Report claims ad blocking is costing an estimated $21.8 billion in 2015

[Murdoch]

Ad blockers result in more intrusive ads, just like how piracy results in more bullshit DRM for paying users.

I don't agree with that argument at all. Intrusive adverts have been around for a long ass time. In fact I could easily make the argument that adblockers are a direct consequence of Intrusive adverts. Does nobody remember the time before browsers had pop up blockers built in, or when websites would attempt to install advertising extentions all the time. Neither of those issues were caused by adblockers, and they were solved by better browsers preventing that crap.

Pinning the rise of Intrusive adverts on adblockers is such a cop out argument.

[theereal]

Agressive and unwanted ads deserve adblock treatment

The only ads i honestly respect are movie ads that i havent seen gazilion times.

Find the way to deliver "wanted" ads or at most 5 sec long ads (youtube etc.) and i will not need adblock for youtube.

I personally cant stand ads at the movie either, we already paid to see the movie, those hollywood people are just shit greedy...

[LAwLz]

I don't agree with that argument at all. Intrusive adverts have been around for a long ass time. In fact I could easily make the argument that adblockers are a direct consequence of Intrusive adverts. Does nobody remember the time before browsers had pop up blockers built in, or when websites would attempt to install advertising extentions all the time. Neither of those issues were caused by adblockers, and they were solved by better browsers preventing that crap.

Pinning the rise of Intrusive adverts on adblockers is such a cop out argument.

SAY SOMETHING!

HELLO!

WHAT!?

 

Anyone remember those? Pretty sure those existed before AdBlock did (or at least was widely used).

[typographie]

This is based on the same flawed premise as the claims about how much piracy "costs" the entertainment industry. A potential sale is not the same as a lost sale. Someone blocking your ads may have avoided your content altogether if they didn't have a way to block ads. It's not the polite, tolerable ads that breed AdBlock usage, it's the rest.

 

I'm sure they're also disregarding the fact that white-listing is a thing, because why not.

 

Does nobody remember the time before browsers had pop up blockers built in,

 

I have to wonder, for the sake of this thread, how much built-in pop-up blockers "cost" websites in theoretical "lost revenue."  :lol:

[Chicken]

 

I fail to see the logic in this statement. An ad that I have blocked does not become less blocked by being more obnoxious.

 

The REAL cause of increasingly intrusive ads is the fact that they don't work even when they are not blocked; people have learned to ignore them, prompting advertisers to use ever more annoying methods to gain attention.

 

More people block ads = companies try to get more money out of every single ad they show, more intrusive, larger, longer ads will bring them more revenue than tiny ads or ads that last 5 seconds. Therefore, more adblock users = fucks over normal users.

[silberdrachi]

Didn't someone post an article a few months back on how now we are so ingrained in ignoring ads even when adblock is off that we almost never actually notice them? It was some study that was done using eye tracking software and common webpages and news sites. Basically people would read (most) of the article, glance at ads for a fraction of a second, and when tested after about what the article was about and if they remember any of the ads almost everyone couldn't tell you what the ads were of.

 

Advertisement on the internet needs a massive change if they expect it to actually work. I'm not talking about "less obnoxious ads" or issues with adblocking, i just mean in general most people don't give a fuck about ads. We have gotten so used to seeing them that we just "tune them out" and they become ineffective tools. This is likely why a bunch of sites are going to things like sponsored ads, and sponsored content.

 

Basically now i just blacklist a few sites that have some really really really annoying fly-out flash ads when you mouse over the wrong portion of the screen, or sites that include ads on their background image so if you try to click on the page anywhere it will open an ad. Most sites i don't have problems with ads on because i never really "see" them.

 

Other than Hulu, fuck that site with a red hot iron rod. Though now that the daily show is kinda done (for me) i will never go back there.

 

Edit: I should also say, i block ads on my phone using AdAway. but this is mostly because it massively slows down sites and increases my data usage when pages load 20 ads on a stupid mobile page.

[typographie]

More people block ads = companies try to get more money out of every single ad they show, more intrusive, larger, longer ads will bring them more revenue than tiny ads or ads that last 5 seconds. Therefore, more adblock users = fucks over normal users.

 

Yes, I can see how blocking ads may encourage companies to get more aggressive towards the users who don't block their ads, but I think you're overlooking the fact that aggressive advertising is an old concept, and AdBlock is a response to it. Not the other way around.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

 

 

Anyone remember these?  Websites were full of them BITD, and that was LONG before adblocking was a thing. 

 

Adblock isn't the cause of the amount of ads we get nowadays, we've been flooded with them since the very beginning. They're only getting more annoying in this era of video and audio ads. 

