Slashdot Mirror


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

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.

39 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.

  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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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!
    5. 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.
    6. 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...

    7. 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
  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 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
    4. 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 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

  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 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. 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"?

  11. 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!

  12. 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.
  13. 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!!!!

  14. 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.
  15. 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!

  16. 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/