Rise of Ad-Blocking Software Threatens Online Revenue

[Jesus Malverde]

Many of the world’s largest Internet companies, like Google and Facebook, rely heavily on advertising to finance their online empires.

But that business model is increasingly coming under threat, with one in five smartphone users, or almost 420 million people worldwide, blocking advertising when browsing the web on cellphones. That represents a 90 percent annual increase, according to a new report from PageFair, a start-up that helps to recoup some of this lost advertising revenue, and Priori Data, a company that tracks smartphone applications.

The use of ad-blocking software has divided the online world. Supporters say it allows people to get better access to content without having to suffer through abrasive ads. Opponents, particularly companies that rely on advertising, say blocking ads violates the implicit contract that people agree to when viewing online material, much of which is paid for by digital advertising.

Mobile ad blockers, though, have become particularly widespread in emerging markets, where people are more reliant on their smartphones to use the Internet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/business/international/smartphone-ad-blocking-software-mobile.html

Threatens revenue, but more importantly for the PTB disconnects the public from their messaging. On mobile devices I've been really happy using the purify app to block all the ads.

[Shandris]

1. Good. They had their chance.

Ad Blockers were resisted by many people for years upon years, but the advertisers wouldn't relent. They made their beds.

'Implicit contract'. Oh yeah? What were YOUR terms in the contract, 'company'? Draft some up with actual responsibilities and penalties and maybe I'll consider turning off my layers of ad- and script-blockers. Start by NOT showing 3 ads every time a single video is viewed.

[Logical]

4. LOL, it is like shoplifting. Wanting something for nothing. People are basically dishonest. And....

here is an idea for you, if the 3 ads bother you stop fucking going to that site. Problem solved.

[Jesus Malverde]

6. Since the ads use bandwidth the consumer pays for its not a

Perfect analogy. You sound cranky, you ok?

[Logical]

7. I am just tired of people wanting to steal content and expect no one to make money off their....

content.

People are lazy and want free stuff.

Easy solution to your bandwidth worry, stop going to the site!

[Jesus Malverde]

12. Installing an ad blocker is not stealing.

I can configure my browsers any way I want. Its my choice whether or not to install flash to watch crap flash ads. If I want my browser to run faster and with less clutter installing an adblcker will achieve that. If I want my data plan to go further, again my choice.

[Logical]

14. Just stop going to the sites that have ads. Problem solved. nt

[Jesus Malverde]

15. I already solved the problem using software.

There is no problem left for me.

[Logical]

17. So stealing. I get it. You want the content but no ads to pay for it. Classic! nt

[Jesus Malverde]

22. How do you feel about websites that use content excerpts of other people's content

To spark discussions and then make money off those discussions. Is that also theft?

[Logical]

24. Most links take me to the original site. Like real clear politics. nt

[Jesus Malverde]

28. What if you don't follow the link

Are you stealing? Is the web site owner?

[Logical]

31. That is up to the websites deal with the links the provide. I dont watch a TV show and worry....

if they paid the actors. Weird.

[Nye Bevan]

47. I read this OP of yours where you copied 4 paragraphs verbatim from the Huffington Post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023021617

I never clicked on the link to the original source so never went to the Huffington Post site, so I never saw any of their ads, but I enjoyed reading those 4 paragraphs for free.

Who was the content thief here? Me? You? Both of us?

[woolldog]

95. When Logical watches TV at home

He doesn't dare get up to use the kitchen or bathroom during the commercials. He sits there and watched every single commercial. Not watching them would be stealing.

[Stinky The Clown]

89. Your responses here made me chuckle.

Have a swell day.

"Free stuff"

Where have I read that phrase before? In much the same content you used it here?

Hmmmmmmm . . . . .

[Jester Messiah]

80. Found the marketing agent. n/t

[truebrit71]

86. Rofl!!

[yeoman6987]

44. What about the fact we pay an Internet provider every month

Seems to me the sites are ours.

[jberryhill]

55. And what does the content creator get from that?

Do you pay for cable TV? Does it still have ads?

[GaYellowDawg]

73. ... and which sites would those be?

Ads are everywhere.

[Loudestlib]

40. Don't make the content public.

Put up a paywall. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

9. Yes. Like people who record shows on their DVR and fast-forward through the commercials.

Petty thieves, essentially.

[Logical]

11. No, they have to fast forward through them. You can ignore or close most pop up ads also. Blah! nt

[Nye Bevan]

20. But if you ignore them the site owner gets no revenue from them.

Online ads pay by the click. So surely ignoring every online ad, while enjoying the website's content, is still theft?

