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

[cesrai]

I think the number that they are claiming is just b.s.

[mr moose]

I think the number that they are claiming is just b.s.

Any business worth their salt will have factored in adblock for this years financial outlook so, basically yes that figure is heavily inflated to make a point,  I just wouldn't outright dismiss the whole thing as BS like some are, because like all environmental effectors it will have an impact and one that is not easily calculated.

[Darkman]

If ads weren't so irritating and didn't pop up and take up most of a webpage or like on Spotify make you sit through UP TO 6 ADS AND THEY PLAY AT FULL VOLUME AND THE VIDEO ONES CANNOT PAUSE AND ARE STUCK AT 1080P WHICH MY INTERNET CANNOT HANDLE people wouldn't block them. LTT doesn't have them in the way, just two spots on each page. Not fucking 20 of them and some as videos that are not able to be paused.

 

I have to use it on my grandmas computer so she stops clicking on every fucking thing as well.

[SSL]

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

 

Then there is nothing on which to found the proposition of ad blockers increasing the occurrence of intrusive advertising.

 

My logic is that it is a fact that intrusive ads have been around for 15+ years, that intrusive ads have always predated methods to combat advertising, and that the reasons people give for ad blocking indicate that the behavior is always a direct response to intrusive advertising. Therefore, I conclude that annoying advertising is driving the trend in ad blocking, not the other way around.

 

By contrast, I see no such logic in your statement about ad blocking driving more annoying ads. It will be unfortunate if such a positive feedback develops, but at that point I think it will be inevitable. Advertisers and publishers alike have long been aware of what they have been doing without taking the steps to fix the root of the problem.

[cesrai]

Any business worth their salt will have factored in adblock for this years financial outlook so, basically yes that figure is heavily inflated to make a point,  I just wouldn't outright dismiss the whole thing as BS like some are, because like all environmental effectors it will have an impact and one that is not easily calculated.

Like you just said, I think like blocking ads will have an effect and we are like starting to see the result of it with the youtube subscription thing, services going for subscriptions instead of ads, sites not bring usable with adblock detected, and other things.

[Dabombinable]

If ads weren't so irritating and didn't pop up and take up most of a webpage or like on Spotify make you sit through UP TO 6 ADS AND THEY PLAY AT FULL VOLUME AND THE VIDEO ONES CANNOT PAUSE AND ARE STUCK AT 1080P WHICH MY INTERNET CANNOT HANDLE people wouldn't block them. LTT doesn't have them in the way, just two spots on each page. Not fucking 20 of them and some as videos that are not able to be paused.

 

I have to use it on my grandmas computer so she stops clicking on every fucking thing as well.

They put shit at 1080p?  :blink:

[Darkman]

They put shit at 1080p?  :blink:

yeah... Most of the time my internet can't even handle 720p... So a 30 second video ad for me is a 2 minute one of a stuttery buffering mess.

[mr moose]

Then there is nothing on which to found the proposition of ad blockers increasing the occurrence of intrusive advertising.

 

My logic is that it is a fact that intrusive ads have been around for 15+ years, that intrusive ads have always predated methods to combat advertising, and that the reasons people give for ad blocking indicate that the behavior is always a direct response to intrusive advertising. Therefore, I conclude that annoying advertising is driving the trend in ad blocking, not the other way around.

 

By contrast, I see no such logic in your statement about ad blocking driving more annoying ads. It will be unfortunate if such a positive feedback develops, but at that point I think it will be inevitable. Advertisers and publishers alike have long been aware of what they have been doing without taking the steps to fix the root of the problem.

 

Oh I don't believe ad block started annoying ads, I'm just saying it's prevalence will be having an effect on the proliferation of ads.  The business model of the internet predicts this. There are only two ways to provide content/services 1. charge the consumer direct, 2. provide it free with sponsorship.

