Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Battle With Ad Blockers, Ad Industry Fesses Up To Alienating Users (iab.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the like-an-alcoholic-hitting-rock-bottom dept.

itwbennett writes: In a post on the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) website Thursday, Scott Cunningham, senior vice president of technology of IAB and general manager of its Tech Lab, issued what amounts to an apology for "[losing] track of the user experience" and called on advertisers "to do better." But it may be a case of too little, too late as "a report (PDF) released in August forecasted that U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers," writes Jeremy Kirk.

70 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks, Scott! by Bovius · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thank goodness you speak for every advertising agency and website operator in the world. I guess we can expect a more balanced approach from here on out.

    1. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Ken_g6 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      From what I can tell, most website operators are at the mercy of advertising agencies. Basically it's a case of let the advertising agency have their way with the site, or don't get any ad revenue. Or get another advertising agency, but there don't seem to be many of those that pay well.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    2. Re:Thanks, Scott! by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's from the IAB, which actually is an important organizing group of advertising. They set standards for various protocols, etc.
      So if he's saying it, it's not because users are thinking it; he's saying it because advertisers are thinking it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Lendrick · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is absolutely true, and it's why I don't run ads on my site. No ad agencies that I'm aware of allow you to screen ads in advance, and I'm not prepared to put something on my site if I don't know what it is, particularly since ads are frequently a vector for malware. Also, accepting donations in return for not running ads has been more profitable than running ads ever was.

    4. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if he's saying it, it's not because users are thinking it; he's saying it because advertisers are thinking it.

      No. He is saying it because they (advertisers) are seeing so much effective pushback that it is having a real affect on their numbers. The arguments against advertisers haven't changed in the last 5 years, the amount of ad-blocking has.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try "Project Wonderful" you have the option to screen all ads and all ad modifications.

      Also the other thing you can do is create a media kit (google it) you can deal directly with the advertised and host the ad yourself if you so chose.

    6. Re:Thanks, Scott! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      By what? Which one were you thinking of? The Internet Architecture Board, the McConnell AFB in Wichita, Individual Address Block, the International Assn. of Book-keepers, the International Assn. of Bryologists, the UK's International Accounting Bulletin, the Israel Assn. of Baseball, IAB meteorites, or the Interactive Advertising Bureau (an online advertising trade group, different from the UK's Internet Advertising Bureau, which this guy is part of)?

      I do agree, it's pretty stupid that there's two trade groups for online advertisers, and they're both called "IAB".

    7. Re:Thanks, Scott! by SirLordGodfrey · · Score: 2

      Project Wonderful is the only ad network I've whitelisted across the board.

      Mainly because on the sites I see it, they usually have ads for other things I'm interested in, like other webcomics.

      --
      "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
  2. Or put another way... by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers

    Advertisers saved US$21.8 billion by not advertising to unreceptive customers

    1. Re:Or put another way... by cfalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Advertisements work on you. Unless you aren't human, or are a retard or something. If your brain functions, ads work on you.

      Period.

      Wanna argue? You personally never X or Y? Bullshit. Not only would you be very likely to lie to yourself about that, you don't have an objective observer to verify. And lets be real- they wouldn't spend billions advertising if the effects weren't both real and immediate. It's a massive industry for a reason.

      May as well claim cars don't work because you didn't drive one this morning.

    2. Re:Or put another way... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't expect you to click on ads in every case. They expect you to remember WXY Corp when you're about to buy a widget or service they offer. Which is why they want their ads to be so obnoxious, so you will remember.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Or put another way... by guruevi · · Score: 2

      They get paid by both views and clicks. The ad industry believes that even if you subliminally suggest brands at someone, even by being obnoxious, you will later on remember that brand and choose it. And even if you don't choose it, if it's obnoxious enough, you might talk about it with other people about how obnoxious they are and then those people have been suggested that brand.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Or put another way... by Rix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

      People give churches billions of dollars a year, too. That doesn't mean prayer works.

    5. Re:Or put another way... by pesho · · Score: 2
      Advertisers saved US$21.8 billion by not alienating their customers.

      There, fixed that for you. And the adblockers have the right to claim 10% on these savings, so according to my calculations advertisers owe 2.18 billion to Eyeo and the likes.

    6. Re:Or put another way... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fair point. Though in many cases it backfires when it comes to people like me. If I remember a company because of their obnoxious ads, I'm actually less likely to buy from that company, even if they have a superior product or a lower price. For me, it's a matter of principle.

    7. Re:Or put another way... by Technician · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Targeted ads have mostly missed the mark by a mile.

      I tell advertisers to be present when I search for your product and be competitive. Flooding me with ads for a product just after I have made my purchase is futile. How many cases of toner do they think I want to buy after I bought a year's supply?

      Your best advertising is by having an easy to navigate website with real content. If I am troubleshooting a laptop and need to find the hidden latch holding the keyboard in, brands that bury the info are not brands I would buy for myself.

      When selecting lighting equipment for my church, I only bought equipment with operator and programming info readily available so we could see how it would be useful.