[larkrake]

63. too bad. Internet gives your business exposure. sell your product, dont do ads

[larkrake]

64. my god you are rigid

[ret5hd]

82. Well, your sentence is syntactically correct, but not as descriptive as possible.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. It is quite literally nothing like shoplifting, you cheapen the idea of theft by making...

such a comparison.

[mythology]

45. It would be one thing if they had some way of guaranteeing that their ad

wouldn't infect my computer.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/25/9202301/advertising-malware-malvertising-statistics-flash-vulnerability

If Yahoo can't keep their ads safe, why should I look at their ads? If their ads take over my screen, or launch a video sucking up my bandwith, or blast the volume for the ad, then they can expect to not be allowed.

[6chars]

57. This!!!!

[larkrake]

62. we pay for our internet thru the nose. I vote for no ads and CEOs can earn less millions

[scscholar]

29. No, it's stealing from content creators

Want to have no content, because this is how you get no content.

[Logical]

2. People want free content. Weird no company wants to create it for no income. nt

[kentauros]

30. Magazine readers don't want free content.

The Internet is basically an electronic magazine. And yet, people aren't nearly as annoyed by magazine advertising. Maybe because it doesn't move and isn't intrusive. Magazine ads are much easier to ignore; they don't follow you from page to page.

Magazine ads also don't pressure you to buy something you've already bought. Internet cookies don't seem to make that distinction.

[Logical]

33. You pay for the magazine. nt

[kentauros]

50. Unless you go to a library.

Or a waiting room.
Or someone's home.

Then it's free.
Yet the ads remain, static, ever-present, ignorable, tolerable, and still doing their jobs without being overly annoying.

[Lancero]

61. Magazine ads also don't infect you with malware and spyware.

Some people call using a adblocker stealing. I call it using a condom - Practicing 'safe surfing' if you will.

[kentauros]

74. Good point.

And yes, magazines ads can't do much but sit there and look pretty or informative. Why can't online advertising be exactly the same?

[Orrex]

3. No sympathy, and yes I understand the economics of it.

If they didn't make the so intrusive, obtrusive and disruptive, people would be less driven to block them. Further, knowing that ads are voraciously scouring your personal data to maximize product reach, people are understandably suspicious.

If advertisers want to continue to operate, then need to come up with a way to do it that doesn't piss people off.

[Logical]

5. LOL.....

if movies were cheaper I would not watch illegally online.

Blah, blah, blah.

People want free shit.

[Orrex]

10. You're replying to the wrong person, or you didn't read my post

Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 07:00 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm not asking for anything for free. I'm simply asking that ad content be made less disruptive, and that it back away from the data mining. Not at all the same.

[kentauros]

26. I have absolutely no issue with a static ad.

One that does not move, does not expand, does not cover the whole screen while I'm trying to read, does not pop-up (such as on YouTube, both from the bottom and the sides all throughout the video), and does not link to existing words within the text, tricking you into thinking it's a link the site wanted you to see.

Static ads are easily ignored as just another bit of static graphic on the page. Or, you can pay attention to them and make a click. Unless you're easily annoyed by graphics of any kind, the annoyance factor is pretty low and tolerable.

Magazine advertisers seem to understand how to get people's attention enough to buy their products and be quite successful. So, why can't Internet advertisers work exactly the same way?

[Orrex]

35. Yes to all of that.

Somehow online advertisers are given a free pass to demand our attention in whatever capacity they care to exploit, whereas static ads have to make do with a fixed image and yet somehow managed to pay the bills for a century so.

[kentauros]

51. That's true.

Advertising has been with us for over a century, and highly successful. People still get annoyed by it, yet not like Internet advertising. It's like the medium came along and they saw the opportunity to finally be allowed to go as over-the-top as they could imagine. Too bad they didn't also imagine the response...

However, I am most thankful that Internet advertising cannot do perfume samples, as with magazines. I haven't been exposed to such magazines lately, so I don't know if the practice is still in use, due to the high possibility of adverse allergic reactions in some.

[EL34x4]

94. Yep. They brought this on themselves.

I never used AdBlocker in the days of simple banner ads. Once the ads started slowing my browser to a crawl, locking up pages, and generally bringing annoyance into my web surfing, I installed AdBlocker and never looked back.

