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.

20 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 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.

    2. 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!
  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.

  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.
  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. 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.

  7. 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!

  8. 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.