      When selecting an ocilioscope, searching for minimum requirements often reveals additional features that used to cost lots of dollars for the propritory value added software. I am done with batteries not included features. Only products with fully functioning features are ever considered. Been down that road before. Bought a scope with a communications module. The software to simply transfer the screen shot to the PC was bundled in a mathlab type application for 1/2 the price of the scope as an option. That is a super fast way to loose sales. If a scope has a communications module, it should work without additonal purchase for basic functions such as a screen capture.

      Too little info is often the reason for lost sales. Cripple ware hardware is useless.

      Be clear in your sepecs. My old inkjet died and needed a replacement. Carts were specified for about 700 pages at 10% page coverage.
      The salesman wanted to upgrade me to the printer that would do 900 pages per cart. Checked online. Cart was almost double the cost and the 900 pages was at 5% page coverage. In short the ink was almost 4X the cost. Salesman didn't bother to tell me the apples and oranges in page coverage. He probably didn't know. I did inform him and got another brand.

      Consumers have noticed the cost of operation of many items such as Ink Jet printers and have opted for lower TCO options such as Laser printers instead, or using the cell phone and not printing at all. If you go though an $80 set of cartridges a month, it is very much noitced and use is evaluated.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    8. Re:Or put another way... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And by them being obnoxious we remember who NOT to buy from. I, like the guy above, have never clicked an ad but i have refused to do business or buy products from many obnoxious advertised products. And yes Ive seen plenty of storys about poor click through also. so ya they cry about everything. whatever happened to that camera/webcam obnoxious ad years ago? Poof gone no longer in business.

      I've clicked on ads many times. Not because I wanted to, but because the ad resized during the page load and I was trying to click on something else, but it jumped under my mouse. IBM, take note.. I only clicked on Ken Jennings twice this week on the Slashdot as because it resized after loading. Consequently I harbour negative attitudes towards Ken Jennings, Watson and IBM.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    9. Re:Or put another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sssshhhhh! You'll wake the marketing people! The last thing that they want to hear is the truth: 99.9% of advertising is ignored - both on the Internet as well as on TV, billboards, movie placements, etc. It gives the marketing people a chance to say "Look! I did something! See! There is my brand name!". But seriously, does anyone pay attention to them?

      On TV these days everyone uses a DVR or similar device and skips over the ads (hence not even seeing them at all).
      On Web Browsers, the ads are either ignored or out-right blocked. The only difference being that the blocking is detectable and is therefore setting off alarms in the marketing world.
      On apps, they just annoy people and constitute a serious threat to the security of one's phone and one's personal information.
      Movie placements? Seriously? When I see a product conspicuously placed into a movie or TV show, frankly, it makes me want to turn the thing off because it is just too stupid for words.

      The people selling ads make claims that the ads have a subconscious impact on the buyers when they go to buy a product, but I am highly skeptical of the validity of those claims and the numbers that they try to cite to back up those claims.

      But, as long as the people selling ads can continue to convince the marketing people that it works, we will continue to have mountains of mediocre content on TV and the 'Net, we will continue to see people who play make-believe as a job (e.g. actors) and people who play games (e.g. athletes) get paid more money than 100 people put together who actually make things that do something as a job and we will continue to see ad companies have conniptions over ad blockers and DVRs (remember the hubbub when Tivo first came out?).

    10. Re:Or put another way... by DarkTempes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the point is that it sexually objectifies the women. Aka it says the burgers are the objects to sate your hunger just like these attractive women are the objects to sate your horniness (ardor?)

      Granted, the guys are being stereotyped as well. And then we're making assumptions about gender all over the place because who really knows?

      I don't know that I'd call it misogyny. I get that the modern definition equates sexual objectification with hatred/dislike but that seems a little illogical to me. Certainly it's still negative because people are more than their sexual characteristics.

      And why not call out all of western culture with regards to women then? Shoes, clothing, jewelry, makeup, etc are almost all aimed at enhancing women as sexual objects...

    11. Re:Or put another way... by hierofalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much - Jas. 5:16b

      God's promises are conditional. If you haven't had your prayers answered, look to yourself first. If you're sure you are upstanding, then examine what you are asking for.

      Jas 4:1-3 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. James is a really good book to read sometime and sadly, he was writing to Hebrew Christians.

      People do donate a great deal of money to various religious organizations each year. There are some who do so in the hope they can buy God off. It doesn't work that way and church leaders are in error if they imply that.

      The vast majority of us donate to charities, and particularly religious based charities because it is both the right thing to do and a means of helping others with far less overhead than when the government is involved. That isn't a blanket endorsement of all charities, but there are some very good ones run by religious orders with very low administrative overhead costs.

    12. Re:Or put another way... by david_thornley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, if I pray for something and don't get it, it's my fault, either because I'm not a sufficiently good human being, or because there's something wrong with what I prayed for? You do realize that that is precisely the sort of thing someone would say when they strongly believed in something that didn't work, don't you? And that this attitude can hurt people?