 

That increase in annoying-ness (is that even a word?  Well it is now) isn't caused by people blocking the ads.  It is caused by greedy site owners who want to make an extra buck even if that means bombarding their visitors with intrusive ads and trying to talk them into feeling guilty when the visitors had enough and start blocking that crap.  It's the site owners that eventually decide which ads make it onto their site.

 

If everyone stopped using adblock tomorrow, the site owners would have a lot more revenue indeed.  But that wouldn't mean we'd get less ads, only that they'd do everything in their power to keep that revenue as high as possible.

 

Don't blame the adblock users, it's the site owners that are the problem.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

This is noting personal against LMG, but I have to slam them for this all the same.

What none of these "content creators" are understanding is that even if you completely remove web advertising, subscriptions, and even donations from the equation, valid revenue sources still exists. These revenue streams are in no way small, either.

So it IS possible to provide an ad-free no-subscription web service, and make a decent amount of net revenue.

[typographie]

Anyone remember these?

 

I actually miss those. I assume the same people who used to use those are the ones who switched over to Flash ads with unmuted audio.

[Chicken]

Yes, I can see how blocking ads may encourage companies to get more aggressive towards the users who don't block their ads, but I think you're overlooking the fact that aggressive advertising is an old concept, and AdBlock is a response to it. Not the other way around.

Aggressive ads were a thing on shady sites, I don't remember ever seeing aggressive ads on websites I've used. Even youtube didn't have that many ads.

[typographie]

Aggressive ads were a thing on shady sites, I don't remember ever seeing aggressive ads on websites I've used. Even youtube didn't have that many ads.

 

Well, that's why whitelists are a feature. I agree that Youtube ads are generally fine, and I want content creators I like to get the ad revenue that keeps them running.

[daniellearmouth]

I personally don't use AdBlock, and quite honestly, I'd rather it didn't exist.

 

BUT. It kinda HAS to exist at this point because some adverts are unskippable and annoying as a result.

 

I remember when I was watching the first episode of Fate/Stay Night on CrunchyRoll. Bearing in mind, I'm not a paying subscriber to the service, so I expected I would get ads. It was a 48-minute episode, and I expected one or two of them would be unskippable.

 

But what I got was the exact same advert.

That I couldn't skip.

Eleven times in a row.

 

I felt my patience oozing out of every single orifice and pore in my body. Seriously, that pissed me off to an extent I never thought would be possible, considering they're only adverts.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Aggressive ads were a thing on shady sites, I don't remember ever seeing aggressive ads on websites I've used. Even youtube didn't have that many ads.

 

espn.com is pretty bad

[Jasmin]

Ha, soon enough you won't even have the option to have adds, you bunch of ignorant fools - all of you saying 'fuck yeah' - you just won't have indie content if it progresses like that - you are playing into the hands of those you seem to oppose, only players with real money will be producing content (or choosing content via denying support)

 

It's not watching adds and consuming content vs using adblock and consuming content. It's about consuming content with a fairly unobtrusive form of payment in the form of an ad vs not having the content at all. Newcomers won't even have the chance to start, medium folks will be forced into sponsored content, that people hate several times more than adds, and in the end the big players will get all that's left.

 

The scariest part is that the exact audience that is worth the most and that should support general progress is killing it with its own shortsightedness. Sooner, rather than later, content gating will go rampant, most sites will start forcing authentication and ban people who attempt to adblock etc etc. That's the 'good' result. Bad result is that all indies will die off - all those who barely make it through a month based on the adds from their niche website or content channel. You will have PewDiePies and other hollywood-reality-show-style garbage, that attracts people who won't know how to adblock, and no content for the tech savy - apart from corp ran biased shite.

 

Yes, those who make and deliver ADs are at fault, too, for, not looking far, trying to legally watch South Park episode equals to having the exact same ad play 7-10 times per episode. Random pop-up garbage is annoying, some ads prevent acceptable viewing experience of the actual content. It's bad. But blocking those ads you do nothing to the AD makers, and completely fuck up those who had to produce the content - who often don't get to chose what adds play and in what format exactly.

 

I'm just waiting for somebody to say 'fak dem, ai find new content source' - ye good luck with that. You won't soon enough, corps are just waiting to prove that consumer goodwill does not exist, and that you need to extort the money by force.

[Derangel]

You would be a terrible business man..... EXAMPLE:  let's say its 2007, and I'm the owner of youtube, I started implementing ads on the side, so each person has to look at 1 ad, some people start using adblock, I'm losing ad counts, so I'll add another ad, on top, now its 2 ads per person(that's not using adblock) Now more people are using adblock, ok fine, I'll add ads right into the video, whoever gets the video ad pays me more, now I have 1 person watching 3 annoying ads instead of 1 small one. More lost ad views result in more ads implemented, and the cycle continues, pirates and adblockers make it worse. That's all there is to it.