[SSL]

Oh I don't believe ad block started annoying ads, I'm just saying it's prevalence will be having an effect on the proliferation of ads.  The business model of the internet predicts this. There are only two ways to provide content/services 1. charge the consumer direct, 2. provide it free with sponsorship.

 

Those are the only ways that have been made successful so far, mainly because they are easy and presently lucrative.

 

Such as response is likely to be short-lived. If ads become sufficiently intrusive, the usage share of ad blockers will rise enough to make the model unsustainable. As I said before, this is not the fault of ad blocking. The problem is that advertisers are acting unchecked; a coming to a head is inevitable and ultimately desirable, one way or another.

[mr moose]

Those are the only ways that have been made successful so far, mainly because they are easy and presently lucrative.

 

Such as response is likely to be short-lived. If ads become sufficiently intrusive, the usage share of ad blockers will rise enough to make the model unsustainable. As I said before, this is not the fault of ad blocking. The problem is that advertisers are acting unchecked; a coming to a head is inevitable and ultimately desirable, one way or another.

 

Your assuming that website owners and advertisers haven't done any research and are just pushing ads hoping it will work.  There are only two models and content creators are reluctant to turn away consumers by implementing a paywall, they are also reluctant to turn away consumers by blocking ad block users, which leaves them with two options increase ad revenue to maintain the site/service or go against personal ideals (like providing free content) either way they risk closing down. 

 

There are lots of discussions and articles on how to deal with reduced revenue due to ad block, it is not something site owners are ignorant about:

 

http://www.labnol.org/internet/alternate-content-for-adblock/28602/

http://blog.pagefair.com/2013/dealing-with-adblock-5-options-that-dont-work/

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/3-tactics-dealing-adblock-users-site/

[Murdoch]

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. 

 

I think you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head right here. While intrusive adverts have been around for years. The latest batch of intrusive adverts, are being designed with you in mind, somebody that has gotten pretty good at ignoring online advertisements over the last 15-20 years. Follow the money, traditional banner type adverts are becoming increasingly worthless, because, well, they are always ignored.

 

I could be a dick and say that everybody that doesn't bother clicking on adverts and just ignores them, is threatening the freedom of the internet. But then I'd sound like one of those anti-adblock whiny kids.

[mr moose]

I think you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head right here. While intrusive adverts have been around for years. The latest batch of intrusive adverts, are being designed with you in mind, somebody that has gotten pretty good at ignoring online advertisements over the last 15-20 years. Follow the money, traditional banner type adverts are becoming increasingly worthless, because, well, they are always ignored.

 

I could be a dick and say that everybody that doesn't bother clicking on adverts and just ignores them, is threatening the freedom of the internet. But then I'd sound like one of those anti-adblock whiny kids.

 

I guess you can turn anything around if you want.    The interesting thing in this whole debate is that nearly all the reasoning I have been given (including my own) is subjective.  What you just said relies on your interpretation of what is happening as much as mine does.

[SSL]

Your assuming that website owners and advertisers haven't done any research and are just pushing ads hoping it will work.  There are only two models and content creators are reluctant to turn away consumers by implementing a paywall, they are also reluctant to turn away consumers by blocking ad block users, which leaves them with two options increase ad revenue to maintain the site/service or go against personal ideals (like providing free content) either way they risk closing down. 

 

There are lots of discussions and articles on how to deal with reduced revenue due to ad block, it is not something site owners are ignorant about:

 

http://www.labnol.org/internet/alternate-content-for-adblock/28602/

http://blog.pagefair.com/2013/dealing-with-adblock-5-options-that-dont-work/

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/3-tactics-dealing-adblock-users-site/

 

Well, is it working? The report at the center of this thread throws some doubt on that notion.

 

Ad blocking and the reasons for it - as shown in the report - make it clear that while online advertising makes money for the present - i.e. it "works" - the long term trend is for a less certain future.

 

Of course, advertisers rarely suffer from reduced impressions; as you say, it's the content creators that risk closing down. This is because there is no market direct market pressure on advertisers to behave - the product of a broken system.