      When religious people talk about religion in ways that can't be tested by objective observations, they might be telling the truth. When they say that religion provides certain objectively verifiable benefits, they're on scientific ground. When they then cover up their lack of success with blaming the unlucky for their bad luck, it sounds like said religious person is rationalizing like crazy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Or put another way... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 2

      "Advertisements work on you. Unless you aren't human"

      See my nickname :-D

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    14. Re:Or put another way... by cfalcon · · Score: 2

      > People give churches billions of dollars a year, too. That doesn't mean prayer works.

      Lets go over how wrong you are.

      Level 1 - "The False Equivalence" - A church is an organization that may or may not be headed by people. We'll assume it is. The people in charge of the church would be the equivalent of the people in charge of a company that purchases ads. The people in charge of a church aren't buying anything, but the people in charge of Hoozle Brand Mooshledooshles sure are. This is a false equivalence. The church members are the ones who support the church, and the consumers of Hoozle Brand Mooshledooshles support Hoozle. You cannot compare people with expert knowledge (the board of Hoozle, or those running the church) with people who do not have that, and are seeking a result (the purchasers of Hoozle, or the church goers).

      Level 2 - "Another one" - In the first case, we are discussing advertisements, a product of one company (the ad agency) purchased by another (Hoozle!). In the second case, you are discussing prayer- not the only "product" of a church by any means. In order for this to make sense (and forgetting entirely that top level error), you would have to show that CHURCHES don't work. Not just the prayer part. But churches DO work- they provide a sense of comfort to many church members, the church often helps members who fall into trouble, etc. I'm certain that these things aren't true in all places, but overall these are absolutely things that churches do to help their members. And this is entirely outside of churches that help non-members (thereby helping members who want to help others). Even if you don't like churches for whatever fedora babble reason, the point is that *churches are not just prayer*. You can't correlate the two- they are different things.

      Level 3 - "Just incorrect" - Prayer absolutely works. It may not make some sky fairy grant your wishes, but if you take away the supernatural claim and look at people who pray, you find a great deal in common with those who meditate. If the prayer brings comfort to the one praying, or really benefits them in any way, then it "works"- it is worth that person's time. It may not get godbro to hook your team up with the superbowl, but is that explicitly the claim of prayer anyway?

      At every level your thing falls apart.

      In fact, the fact that people give churches billions of dollars a year means that the people map to the CONSUMERS who are paying for a PRODUCT (in this case, not much of one) based on ADVERTISING (in this case, word of mouth). Advertisers looked at the religious scam model and were like "Hrm, how can we get in on this?"

      The mapping go much deeper in western society. Advertisers try to create insecurities. You aren't interested in a whiter smile unless I tell you that somehow the whiter teeth are better, and that your teeth aren't white enough. So I have to find someone with really white teeth who is attractive, or just fucking paint their teeth, or just repaint whatever images I have of them, and then show that's part of a thing. You'd never know you were incomplete, made imperfect, in need of forgiveness, for your original sin of having vaguely yellow teeth.... You can aspire to have perfectly white teeth, but without this simple product, you will never be saved...

    15. Re:Or put another way... by dpidcoe · · Score: 2

      iirc radio stations used to (and maybe they still do, I haven't kept up with it) have a guy in charge of advertising. One of his main jobs was vetting the things and making sure obnoxious stuff didn't get through. The problem was that if an ad spot was too annoying, people just flip the station and now you've lost a listener for the rest of the commercial break.

      The fact that the radio stations were allowed to vet ads basically forced the advertisers to walk a line between annoying and something that the radio stations would actually air. Unfortunately with websites, the owners aren't able to vet ads that go on their sites and so one of the natural limits is removed from the equation.

    16. Re:Or put another way... by TWX · · Score: 2

      Normally I'd agree, but the whole thing with the slow-motion of the sauces from the burger gratuitously landing on the heaving bosom thing sort of takes it a little too far. It stops being about attractive people having fun while eating the product and becomes about the tits and ass. It's tacky even by today's standards.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    17. Re:Or put another way... by DarkTempes · · Score: 2

      Of course no one forced anyone to do this. We've been conditioned and then raised our kids in the same way.
      Sweatshop workers aren't (always) forced to work there but if they want a job so that they can eat then they put up with it anyway. All of the other sweatshop workers do.

      Obviously objectification isn't as bad as that hyperbole. I honestly don't think we as a society should do anything other than strive to be more self-aware and teach our kids to be better people than we are.

      People have kids and then pierce their kid's ears before the kid is even old enough to make a choice and dress the little girls in frilly dresses and tell the boys that "girly" things are "gay". Then all of the media the kid sees reinforces that gender stereotyping.

      I'm fine with sexy and impractical clothing. I just wish people wore it out of rational choice or from experimenting with what they like and not because it's a conditioned response and what they think other people expect them to do.

      I'd also love to see men's ties burn in hell. Also, maybe we'll stop performing surgery on babies for no statistically significant reason. At least let them make the choice as a teenager or adult...

      And it's possible that in 100 years we'll figure out that we're just hyper sexual primates and that trying to prevent objectification is a form of denial.

  3. Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by grahamsz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Talk about missing the root cause. Ad blockers are only used because publishers have gone so ridiculously over the top in creating annoying, high bandwidth, high cpu-usage ads.

