runtime without asking their permission, and people generally FUCKING HATE IT.

    Gee, what a surprise...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  5. Re:And they didn't by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Heh... "Cost" by dmomo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Makes sense by war4peace · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The industry loses money because they don't understand their mistakes.
    I don't mind seeing ads in their little corner, not flashing, clearly labeled as such. Hell, I even welcome targeted ads!
    But when an auto-loading, auto-playing full page Flash add with sound suddenly pops over my screen and scares me to death while I'm trying to read an article... well then fuck you, I'm gonna block the shit out of it and everything that comes from that website until the end of time.

    Many games I found and play were initially found by me through ads. So ads do help. They're just, for most part, intruding and badly designed.
    The ad industry doesn't understand that AdBlock is an effect, caused by their shitty race to make ads "more visible". I guess they're a victim of their own "success".

    I've seen websites that don't let me view any content on them if I have AdBlock, I blacklisted them entirely.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  8. Boo hoo ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And now all of these companies will try to claim we're "stealing" revenue from them by not viewing ads.

    Sorry, but we're under no obligation to watch your damned ads. We don't owe you the ability to display stuff on our screens, nor do we owe you the revenue associated with this.

    Boo fucking hoo, the mean old internets are stopping allowing you to make money for embedding crap in our web pages and providing a vector for malware.

    That's simply tragic.

    But you can bet the lobbyists are hard at work telling the politicians this is a vital part of the economy and if people are allowed to block ads world will end.

    Bloody parasites.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  9. Re:No, not costing anything by buck-yar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    “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.

  10. not making money is cost? by Revek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They aren't losing. It isn't costing them. The public chooses not to participate. The web companies can make pages not load at all if the ads are gone but they don't cause they know the public will leave them like rats leaving a sinking ship.

    1. Re:not making money is cost? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They aren't losing. It isn't costing them. The public chooses not to participate. The web companies can make pages not load at all if the ads are gone but they don't cause they know the public will leave them like rats leaving a sinking ship.

      They don't seem to realize that they need us more than we need them. The Internet was great for making information available even before it was "monetized".

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  11. Re:And they didn't by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
  12. Bad business models are not my problem by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Autoplaying video ads by RogueyWon · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was the autoplaying video-adverts that flipped me over (about 6 months ago). I tolerated them when they first appeared, but once they defaulted to having the sound switched on, it was clear that the situation had gone beyond reasonable bounds.

    The advertising industry should do whatever it can to make life unpleasant for those companies that rolled out those noisy monsters. I was prepared to tolerate ads up to that point, so that particular development has cost the industry a good few ad-views (and I doubt I'm alone in having found the game of "which browser tab is making the noise" to be my breaking point).

  14. because we're sick of this shit. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While most americans may be content with things like the 'welcome back we'll be right back' nature of television and radio, its actually a pretty glaring annoyance for the rest of us. turning everything into a commodity is a very recent notion, and not one I might add that many people care for.

    I block routes to known advertising servers, and i use the firefox microblock plugin for anything else. what advertisers often completely neglect is that theyre on my bandwidth. I pay the bill, i decide the content, end of discussion. the ads are often just another vector for exploits in the browser. The product almost never pertains to me, and i dont want it to. I dont want advertisers dickriding me into the sunset trying to exploit my personal interests. Instead when and if i need a product i want advertisers to focus on what the product does, and how well it does it. Do not pander endlessly about how good or noble a person im to become if i dole out cash for the product.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  15. Re:"cost online publishers" - TANSTAAFL by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I'm of two minds on this subject. I have never installed adblock and its ilk, because I know that "free" content comes at a cost. So as much as possible I sit through commercials from network TV's streamed shows, I allow sidebar ads to populate some screen real estate on websites, etc.

    But I have my limits.

    • I don't feel guilty at all about skipping past ads more than 30 seconds long
    • I will do everything I can to block ad content that changes my browser's behavior (e.g., pop-up messages, float divisions that obscure the page content, etc.)
    • I will block ad content that takes up more than half my browser real estate

    I suppose in the end that makes me no better than folks who aggressively block every single advertisement in any form -- "We already established what kind of woman you are; now we're just negotiating on the price". But it helps me sleep better at night knowing I'm at least willing to try to give them some of my attention in return for free content.

  16. False narrative by andyring · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An ad blocker "costs" an advertiser NOTHING. The whole narrative is wrong.

    Is ad revenue reduced? Yes. But that is not a cost. It's a reduction in income or a reduction in gross receipts. A "cost" is when your expenses increase, not when your revenue decreases.

  17. Re:And they didn't by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah. Advertising agencies only have themselves to blame for the fact that most people hate ads. It started with intrusive and annoying TV ads. They deem it necessary to raise the volume by 50% when the ads come up? They deem it necessary to drive a nail into your head by inserting an add when you least expect it in the middle of a scene? And they deem it necessary to fill ads with lies and ridiculous false promises of beauty, health and popularity?

    Well fuck them. Now I fucking hate ads and it's all their fault because they annoyed the living shit out of me with their fucking bullshit ads and the increasingly aggravating way they presented them to me. Advertising agencies have trained me to abhor ads.

    And the practice has continued on the Internet. Noisy, invasive, insecure and fucking annoying ads almost everywhere. I will do all I can to stop them from fucking with my head.

  18. All advertisements are malicious by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  19. Hmmm. by sims+2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lets say I have a website about cats. lets say it gets 1m views a day
    I put a banner ad up at the top that gives people seizures that should pay 1k/mo for 1m views
    The addition of advertising to my website causes my daily view count to drop to about 800k
    So now it only pays 800/mo. this still pays for server maintenance and bandwidth.
    But I want a new Dice bobble head doll so I add a bunch of pop under,pop up,redirects and sponsored content.
    This makes the view count drop down to 500k but now 97% of users use adblock so I only make $15/mo on the 15k users that don't know how or are unable to use adblock.

    So to compensate I add even more offensive advertising (and some malware redirects for good measure) to my website that pays better.
    But the stats don't change much and I make much less than when I started out.

    Now 490K People use adblock that didn't use adblock before.
    Thus I have irreparably damaged my user base as even if I go back to just the one banner ad I will never be able to get as much as I did with that single banner ad when I started out.

    Plus those adblock users now block ads everywhere not just my site which increases the percentage of adblock users on other websites even those without obtrusive advertising which in turn causes their ad revenue to go down.

    Oh woe is me those thieving ablock users should have just put up with cryptowall, malware, popups, pop unders, redirects,sponsored cats, nasty and annoying advertising.

    Its all the adblocking users fault its certainly not anything that I have done.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  20. Re:AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. host by barakn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't you think it's ironic you have, on this article alone, plastered at least a half-dozen spam posts that are essentially ads. Do you have anything that would let us block you?

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show