[Takket]

8. implicit contract my ass

that's like saying i'm "doing wrong" by going to the bathroom during a commercial break on TV. Let the precious free market decide. if its hurting their business, don't advertise that way. we are bombarded with more advertising than EVER in this age. TV, billboards, websites, on the players and field during sporting events, and even right in the middle of TV shows (i remember and episode of Masterchef where the chefs had to use walmart steaks and veggies. the hosts gave a speech about how walmart food is the freshest available and USDA certified blah blah blah. Obviously it was an advertisement. I'm looking at these world renowned chefs and laughing and saying to my wife "none of these guys would be caught DEAD buying food in a walmart.&quot So yeah, complaining advertisers can't get through to people is bullshit.

[kentauros]

58. Product placement.

I was just thinking about that this evening as I finished watching Kelly's Heroes (1970.) Early in the movie, Crapgame (Don Rickles) is in his distribution center making a deal on the phone. Looking behind him, there's a box of Almond Joy rather prominently displayed so that we can't help but see it and read it.

Now, this was long before the famous Reese's Pieces product placement in ET. So, either someone was just playing a joke, or Mars actually did request (and pay) to have their product be so displayed. Normally, even famous stuff like Coke would get their bottles and cans turned so you couldn't see the label, or generic/fake products would get displayed instead. It's quite unusual to see product placement in older movies.

These days, it's so overt as to be just as annoying as online advertising, and hosts breaking out into advertising copy while doing their show. What a great way of turning off your more intelligence viewers.

[Takket]

72. your post reminds me of this...

[link:

|

[kentauros]

75. LOL!

I have never been able to watch that movie all the way through, so I missed that. What's funny about it as well is that it's a parody that still works as product placement advertising

[alc]

13. Billboards work

They provide relevant information and are not intrusive. I can select where to eat dinner on a road trip without slowing down. If a 40 foot sign all of a sudden dropped on the highway when I'm doing 70 and tells me I need penis enlargement someone would find a way to block that.

Ad companies are whining because they haven't innovated for 15 years (other than getting more intrusive).

I was able to avoid ad blocking for a fortune 500 company ten years ago. It's not hard but the ad companies are not consumer focused and make big $$$$ fron technical snake oil rather than providing a real business services. And too many web properties don't know the difference.

[Logical]

16. Your comparison is silly......

You are not getting any benefit from the billboard.

If a site has stories or news or videos you want to see then YOU CHOOSE to use it and thus they deserve to make a profit off ads.

Weird comment from you.

[alc]

39. Not silly at all if you are involved in marketing and technology

Relevence and intrusiveness are both critical to success in web ads (any ads). And the big companies that make the $$$ suck at both but have sales ptches that convince managers and execs they are great. There are sites that succeed by getting relevance and intrusiveness right. There are also sites I LITERALLY cannot read on my tablet because of the intusive ads. (And I understand the meaning of. "Literally&quot the major web ad companies have had ZERO inovation in relevance or consumer-focused intrusiveness in a decade. But they have power points that convince execs otherwise.

Delivering a technology service is cheap and easy. Delivering a business service (like good web ads) has a much lower profit margin. Much better business plan to deliver technology with a few developers and a few salespeople.

[jberryhill]

53. I don't understand the ads that cripple mobile devices

But, yeah, there seem to be a LOT of sites where the content is not actually accessible, because the ads hang up mobile browsers.

[backscatter712]

18. They allowed too much malware, so fuck 'em. Damn right I block 'em.

Forbes was one of those that tried blocking ad-blockers, then when people turned their blockers off, they served 'em malware.

The advertisers had their chance to play nice, but squandered it, so fuck them.

[CharlotteVale]

23. ^^THIS^^

[Logical]

27. Solution for your problem.....

stop going to site that run ads. Problem solved. But something tells me you want their content just dont want to pay for it. I get it now.

[kentauros]

36. Of course, your analogy leaves out so much.

We pay for access to the Internet. We have to pay for the equipment to give us access to the Internet, too. And sometimes, we do indeed click on ads, and sometimes accidentally.

I pay for ad-free access to DU. Other websites do the same thing, such as sites tied to magazines and newspapers. And yet, those same sites run ads for those who don't pay to access the sites ad-free. And still other sites offer all of their content ad-free to everyone (such as Wikipedia.)

People react badly when advertisers attempt to put their ads during televisions shows. I seem to remember Coke doing that for one show as an experiment, where text would appear within the content of the show telling people to buy their product and go to their website. It completely took one out of the program, interrupting it beyond what commercial breaks already do. It was a colossal failure. People not only stopped watching, they complained to the cable channel such that they never tried that technique again.

And yet, Internet advertisers don't have to worry about people complaining to the hosting site, as the site has no direct control over their advertisers the way TV and radio does. So, they are free to make their advertising as annoying as possible. No consequences to them, or so they thought.