    1. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by jcadam · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This. I only recently started using ad blockers. I truly didn't mind a reasonable amount of non-obtrusive advertising, but the recent trend toward throwing 42 javascript-heavy ads in your face on each page load and freezing your browser for 30 seconds (or crashing it), turned me into a uBlock user. I'm not going back.

    2. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Funny
      In conversations that I've had with marketing people, they insisted that consumers want to see advertisements, if those advertisements are relevant. They showed me surveys where consumers were asked if they would want to see ads on web pages, provided those ads weren't intrusive and had relevant content. The results were more in the "yes" category than not.

      .
      How the ad industry got from the results of those surveys to disaster they are doing on web pages is a mystery to me.

    3. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by Lendrick · · Score: 2

      I hate it when I use a web browser that doesn't have an ad blocker installed. I don't know how people put up with it. Browsing the web without ad blocking is a miserable experience.

    4. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually I think he has hit the root cause. The best adverts are the ones that benefit the user. Take Amazon's reviews. They are often quite useful because they are largely uncensored and written by buyers. I often end up buying stuff from Amazon instead of eBay, even if it is a few quid more, because it has user reviews.

      Advertisers are starting to realize this. Rather than the traditional paid reviews (be it money or freebies or after-event parties or whatever) they see that consumers value really independent reviewers who will call a product crap if it is.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by PRMan · · Score: 2

      I've switched to Privacy Badger. It blocks the most obnoxious and dangerous ads, while leaving some of the low key less obnoxious ones. And it's automated and improving every day. I really like it.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    6. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Also, Amazon's return policy is terrific. eBay's is non-existent if the seller is a lying scumbag.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    7. Re:Little is lost "due to ad blockers" by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't forget that some ads are now a vehicle for malware; ad hosters never vet their content much anymore.

      The possibility of ads being infectious malware is the primary reason I block them now.
      Reducing page load times is the second reason I block them.
      Being able to find the actual content buried in an ad-laden page is the third reason I block ads.

      Make ads less weighty, less intrusive, and less likely to fuck up my PC and I'll think about allowing them again. Maybe.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  4. Bullshit ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a report (PDF) released in August forecasted that U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers

    Not making the ridiculously over-inflated revenue you feel entitled to, and which is based on bullshit assumptions is not "losing revenue".

    Acting like you deserved or earned that money in any way shape or form is your damned problem. Having reality bit you in the ass is also your damned problem.

    Sorry, but pulling a number out of your ass and saying you feel entitled to $21 billion dollars has nothing at all to do with reality. Get a real business model and earn your money, don't just decree that you being a parasite embedded on a web page entitles you to a damned thing.

    Digital advertising became the foundation of an economic engine that, still now, sustains the free and democratic World Wide Web.

    No, no it didn't. A bunch of sleazy assholes selling ads is nothing of the sort.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Bullshit ... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The cherry on top of this shitcake is that nothing would be lost if they didn't first of all drive people into blocking their ads.

      I mean, let's be honest here. Yes, there have always been the ones that block "on principle". But they were very few and far between. They didn't matter anyway, being the "oh I don't get influenced by ads" crowd anyway, they didn't click them. No loss there.

      Where they are now losing is with the masses. The Joe Randomsurfers that have now begun to use ad blocking. And there is NOBODY to blame, NOBODY at all, but the advertisers themselves.

      Anyone who has ever done any computer work for Mr. Joe R. knows one thing: They put up with a lot. And I mean a DAMN LOT. Usually, when you get called with a description like "Yeah, well, my computer's kinda getting slow and acting funny, could you take a look?" you can't even SEE the damn browser window underneath all those "helper" bars anymore, and starting the computer takes ages because you have to click away like a billion "please buy our software" windows. Yes, they put up with ALL of this.

      Can you even remotely imagine just HOW much you, dear advertisers, had to piss them off to even consider thinking about finding out whether it is maybe possible to get rid of the ads? Do you have a faint idea just how obnoxious you must have been for them to, you know, DO something with their computer?

      And that ship has sailed. You got them to do something, and just like they put up with a lot of crap before they went and installed blocker software, they will put up with a lot of inconvenience and "sorry, this page is not available if you block our ads" before removing it again.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Bullshit ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly. I remember when Google first came out with their ads and they seemed innovative because they were simple text ads. At the time, the "common knowledge" was that you needed blinking Flash ads that played sound, triggered full screen video if the mouse cursor went anywhere near the ad, and spawed a dozen pop-up ads. Anything less and users would ignore the ads. And, of course, as users tuned out your garish ads (even without using ad blockers), you needed to go even more garish to force them to pay attention.

      The advertisers dug themselves into this hole with the types of ads they tried pushing on users and now they're acting surprised that users view ads in a negative manner and try to block them.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Bullshit ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I know if Slashdot started charging for access, we'd start talking about "paywalls" and go somewhere else

      Well, here's the other problem with that: we're the product.

      See, Slashdot doesn't author any new content. Their value, whether they realize it or not, is in the people who comment.

      Slashdot without the comments is a rather pathetic news aggregator. It certainly wouldn't generate nearly as much money as a pay-walled site which just links to other sites. Because nobody would give a damn.