[Murdoch]

I guess you can turn anything around if you want.    The interesting thing in this whole debate is that nearly all the reasoning I have been given (including my own) is subjective.  What you just said relies on your interpretation of what is happening as much as mine does.

 

Haha. I did that just for fun.

 

What I find interesting about this debate, adblockers try to convince others that they are in the right, and win the debate. Yet what they should be doing, is arguing for the opposite or staying quiet.

[Miguel Batista]

Easy way to settle the dispute of why people use adblock:

I began using asblock because ads began to limit my everyday use of the internet. Theygot intrusive and my anti spyware and anti virus began reporting problems even though I did nothing more than normal internet use (i.e. no dodgy sites or whatever). So, a friend of mine told me about this amazing tool that removes all those worries and makes the internet faster (as in, less stuff to use) and so I began using adblock.

Now if people here could share their stories as well we could easily see if adblock users are the reason for ever more intrusive ads (which is bullshit. Ads get more and more intrusive because there is no regulation in place preventing them to be and greedy corporations will do whatever they are allowed) or if the intrusiveness of ads is the reason for many users to turn to adblock.

I think this situation is similar to the situation with copyright laws and otehr examples in which monolithic XXth century institutions cannot adapt to new technology and how people embrace and use it and as such they are dying and don't understand the reason why.

[Dabombinable]

Easy way to settle the dispute of why people use adblock:

I began using asblock because ads began to limit my everyday use of the internet. Theygot intrusive and my anti spyware and anti virus began reporting problems even though I did nothing more than normal internet use (i.e. no dodgy sites or whatever). So, a friend of mine told me about this amazing tool that removes all those worries and makes the internet faster (as in, less stuff to use) and so I began using adblock.

Now if people here could share their stories as well we could easily see if adblock users are the reason for ever more intrusive ads (which is bullshit. Ads get more and more intrusive because there is no regulation in place preventing them to be and greedy corporations will do whatever they are allowed) or if the intrusiveness of ads is the reason for many users to turn to adblock.

I think this situation is similar to the situation with copyright laws and otehr examples in which monolithic XXth century institutions cannot adapt to new technology and how people embrace and use it and as such they are dying and don't understand the reason why.

I started using adblock because I wasn't paying $180 for 12GB of internet to have most of it get consumed by the retards with their inane ads (the advertisers are retarded BTW). I actually had my average daily usage go from 178MB down to 87MB. 

I'm not exaggerating-that's how closely I watched my internet quota until I moved into an area with no pair gain and ADSL, and my Grandmother has also noticed how much ads chew up her internet which is pre paid as well. For those on expensive wireless internet in Australia, having adblock actually saves people money, and its better to buy merchandise from/donate directly to those you want to support anyway-Jim Sterling is a good example of that

[Technous285]

I started using adblock because I wasn't paying $180 for 12GB of internet to have most of it get consumed by the retards with their inane ads (the advertisers are retarded BTW). I actually had my average daily usage go from 178MB down to 87MB.

I'm not exaggerating-that's how closely I watched my internet quota until I moved into an area with no pair gain and ADSL, and my Grandmother has also noticed how much ads chew up her internet which is pre paid as well. For those on expensive wireless internet in Australia, having adblock actually saves people money, and its better to buy merchandise from/donate directly to those you want to support anyway-Jim Sterling is a good example of that

For me, adblocking became a godsend of time and system security when I was in a rented farmhouse and living off 28.8kbps dial-up (modem was 56k, the phone wires were buggered up) and started getting into some fandom forums like RangerBoard, back between 2004 & 2007. To pass the time there whilst stuff was working on my system downloading, I would be watching Foxtel and checking on the websites during ad breaks on TV. Yes, it was that slow I could watch most of a 30-minute show (including ads) whilst waiting for a page or two to load up, particularly if it was heavy with stuff like Javascript.