[Logical]

37. I pay for cable and the TV to display it. But I can't tell ABC to stop showing ads or control it.

[kentauros]

54. No you can't. Because there's no ad-blocker technology for it.

That medium is accepted to have advertising that we can at least mute and know when it will be shown, i.e., commercial breaks during and after shows. That example doesn't work on the Internet. There are no established norms for time between commercial breaks, yet we do have ad-blocking technology, and can also mute.

At home, you do have the advantage of recording shows and then skipping over the ads. Unless you download a show online, you don't have that advantage, except when it is given to you. You still have to endure five seconds of the ad before that opportunity to skip it shows up. Just hit the skip or FF buttons at home to pass over unwanted advertising, technology which has been in place since we've been allowed to record programming at home, I might add.

[backscatter712]

42. The advertisers were the ones that broke the "contract"

...when they started serving malware that spied on users, possibly stole passwords and personal information, and served up shit like ransomware and scamware. Once they did that, all bets are off.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. Exactly, I don't need this shit cluttering up the web, if they had less intrusive ads...

Like Google uses(for its website), then no problem, but popups, videos that play on their own, malware that installs without our knowledge, etc.

[PSPS]

21. Malicious ads are a primary vector for ransomware/crypto infections.

[daleo]

25. Internet ads are a classic race to the bottom

So much advertising gets accreted to sites, that people give up on the content. Then, both advertisers and content providers lose their purpose for existing in the first place, as there is nobody left to sell to or enjoy the content.

[daleo]

93. Yeah, overdone clickbait is annoying

I will accept some clickbait, but some of these sites are just plain abusive.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Cry Me A River

For Just 3 Easy Installments of $29.99

[Little Tich]

38. Yeah, we really need more ads that can't be turned off...

Especially those with annoying sounds...

[Rochester]

41. Hell yes I ad-block.

Makes browsing the internet so much more enjoyable.
Not to mention faster and safer.

[Initech]

43. Because Internet ads are getting more obnoxious by the day.

I don't want to read an article only to get blocked by "sponsored this week's circulars" or "meet singles in your area.". And don't get me started on how much I utterly despise Outbrain and Taboola.

[larkrake]

65. popups and flashing, covers the print I'm reading, no not bearable

[Jemmons]

46. Bait and switch business is getting derailed? Well cry me a river... eom

[Jemmons]

48. Oh - no longer getting rich fast with no work involved? Want cheese with that whine? eom

[PersonNumber503602]

71. Depends on the site.

There are plenty of well behaved websites in which the creators put a lot of time into making and into creating content. They are the ones who get hurt the most by ad blocking, because they get much less return for their time and effort. That sucks majorly for a little guy just starting out. And if they go for the subscription model, then people will whine about them trying to get rich fast.

[Jemmons]

84. Good point! I will say this though: If you truely put in a lot of honest work in a site Patreon

should be a viable option. Perhaps not as easy as just getting an ad service running, but still an option.

[Jemmons]

49. When we adopted him, he had no place to stay that night

This headline was recently used by a "civilian" here on DU for a cute pet thread. No thought or mention of the adopted kids that was used as click bait and whether the use of click bait was a choice or just instinctive attention grabbing is hard to tell. But I don't think you would find much of that sort outside our age of rampant commercialized culture, where disingenuous manipulation of attention is the norm rather than the exception.

You can help our culture getting back to sanity and decency by installing an add-blocker of your choice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027865713

[L. Coyote]

52. Old news. Our revenue shrunk a long time ago.

I have a monetized domain, and income fell a good while ago due to adblocker. And, I use it myself, love it. That's my daily browser.

[Skittles]

56. f*** them

[alarimer]

66. I will always use an ad-blocker

I'm annoyed that there isn't one for mobile, because the ads are HORRENDOUS.

So, advertisers and sites: stop with the fucking auto-play videos. Just stop it.

Also, when I turn off the adblocker here and at other sites I see some pretty awful stuff. There are ads that cover the page, that (especially on mobile) that render the page unreadable altogether. The ads below the OP, the You May Like, sometimes show things that are quite disgusting.

So, no, I won't quit using adblockers.

[backscatter712]

88. There is AdAway for Android devices. Not sure about iPhones...

You won't find it on the Android Play Store, since Google does not allow ad blockers there. I would suggest installing an alternative app store called F-Droid (https://f-droid.org/). They're reasonably trustworthy, since all of the software they carry is Open Source.

Anyways, one of the apps that is available on F-Droid is the ad-blocker Adaway. That does the trick for me, though you have to be rooted for AdAway to work.