      Sites whose primary selling feature is an abundance of crowd-sourced/user contributed data who suddenly think the value is intrinsically independent of those users can get a nasty shock when they start to demand money for the privilege of participating. Experts exchange, being a prime example.

      So, Slashdot can sell ads. People may or may not block them. They can also sell subscriptions so we can see "articles in the future" and whatever else that gets you. But, really, the value in a site like Slashdot is its users -- even the crazy ones like the "you're all cows" guy.

      But the front-page of Slashdot with no comments and discussions merely linking to other web sites and the odd puff piece from Bennet Haselton or the articles Nerval's Lobster shills for Dice? Yeah, good luck making a business model out of that.

      Charging to get links to other people's content? Not so good as a business model if you ask me.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Bullshit ... by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      Ads are the easiest way to monetize.

      Other ways are to target the users or groups that ARE willing to pay and serve them an "enhanced" product.

      You could also ask for donations or use a service like Google contributor.

      Other than that, it may just require a radical shift in the way things are done... maybe an "Internet tax" that is built into your (or your ISPs) bill for the pipe whose proceeds would go toward funding free public infrastructure where anyone can host anything and can monetize in any way they want up to a certain, pre-defined limit at which point they would have to fund it themselves... Shooting from the hip here...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    5. Re:Bullshit ... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Sorry if that didn't get across: Yes, that's basically what I meant. They will not remove their ad-blocker when facing a "no content for you, damn moocher". They will close the tab and check if it's available somewhere else.

      And you may rest assured that they will try to abuse the law. They've done everything else, the only thing left that could prop up their failed business model and keep it from being subjected to the laws of capitalism is the laws you can buy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Bullshit ... by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, Slashdot can sell ads. People may or may not block them. They can also sell subscriptions so we can see "articles in the future" and whatever else that gets you. But, really, the value in a site like Slashdot is its users -- even the crazy ones like the "you're all cows" guy.

      Seriously, it wouldn't be Slashdot without the trolls - it would be a bland, boring place. My early reaction to the comments to this story was actually "where's APK? I hope he's OK". There's a real sense of community here that keeps people coming back (no, not the "we're all friends" nonsense, no real community is like that either). Mess with it and the community dies.

      But fortunately Dice seemed to get that - heck, I should probably change my sig now.

      That's the problem with paywalls - people are only going to pay for original content, not news aggregation, and a lot of what news sites do is just aggregation of AP stories and stories from other sources. How sure can you be that yor produce enough original content to survive a paywall? Maybe the paywall easy to bypass hedges your bet.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  5. Get what they deserved by hsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Users: hey can you give us less intrusive and annoying ads
    Advertisers: fuck you here is your ad

    Now
    advertisers: hey please don't block our ads thanks
    Users: fuck you

    1. Re:Get what they deserved by MagickalMyst · · Score: 2

      +1 Funny

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    2. Re:Get what they deserved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly! Advertising on the internet has become self defeating.
      Advertisers: Too many people are ignoring our ads...make them more visible and harder to ignore!

      Users: These ads are a pain and are giving me a headache! Time to start blocking them!

      Advertisers: They are blocking our ads! They can't do that!

      Users: Its my computer, I pay for the bandwidth that your ads were wasting so GO TAKE A FLYING FUCK AT A ROLLING DOUGHNUT!

  6. Biggest problem is malware by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The biggest problem with ads is malware. The article suggested a plan to avoid malware: encrypt the connection.

    I don't see how that will fix any problem related to malware......the problem is that malicious people are allowed to buy ads. That is the problem they need to fix.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Biggest problem is malware by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that they don't want to do anything substantial to vet the people buying the ads. All they care about is the money.

      It seems to me like there needs to be some sort of significant penalty for any ad network found to have let something malicious slip through, otherwise they have very little incentive to clean their act up. They'll just go "oops, well, we won't sell ad space to CyberMafiaMan2000@gmail anymore", and turn right around and sell it to CyberMafiaMan2001@gmail instead.

    2. Re:Biggest problem is malware by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      How do you propose to solve that problem [of malware in ads]?

      There are a couple ways:
      1) Screen people who want to buy ads. Right now it's easy to do with no human interaction.
      2) Text-only content (still have to worry about xss and validation mistakes, but that's a more tractable problem).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Biggest problem is malware by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you propose to solve that problem? It's akin to a server not wanting to accept a connection from anyone that would hack it, but that's not something that can be known with 100% accuracy.

      Hold sites and ad networks accountable for the shit they serve. If they're serving malware, penalize them.

      You'd have to employ someone to look at any of the content they intend to serve

      Yes, exactly.

      That's already more work than anyone is willing to put up with just to serve some ads, so no one will bother doing it.

      Then we have no choice but to conclude they're a bunch of greedy, self-serving bastards who don't give a damn about our security, privcy, or the perception they're part of the problem.

      Which is what we've done, and why we run ad-blockers.

      Are you suggesting we should be giving the benefit of the doubt or saying they didn't meant to do it and it isn't their fault if sleazy players delivered malware? Why the hell would we do that?