Then in 2007 when I moved into a nearby town and got 60GB (40/20 Peak/OffPeak) @ 8mbps/384kbps ADSL for $60/month, adblocking stayed being a godsend to help keep my daily net usage down (seriously, an average of 2GB/day before either pay out the nose for more data or get cut down to 256/256kbps), and keep my systems clean from drive-by attacks (I lost a system back in '04-05 to an ad-delivered drive-by attack from one of my semi-regular sites at the time. never shall that happen again).

[Toddskins]

I balk at Sean Blanchfield's thesis, that without advertising the internet would cease to exist as we know it (my summarizing).

 

The internet was wide open and free long before the world wide web protocol (www) came into existence in 1990, and long before advertisers learned how to create click-advertising models on the web (about 16 or 17 years ago).

If all the advertising dried up today, we would have people doing what they love to do as a hobby, find ways to compete the "old fashioned way", and in short, the internet is not going away.  It did not, and does not, exist because of advertisers.

Foolish.

[elkenrod]

Are we still talking about this?

 

Too many sheep on the forums.  I'd expect this on a non-tech website, but here?

[mr moose]

I balk at Sean Blanchfield's thesis, that without advertising the internet would cease to exist as we know it (my summarizing).

 

The internet was wide open and free long before the world wide web protocol (www) came into existence in 1990, and long before advertisers learned how to create click-advertising models on the web (about 16 or 17 years ago).

If all the advertising dried up today, we would have people doing what they love to do as a hobby, find ways to compete the "old fashioned way", and in short, the internet is not going away.  It did not, and does not, exist because of advertisers.

Foolish.

 

If advertising ceased on the internet it would change, How we know it today would be different.  What would not change would be sites like wikipedia, internet banking and corporate websites.  What would change would be forums, youtube and any service that relies on ads for financial support. 

[Jasmin]

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.

I say current adds on, say, youtube, are unobtrusive compared to several other options that have been around. You don't need to register to watch. You don't need to confirm an account with payment. You don't need to pay to watch - yes, the adds are fairly unobtrusive in comparison. Specifically tailored adds - you could argue what's worse - getting adds for pc hardware, games and books vs getting hammerd by pasta, cleaning supplies and diapers and other random crap.

 

The problem here is that you can voice your opinion about not liking some form of funding of the content. But I'll be one of those saying - if content if purposefully gated behind a form of payment - be it time, donation, information etc etc. by the choice of the content maker, and you access it bypassing this gating, through any means apart from being explicitly allowed to do that by the content creator itself - you are stealing, or obtaining a service in a disingenuous way.

 

I'm not saying that it's the only way forward, but you can voice your opinion and don't watch the content, complain on forums, sent a mail to the creator - just go for it. And the creator won't complain most of the time if you do bypass the gating, out of pure fear of the PR disaster that would follow, as people feel entitled to everything digital nowadays. It doesn't change the fact that by doing that you are obtaining a paid-for service without paying for it, or as we know it - stealing. Yes, stealing. Don't even try to throw the piracy argument here, since it's not about piracy - copying the material locally and spreading it through your own means can be extremely harmful, but it's only a potential loss. But actively using a service like, say, youtube, that needs to pay for bandwidth, maintenance etc etc. while bypassing the agreed compensation for using it is an active form of stealing. And yes, there are alternatives, but they are acceptable only if all parties involved in consuming and delivering the service agree on upon it. It's cool that, say, you donate to the content creator, saying 'oi, i dont like the ads and will block them, but here have more than me watching everything you produced 1000 times will ever make you' - creator will be more than happy. How will you reimburse google though. They are a side in this too. You can't barge in to the cinema with a tone of carrots, saying 'i dont like spending me money on the tickets, but ill give you the carrots instead'. They will tell you to fuck off. But even if the guard would let you through, it would not sit well with employer or specifically the owner of the movie ip.