[bemildred]

67. There is no implicit contract to watch anything on the web.

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)

And you sure as heck don't have to watch advertising for checking out the "content".

[hunter]

68. I don't find ads that are plain text or static images objectionable.

It's the animated, javascript, flash, pop-ups, etc., that make internet advertising suck.

I don't install flash, and I have a white-list of sites I allow to run scripts.

My setup breaks some sites so I can't read them, but that's their loss, not mine.

DU is on my whitelist, but I also have a star, so I don't see ads. I don't install ad-blocking software because my system seems to avoid the worst sorts of advertising while allowing mild non-animated newspaper-like advertising on sites I regularly visit but don't subscribe to.

[GOLGO 13]

69. Internet freedom! Let the people decide. i choose...ad-block!

Let it be written, Let it be done!

[PersonNumber503602]

70. Blame overly intrusive ads, too many ads on a single page, and malware delivering ads.

I find it rather annoying when people block ads on a well behaved site that they use a lot, but the problem is that there are so many sites out there that use ads in the worst way possible.

I say this as someone who has had sites that relied on some ad revenue too.

[whatthehey]

76. Is ad-block the root problem?

I use adblock (well, ublock technically) because I don't want intrusive ads. But I don't want intrusive ads because I have no interest in following them. In other words, even if I saw them, I wouldn't follow them, meaning the site gets no ad revenue anyway. If I had an interest in following ads, I wouldn't block them. The block tool is not the cause of not following ads, it's the means I use to not see them.

Sure some people are more impulsive or more spontaneous I suppose, but how many? How many would follow ads if they saw them, but went to the trouble of finding out how to block them? How does that make sense? "I hate these ads enough to research and install a blocking extension, but if I hadn't done that I'd be clicking away on them merrily." Really?

Now I am probably rare on DU in that I WANT targeted, specific ads. I want to be tracked so they know to tell me when Marc-Andre Hamelin releases another recording rather than Hank Williams, know to show me electric car news links not electric depilatory links, but that is best used to provide inline content in Google news or Amazon recommendations, not flashing popups asking meif I want to complete a survey every time I read articles. Tracking me is fine. Advertising to me is fine even. Just make it relevant and part of the content, just like magazines. They tend not to advertise tractor pulls in Vogue or perfume in Car and Driver. Why do I get popups telling me I need to buy underwear on Yahoo Finance?

[randome]

91. I'm sure there is statistical analysis out there about whether online ads are effective or not.

It seems to me -intuitively- that they wouldn't be since they're so easy to ignore and even to block. For ads that still push through pop-ups to me (not many), I usually react swiftly enough to close the extra window or tab before I even view whatever it is that they're trying to sell.

Why do you get underwear ads on Yahoo Finance? Maybe you bought underwear online at one point? That information is usually stored and passed through in cookies or other means of 'catering' to your needs.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tommy_Carcetti]

77. So much crappy clickbait ads that Ad Block has removed...

...and made my webviewing experience (including here) so much nicer.

I couldn't even read Salon.com until I got Ad block.

[Jester Messiah]

78. Rising?

I've been using blockers in one form or another since at least 2001. Glad to see others getting wise though.

[Jesus Malverde]

90. This really is about the rise of ad blocking on iOS.

A demographic attractive to advertisers.

[KamaAina]

79. One, two, three, AWWWWWWWW!

Ad blocking : internet :: Tivo : TV. Deal with it.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

81. I had mine on, forgot that I did, and turned it off. I want DU to make money

and be here next year when President Drumpf is destroying everything around us.

I will need somewhere to go to talk to people.

[whatthehey]

83. You actually need to follow the links to generate revenue.

I saw few DU ads at work (with no block) that I'd want to follow before I starred up. It seems like a very poorly targeted algorithm on this site. Lots of RW ads. Of course if you click those you end up forcing RW sites to pay for DU so if you have the inclination go for it...

[KamaAina]

85. Get rid of ads and build revenue into the price of Internet service

the way funding in lieu of royalties is built into the price of blank cassettes. There! Problem solved!

[Jester Messiah]

87. There are all kinds of good tools out there.

uBlock Origin and Ghostery not only keep the ads out of my face and my data more secure, but they do it without impacting my browser's speed as badly as Adblock Plus did.

Huh. That kinda reads like an ad itself.

[reflection]

92. Isn't it a reasonable assumption

that people who install ad-blockers are unlikely to purchase anything from said ads? So what is the benefit of forcing someone to watch an ad that has no intent of buying the product or service? It seems like an efficient method to keep data usage down, both from a provider and consumer standpoint.

I don't have any ad-blockers installed, but I'm not seeing the problem here.