      Sorry, I'm sticking with the conclusion I've already made: I simply refuse to trust the integrity or security of an ad network, and I owe them no obligation to do otherwise, and I don't give a crap about their business model or revenue stream.

      If the ad companies won't take responsibility, then they cannot be trusted even a little. And that becomes their own damned problem.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. Wow, I'll turn off all my blockers right now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oh, wait. No, I won't. Because it is indeed too late. I could, and did, put up with advertisements when they didn't take too much bandwidth and weren't too offensive. That time ended years ago. I now adblock on every device / every browser, and install those features for all my clients as a default. I'll never go back. You screwed yourselves and have nobody else to blame.

  8. Wrong! by MagickalMyst · · Score: 4, Informative

    "U.S. websites will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue this year due to ad blockers"

    No, U.S. websites won't make an additional $21.8 billion in ad revenue due to ad blockers.

    You can't lose what you don't already have. This sounds like entertainment industry economics.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  9. Advertising is DEAD. Find another business model by Dr.+Crash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The unfortunate truth is that once someone experiences the speed and cleanliness of adblocking, they simply won't go back. Not ever.

    And, as explained in a previous post, the second thing they do is show their friends. And their relatives. And their social contacts.

    And so it expands, like neutrons in a nuclear warhead; the chain-reaction gain is greater than 1 and the constraint of business models
    ("we don't take your word for the claim that the ad was shown") will either have to break down, or the whole business is "game over".

    My advice to webvertizers: update your resume and find another line of work.

  10. Re: If he were really serious... by jovius · · Score: 2

    That doesn't make any ad sense.

  11. We accept your apology by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Yes, we really do. Thank you.

    Huh? No, we're not going to deactivate our adblockers. What does one have to do with the other?

    Seriously, the whole thing smacks of someone who tried to dick over his business partner, simply because he was used to getting away with it. Then, noticing that he cannot this time, tried to use more invasive, brutal action against him and finally, noticing that even that doesn't work this time, resorts to whining and begging.

    I'm fully expecting getting sued next.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:We accept your apology by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They'll go after the ad block authors, first with incentives, then with threats. They'll try to get laws passed, they'll try to hook into existing property rights violations like DMCA. They'll fight and fight to shit up your life because they've been able to get paid for it up until this point.

      We'd better have a plan for all of these points!

    2. Re:We accept your apology by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Make it a malware filter instead of an adblocker. Freely configurable, of course, so "the cloud" can add malware as it is found.

      Unfortunately some nefarious elements might add benign, wholesome advertising sites...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. "... will lose US$21.8 billion in ad revenue..." by macraig · · Score: 2

    Nope, they haven't "lost" anything. This is just like the bullshit "loss" numbers claimed due to so-called digital piracy. It wasn't guaranteed revenue even without the existence of ad-blocking software. Our brains are perfectly capable of "blocking" ads without software augmentation. Ad-blocking software is just a convenience for what our brains were already doing with a bit more effort. Like math.

  13. Ad companies suck at their job by allquixotic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The ad industry really sucks at their job (especially Internet ads). Their job is to make consumers LIKE them, to WANT to watch the ads and buy their products, but they end up having the opposite effect.

    Imagine if you are a software developer, and instead of writing new code, you find yourself regularly deleting code that others wrote on your team (and all available backups), forcing them to re-do their work. If you were this bad at your job, would you expect to make any money?

    The ad industry is faced with several huge problems:

    1. Ads take up too much bandwidth. They need to use more efficient content formats (yes, even if that means IE6 users can't see the ads), compress ads (yes, even very lossy compression) to reduce their size, and improve caching behavior, so they have absolutely minimal performance impact.

    2. Companies that produce ads or aggregate ads from disparate sources do a very piss-poor job of vetting ads to make sure there is no malicious code in the ad. Hijacking links, CSRF, drive-by downloads, ad chaining from one site to another, opening more ads upon closing existing ones, and links to explicit content are very common. These are malware behaviors, people. Advertisements intended for paying customers should be much more respectful of the consumer's personal space and *not* make every possible attempt to invade their system and prevent them from closing the ads.

    3. Most ads that we view are not relevant to us. We would never buy whatever is being sold, either because we know it's trash, or we're simply not in the market for that type of product (selling women's dresses to single guys, gaming mice to grannies, etc.)

    4. User trust in the ad system as a whole is at an all-time low, mostly due to the past effects of attempted identity theft, personal information exfiltration and malware installation attempts of a large proportion of the ad networks.

    These factors mean that users are left with two alternatives: either don't visit websites that display ads, or use an ad blocker.

    If the ad industry can't come together as a cohesive whole and actively seek to eliminate these bad actors within their industry, their negative influence is going to continue to drive users to block ads, even if a significant portion of the ad industry completely cleans up their act.

    At this point, the only ads I can tolerate are Youtube ads which can be skipped after 5 seconds. Not only are they sometimes relevant, but they're much more pleasant to watch than most of the annoying popups out there, and they come and go very fast if I'm not interested (5 seconds is a rounding error since the video might take that long to buffer anyway). Not only that, but they are also rendered using the same efficient codecs that Youtube uses. I've even stopped to watch one or two full ads.