 

By using adblock you are screwing with the content creator in 2 ways - by literally taking their money away from them and by stealing from the company that hosts the content. If you reimburse the creator via different means, you are still harmful to him in the longterm by playing against the host - I do believe corporations will almost always go for maximum gain possible, but I also believe Google would not introduce the semi-ban on in-vid adverts, if they weren't actively losing money on youtube, because there's a large group of jackases that thinks they own the content, without paying for it, whatever the means. Pay tied to the length, potential sub screw-up etc etc - there's more coming and I do believe it will keep coming until google gets in the black with youtube - but then it may be too late for all the parties involved.

 

Internet has shown that it will support the content it wants? - internet has shown that it doesn't understand the time and cost invested by parties producing and delivering the content, and then arbitrarily decides, at best, to support one of them. Internet has shown that until somebody slaps their hands, they are free to do whatever they wish, like a bunch of clueless children. And when the slapping occurs, they are mightily surprised why it happened and they throw a tantrum. In the end it is the consumer and the creator that will get hurt the most, those in-between usually find a way to extract what they want.

 

 

I balk at Sean Blanchfield's thesis, that without advertising the internet would cease to exist as we know it (my summarizing).

 

The internet was wide open and free long before the world wide web protocol (www) came into existence in 1990, and long before advertisers learned how to create click-advertising models on the web (about 16 or 17 years ago).

If all the advertising dried up today, we would have people doing what they love to do as a hobby, find ways to compete the "old fashioned way", and in short, the internet is not going away.  It did not, and does not, exist because of advertisers.

Foolish.

 

Internet as it was in the 90's had very little in common with what it is today, the same way life in the 90's is quite different to today's. We had a major economic meltdown in the meantime. Rampant growth of tech centered around internet. Unless you can reset to a state from 17 years ago, there wouldn't be the 'old way' anymore I'm afraid. If one of the main basis for majority of today's non-corporate and non-gov websites would disappear, there would be something, but nobody knows what and it might not be pretty. It did not exist because of advertisers, but majority of today's internet entertainment exists because of advertisers.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

 

<snip>

 

 

Complaining on forums isn't going to do squat.  They'll just ignore it and assume you'll get used to it.  In the meantime you'll still be bombarded with video ads, loud ads, ads that contain malware, etc etc. 

 

It's the overly greedy hosts and the content creators that are the problem, not the users.  They are the ones who were okay with all kinds of ads that annoy the user as long as there's money to be made.  If they would have drawn the line at whatever point they felt appropriate, the advertisement companies would have had no option but to keep it all reasonable. 

 

If youtube would say "this ad is okay, this ad is okay, this one is NOT okay because it's too loud/too flashy/too intrusive, etc" and would give us a variety of ads instead of shoving the same non-skippable one down our throats 50 times every day, we wouldn't be using adblocking tools/extensions. 

As for the content creator, he also has a say in which ads are displayed on his site so he's just as much a part of the problem as for instance Youtube is as a hosting platform. 

 

The whole ad model got so out of control that people were going to be fed up with it at some point and resort to tools to make the madness stop.  Instead of adapting to this reality, they are now starting to blame the users, and worse, some people are falling for it. 

If anything, we need more adblocking.  It seems to be the only thing that actually gets their attention, so perhaps at some point they'll stop blaming the users and start looking at their own contribution to the whole mess. 

Let the current system crash completely for all I care, the only thing to come out of it would be more greed anyway. 

[Guest Strangerbob]

So a fraction of money NOT Printed From Thin Air is now considered "COST"?

 

FUCK EM.

[amp88]

Another malvertising example: My browser visited Weather.com and all I got was this lousy malware:

Millions of people visiting weather.com, drudgereport.com, wunderground.com, and other popular websites were exposed to attacks that can surreptitiously hijack their computers, thanks to maliciously manipulated ads that exploit vulnerabilities in Adobe Flash and other browsing software, researchers said.