 

 

If you owned a service supported by ads, and you're losing view counts because of adblock, would you do nothing? A business move would be to add more ads onto a single page, so viewcount can go up with less people watching them.

 

I would look at the root cause of why people are using adblock and try to find ways to address issues people have. I would also understand that I will simply never convince everyone to stop blocking ads, but winning back the people who had legitimate complaints and reasons for using it would be a goal. What I wouldn't do is create situations that further drive people away and cause me to lose even more money. These big ad companies are only driving more and more people away from viewing ads the more intrusive and annoying they get.

[Murdoch]

Ha, soon enough you won't even have the option to have adds, you bunch of ignorant fools - all of you saying 'fuck yeah' - you just won't have indie content if it progresses like that - you are playing into the hands of those you seem to oppose, only players with real money will be producing content (or choosing content via denying support)

 

It's not watching adds and consuming content vs using adblock and consuming content. It's about consuming content with a fairly unobtrusive form of payment in the form of an ad vs not having the content at all. Newcomers won't even have the chance to start, medium folks will be forced into sponsored content, that people hate several times more than adds, and in the end the big players will get all that's left.

 

The scariest part is that the exact audience that is worth the most and that should support general progress is killing it with its own shortsightedness. Sooner, rather than later, content gating will go rampant, most sites will start forcing authentication and ban people who attempt to adblock etc etc. That's the 'good' result. Bad result is that all indies will die off - all those who barely make it through a month based on the adds from their niche website or content channel. You will have PewDiePies and other hollywood-reality-show-style garbage, that attracts people who won't know how to adblock, and no content for the tech savy - apart from corp ran biased shite.

 

Yes, those who make and deliver ADs are at fault, too, for, not looking far, trying to legally watch South Park episode equals to having the exact same ad play 7-10 times per episode. Random pop-up garbage is annoying, some ads prevent acceptable viewing experience of the actual content. It's bad. But blocking those ads you do nothing to the AD makers, and completely fuck up those who had to produce the content - who often don't get to chose what adds play and in what format exactly.

 

I'm just waiting for somebody to say 'fak dem, ai find new content source' - ye good luck with that. You won't soon enough, corps are just waiting to prove that consumer goodwill does not exist, and that you need to extort the money by force.

 

You call practically everybody in this thread "ignorant fools", yet, you display a significant amount of ignorance in that rambling of text.

 

I genuinely find it hard to believe people consider the advert networks that have been set up "unobtrusive", that's incredibly ignorant, it's head in the sand ignorant. Furthermore, I genuinely can't believe you've bought the idea that the advertising networks that track us across the internet, and tailor specific adverts to us, are the only way to fund content. You've bought into the idea that it's the only way to fund things, so you can't think about what would happen if the internet moved away from this funding model, or what alternatives are available.

 

The internet has shown time and time again that it will support the content it wants. People really need to stop thinking in the false dichotomy of it's "accept the adverts or everything shuts down". Your prognoses on the outcome is wildly off the mark, what is happening and will continue to happen, is that Websites are diversifying their income, offering alternative methods of supporting content for those of us that can't stomach adverts. This is the way forward.

[Simons]

I've encountered websites that constantly give you pop-ups, and advertisements EVERYWHERE you look, and annoying ''follow'' advertisements, that sometimes even ruins a website, because they make it impossible to click ''exit'' on your mobile devices.

 

and that is why I got adblock. I dont mind supporting those who deserve it, but huge companies that is already making buck and is fucking everyone over by these retarded techniques, is killing everyone else.

[SSL]

Exactly, they undermine the business model, what is the business model?  ad revenue pays for the service, it pays for the content, it pays for the server space.  If you undermine that then there are only two options left,  find revenue elsewhere to pay for the server space and content or stop the service.    Ad revenue pays for the service (this is buying) but it can only do that if the viewer watches the ad.  Ergo the viewer either decides to allow the ad revenue to pay for the content they choose to consume or they install a blocker consume the content and deny the creator and web host revenue. 

 

It is the same thing, you can call it selling the viewers to the ad makers or you can call it using ad revenue to buy the content, they are both accurate descriptions of what is happening.

 

Yes, ad revenue pays for the service - but the exchange takes place between the advertiser and the content creator. There is no guarantee or obligation that the consumer will view any ads.

 

I think of adblock as a solution and a problem.   I think if it's use becomes more common then eventually all web services/content will end up behind a paid subscriptions (something I don;t want to see because not everyone can afford that).  Whether this the fault of aggressive ads causing more people to flock to ad block or ad block causing website to add more ads is anyone's guess.  Personally I believe its 50/50.

 

Then you must only have been using the web for the past year or so. As the PageFair report shows, ad blocker usage has only really taken off since 2013. Yet, intrusive and annoying ads have been prevalent and ubiquitous on the web for many years. I do not see any way to reasonably argue that ad blockers are prompting more aggressive advertising; clearly it is the other way around, enabled by the fact that ad blockers have been ported to work on most browsers, particularly mobile versions.