    Imagine if 95% of car mechanics at car dealerships deliberately tried to screw you by saying things are broken that aren't (deliberate lying, not accidental misdiagnosis). How many people would trust mechanics vs. trying to fix it themselves or asking for a trusted friend's help? Most people would not be willing to bring their car into the dealer in this case. In reality there's still a significant percentage of bad apples out there, but I think it's much lower than 95%. Unfortunately, in the ad industry, the percentage of bad apples is very, very high, and the percentage of people trying to do the right thing is very, very low.

    1. Re:Ad companies suck at their job by yodleboy · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Imagine if 95% of car mechanics at car dealerships deliberately tried to screw you"

      What do you mean "imagine"?

  14. Re:Why would ad revenue suffer? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Presumably because people want evidence what they're paying for works. They want to know so many people saw it, so many people clicked on it, and some percentage actually bought it.

    Digital advertising pretends like it is their "right" to know these things, and to track all the places you go so they can better know what to sell you.

    The rest of us have decided "no, really, fuck you, where I go and what I do isn't your damned business". Which means we'll block the hell out of these analytics companies as much as possible, because we don't agree with the premise that we've consented to be part of their business model.

    So, if a website serves ads, which don't run scripts, and which are served up with their own bandwidth? I might not take extraordinary steps to block them. Start pulling in god knows what from a dozen other sites who all want to set cookies, run scripts, and track me everywhere I go? I'll block that crap all day long.

    If your business model is predicated on my participation, you should not be surprised that my participation is neither mandatory, nor beneficial to me.

    The problem is the ad companies feel entitled to this information. People are now starting to tell them that's not true.

    There's at least 10 external sites on Slashdot. The business model of none of these companies concerns me. The children of the employees of Scorecard Research can starve alone in the streets for all I care; it's not my problem to supply Scorecard Research with any information or be the basis for their revenue stream.

    To the people they advertise to, these companies are nothing but parasites on the internet. And that's their damned problem.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  15. Dumber than dumb... by MrKrillls · · Score: 2

    There was no ad blocker for broadcast TV way back when. Ads were stupid and annoying and became universally hated, and the audience gradually learned to walk away from the TV during the commercials. A few brighter lights among the ad community realized that to cut through the wall of hatred, they would have to create entertaining ads. Those who succeeded actually got people to look forward to their ads.

    The internet ad community has been too lazy to notice that they could do better. Their ads need to be worth seeing. That idea has been hidden right in front of them for years. They've earned the payback they are now getting.

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
  16. Boo hoo by JohnFen · · Score: 2

    I am a bit surprised that anyone in the online ad industry recognizes that they act like scumbags, but this is too little, too late. They've already burnt their bridges with me.

    Also, I notice that not a single mention was made of doing something about the primary reason I block ads: the spying. Which makes me believe that regardless of their crocodile tears now, they fully intend on continuing with what I consider to be their most objectionable practice.

  17. RTB (Real Time Bidding) is the real threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    That scummy platform is the bane of my browsing experience and the worst culprit when it comes to saturating pages in flash heavy bullshit. Enjoy this article from 2013 from suits singing the praises of how much they're going to eyefuck everyone: http://www.businessinsider.com/rtb-or-real-time-bidding-is-the-future-2013-9

    Here's an overview of why RTB or real-time bidding could make the difference in mobile, digital advertising's new frontier:

    It could help solve the CPM problem: The glut of ad inventory as global audiences rush into mobile has dragged on mobile display ad CPMs (CPMs refers to the cost per thousand impressions). That means publishers can't monetize their mobile audiences effectively via ads. Advocates of programmatic — or automated buying and selling — say it can deliver the scale and efficiency needed to effectively match buyers and sellers and boost CPMs.

    - Leveraging location data via real-time bidding (RTB): RTB is a style of programmatic buying in which digital advertising opportunities are auctioned off in real-time. The auctions take place in milliseconds as advertisers bid on the right to show you an ad immediately after you open an app or click to a new web page.

    - On mobile, RTB could be extremely powerful because consumers take their devices everywhere — to the mall, the car dealership, Starbucks, etc. "You have a source of media that's with someone constantly," says Jamie Singer, director of client services at Everyscreen Media, a platform for mobile RTB that was recently acquired by Media6Degrees. "You're working in real-time, and getting information based on location."

    - Helping to reach the holy grail of mobile advertising — controls and efficiencies: Believers in RTB and programmatic for mobile say they are making giant strides in perfecting their technologies, so they'll have the ability to leverage consumer data on mobile and track users as they do on PCs (while still being sensitive to privacy concerns). That will include location, contextual, and demographic data layered on top of real-time ad requests.

    - Some publishers already achieve higher CPMs with RTB than they do with traditional ad networks: As a result, RTB is seeing wider adoption across the mobile ad ecosystem, and positive momentum on both sides of the equation. The sell-side is providing more premium inventory, and larger publishers. And the buy-side is seeing more demand for RTB from advertisers and agencies. Of course, RTB and programmatic are contributing to hyper-efficient markets where ad prices tend to be low. The key is for RTB to bring scale to premium mobile ad marketplaces, bring in scale-focused brands, and lift all boats that way.

    FUCK YOU RTB!!!!!!!!!! LET IS BROWSE IN PEACE!!!!

  18. Yeah nobody clicks on TV ads, or NASCAR. Yet Coke by raymorris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Coke, Charmin, Tide and other major national brands spend billions on TV advertising, putting their logos on race cars, blimps, and all sorts of non-clickable ads.

    Notice I listed major national BRANDS, not major national PRODUCTS. It's all about branding. When you're ready to buy a router, you look and probably see options in three categories:
    Top brands, Cisco and Juniper.
    Brands you've never heard of, like Raytel.
    Brands you recognize but don't know much about.

    Most people will prefer to avoid brands they've never heard of. Just having seen the name before increases our confidence in the product. Any ad gets them out of the lowest category, "never heard of that brand". It's also a required stepping stone before a brand can make it to "top brand" status like Cisco or BMW.

  19. Re:All the good TLAs have been taken... multiple t by GNious · · Score: 3, Funny

    These asshats need to pick a new TLA... IAB is already taken.

    Almost all the three letter acronyms, except the ones using very unusual combinations, have been taken. Multiple times.

    Clearly we need to upgrade to the Extended-TLA format (ETLA), which allows for 1 more letter!

  20. Returns on eBay by sjbe · · Score: 2

    eBay's is non-existent if the seller is a lying scumbag.

    I used to make my living selling on eBay. Doesn't matter if the seller is a liar or not, you can pretty much return anything if you just utter the magic words "Not As Described". Unless they have changed thing dramatically it doesn't really matter if the seller doesn't accept returns or not. You just tell eBay it was "Not As Described" and they'll almost certainly authorize a refund if you ship it back. My little company got screwed by a number of shady buyers despite us have a no-returns-ever policy.

    I'm not saying there aren't shady sellers out there but returns aren't a problem if you know how to play the game.

  21. Re:Advertising is DEAD. Find another business mod by Macdude · · Score: 2

    The advertising companies will figure out how to bypass ad-blockers, then the ad-blockers will figure out how to block the new ads, lather/rinse/repeat.

    If the ad companies did a few things, people wouldn't feel the need to block ads:
    1. Don't auto-play sounds or moving images.
    2. Don't react when the mouse moves over or near your ad. Only react when your ad is clicked on.
    3. Don't serve ads laden with javascript/flash/whatever. Some simple javascript should be fine but if the script can't be vetted in a few moments it's too complex--reject the ad.
    4. Serve the ads from the primary web-site (including any java script), not a third party web site.
    5. Don't track users across web-sites.
    6. Vet ads before putting them in rotation.
    7. Don't use pop-up, pop-over, pop-under, slide-out or any other similar technique.
    8. Don't open ads in response to closing an ad or other window.
    9. Don't obfuscate where clicking on the ad will lead.
    10. Don't accept ads from companies of questionable morals, e.g. quibids.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  22. My solution by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    is to stick with Google. I run a few adds to pay for the hosting fees (it's a few hundred a year, yeah, I know I could do better but my host works and I can email their support directly). You'll know when you're site is serving Malware ads, it'll be taken off line by Firefox/Chrome warning your users that your domain is serving up viruses. It happened to the Angry Nintendo Nerd and it happened to Penny Arcade. Both of those guys do their sites full time. Mines a little hobby site for my Firefox plugin to store help docs and beta version of my plugin. I haven't got the time or the inclination to spend getting my site off black lists. So far google's managed to police their Ad network well enough that I haven't had to (knock on wood).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  23. Re:Battery life: 1.5 hr w/ads, 4.5 hr w/blocking. by Zuriel · · Score: 2

    I went to a website once that had a message where ads would normally be, asking me to turn off my adblocker to support that site. Fine. I did. It loaded an ad. I read the page and then went back to Word or whatever else I was doing.

    1.5 hours later, my laptop shuts itself down due to low battery. I'd left the page open when I alt-tabbed away from it and the Flash ad that should have been an animated GIF thrashed my CPU until the battery ran dry a couple of hours sooner than it should've. I still needed to use the laptop and hadn't brought the charger, because I shouldn't have needed it.

    Never again. "Please unblock our ads to support the site!" Fuck you.

  24. Re:Crappy Web site contest by thejynxed · · Score: 2

    Yes. The mobile version of Slashdot. Fscking atrocious.

    --
    @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  25. Do what advertisers hate: click on ads by gmiller123456 · · Score: 2

    Back when I rand ads on my website, the click through rate was horribly low, and that's what the advertising agencies used to demand very low rates for displaying ads.

    The strategy everyone who hates ads has adopted is to never click on ads, and as a result, a website displaying 10000 ads will probably only get a handful of clicks.

    So the strategy I've adopted is to click on evry ad I can. Especially on websites I like. With such low click through rates, just one user can double or tripple a site's revenue, and by the same virtue double or tripple an ad agency's costs.

    It only takes a few seconds to open every ad in a new background tab that I'll never see. And I get the benefit of helping a website I like, while costing the advertisers money.

    I'd think it wouldn't take an incredible number of people adopting the same strategy before advertisers have to change their game.