 

I certainly don't see ad blockers as a solution. Despite their increased use, it seems most companies only think of subverting ad blocking. I don't see them as a problem, either,  though; they are simply a consequence of the real problem of intrusive ads.

 

Finally, I do not expect subscription-only services to be an inevitable outcome. Consider sites like GitHub, which are profitable yet still offer very functional free services without advertising. That means that people who are unable to pay, mostly individuals, have access to the service, while those who can pay subsidize the minor cost of free services.

 

More people block ads = companies try to get more money out of every single ad they show, more intrusive, larger, longer ads will bring them more revenue than tiny ads or ads that last 5 seconds. Therefore, more adblock users = fucks over normal users.

 

Not at all. You can also argue that decreased ad block usage would dilute the value of advertisements due to increased impressions without significant revenue to advertisers. It's been fairly well-understood for awhile that intrusive ads are not more successful; it's usually enough for a consumer just to see an ad.

 

Plus, you're ignoring the fact that "normal users" are getting fucked over by advertisers in the first place. Annoying ads came first; ad blockers are the response, not the other way around, as evidenced by the significant increase in ad blocker use over only the past couple of years.

[IdortMasterRace]

Good.

 

My privacy, security, and time is worth more than your shoddy and unethical tactics at making small change.

[mr moose]

 

Yes, ad revenue pays for the service - but the exchange takes place between the advertiser and the content creator. There is no guarantee or obligation that the consumer will view any ads.

 

 

Then you must only have been using the web for the past year or so. As the PageFair report shows, ad blocker usage has only really taken off since 2013. Yet, intrusive and annoying ads have been prevalent and ubiquitous on the web for many years. I do not see any way to reasonably argue that ad blockers are prompting more aggressive advertising; clearly it is the other way around, enabled by the fact that ad blockers have been ported to work on most browsers, particularly mobile versions.

 

I certainly don't see ad blockers as a solution. Despite their increased use, it seems most companies only think of subverting ad blocking. I don't see them as a problem, either,  though; they are simply a consequence of the real problem of intrusive ads.

 

Finally, I do not expect subscription-only services to be an inevitable outcome. Consider sites like GitHub, which are profitable yet still offer very functional free services without advertising. That means that people who are unable to pay, mostly individuals, have access to the service, while those who can pay subsidize the minor cost of free services.

 

 

Not at all. You can also argue that decreased ad block usage would dilute the value of advertisements due to increased impressions without significant revenue to advertisers. It's been fairly well-understood for awhile that intrusive ads are not more successful; it's usually enough for a consumer just to see an ad.

 

Plus, you're ignoring the fact that "normal users" are getting fucked over by advertisers in the first place. Annoying ads came first; ad blockers are the response, not the other way around, as evidenced by the significant increase in ad blocker use over only the past couple of years.

 

The intention between the advertisers and content creators is that most content consumers will see the ads,  that is the only reason they are there.

 

I have been on the internet since 1996.  I don't use adblock and have actually only noticed an increase in the more intrusive ads in the last 2 years. 

[SSL]

The intention between the advertisers and content creators is that most content consumers will see the ads,  that is the only reason they are there.

 

Of course. Which brings us back to my original point, that the consumer is the only real product in this business model.

 

I have been on the internet since 1996.  I don't use adblock and have actually only noticed an increase in the more intrusive ads in the last 2 years. 

 

I doubt your subjective impression of ad prevalence is an accurate cross-section of online advertising over time. Remember pop-ups? Autoplay flash video? Animated GIFs? 75% of screen real estate used for advertising? Yeah. That shit has been happening for about as long as it was possible to do and always before the reactive technologies were developed to deal with it.

[mr moose]

Of course. Which brings us back to my original point, that the consumer is the only real product in this business model.

 

 

I doubt your subjective impression of ad prevalence is an accurate cross-section of online advertising over time. Remember pop-ups? Autoplay flash video? Animated GIFs? 75% of screen real estate used for advertising? Yeah. That shit has been happening for about as long as it was possible to do and always before the reactive technologies were developed to deal with it.

 

I put my subjective experience against your subjective experience. The assumptions may abound and only only opinions be heard.

[Curufinwe_wins]

I put my subjective experience against your subjective experience. The assumptions may abound and only only opinions be heard.

Whereas my post many pages ago contains real data and objective data to back things up.

 

40% reduction in internet trafic by merely introducing a standard Adblock software.

[mr moose]

Whereas my post many pages ago contains real data and objective data to back things up.

 

40% reduction in internet trafic by merely introducing a standard Adblock software.

 

I have seen you're post, I have the original study.  how does that change what we are talking about?