Ad Blocking Report - 22 billion in lost revenue

The lost ad revenue figures will double in 2016

[netmeg]

From the folks at Marketingland:

Ad-blocking software, once thought to be a relatively small-scale phenomenon, is apparently rapidly going mainstream. According to a new report from Adobe and PageFair — an Irish company founded in 2012 that “measure[s] the cost of adblocking and display[s] alternative non-intrusive advertising to adblockers” — $21.8 billion in global ad revenues have been blocked/lost so far in 2015.

[marketingland.com...]

TL:DR: If you think ad blockers aren't affecting you, you may be wrong. They're everywhere now. Firefox. Safari. Edge. And it's only going to get worse.

[trebuchet]

And like I've said before, that's how advertising has worked for centuries. Do you honestly believe that firms who advertise in newspapers, hire billboards or send out junk mail think of their ad spending as 'stolen' if people don't look at their ads? This advertising is about breadth of coverage, not compelling people to look.

You shouldn't assume that other users behave as you do. We're all aware you and your compatriots here don't look at or click ads. But thousands do. There are probably even people who like looking at online ads (in the same vein as those who read every scrap of junk mail).

[pageoneresults]

trebuchet, do "I" need to explain to you all the other metrics that visitor is influencing? Not to mention the potential for sharing your content with others? It sure sounds like you see visitors from one perspective, each one is worth a few pennies and you're going to milk them for every penny they have?

Ya, me starting to get a little perturbed after that CPM comment. In all reality, you are ripping off advertisers by forcing those ads on your visitors who use Ad Blocking software. At the same time, your visitors are seeing my brand in those ads and I'm almost certain there's a subconscious tie there somewhere. So, you're potentially damaging my brand in the process of milking your visitors for pennies?

Let me add a new business model to the DEAD LIST - CPM Advertising.

[thms]

I'm trying to understand the logic here. I get blocked if I had an Ad Blocker. If I turn it off, I get access. Okay, so I turn it off for your site, get what I want, then turn it back on. What did that do for you?

Do you really need me to school you on how CPM ads work? It's already been explained in this thread, by myself and others. You don't have to click the ads.

It's not only CPM either. You THINK that you're immune to ads. But the reality is that advertising works even if you see the ad for a split second. You see the ad and it's already working on a subconscious level. That's why big companies pay huge money to appear for a few seconds on TV. You cannot click the TV ad but it works. So all these "oh I never click ads" excuses are #*$!.

So pageoneresults is wrong in both ways. It does pay me cpm AND it also works for the adverstiser because you saw the ad. That's all they need. You don't need to click. You don't even need to admit that the ad worked.

As an Advertiser, I don't want to pay for my ad showing to people that don't want to see it, what are you thinking?

So it's YOUR JOB to look for an adverstising company that can guarantee that your ad will be shown only to people wanting to look at ads.

[edited by: thms at 2:32 pm (utc) on Aug 28, 2015]

[MrSavage]

To the point about adblock users whitelisting, then changing back after getting what they want? I would say this. They are likely too lazy to set it back. Beyond that fact, I would be 90% of sites people visit have more than a reasonable amount of ads. Because adblockers are too lazy to seek out a non intrusive, ad laden site, I would assume most of them would be too lazy to remove a site they just whitelisted because heck, they may come back at some point.

People haven't considered this fact. If 40% of your regular audience are currently adblockers, when you put forth a nag page and only offer up a blank page. Then what about the standoff? They come regularly. They will move on? First time visitors? Okay, they might not know what they are missing. But those that already know what you offer? Then the plot thickens.

Most people don't have the balls to consider a block. I commend those that can or do. It's ballsy, but it's not something that I'm doing at this point.

I also think Google needs to think on this matter also, aside from keeping more and more people on their whitelisted site(s). I think if this starts seriously killing their ad business, something drastic will happen. It would have to happen.

[pageoneresults]

I think if this starts seriously killing their ad business, something drastic will happen. It would have to happen.

They need to replace that revenue. I've thought about this and I think their next logical step would be to offer subscription based services for all the stuff that is free now. That subscription would include an Ad-Free experience "for the most part".

Thing is, I don't really think this is affecting their business at the level where concern is justified. In fact, it may be the turning point they've been waiting for to clean up that entire Content Network that sucks up advertiser monies with little to no return. It's a reset for them, they've made their billions on that model and have brought us to where we are today.

By the way, this is the AdSense forum hence my reference to the Content Network. Never, ever, touch that network, EVER! I've tested multiple times with various campaigns over a 10+ year period and it just gets worse each time I test. We spend a LOT of money and get NO return.

[trebuchet]

In all reality, you are ripping off advertisers by forcing those ads on your visitors who use Ad Blocking software.

That's only your creative interpretation at work. And it's as plausible as the 'adblocking is theft' argument.

I force nothing on noone. Adblock users can turn and leave once they hit the redirection screen. They don't have to look at the ads and they don't have to look at my content. They CHOOSE to look at both. The end.

You THINK that you're immune to ads.

This is quite correct. I'm not an advertising man and I don't offer solutions for ad blindness or ad refusal. I just provide spaces where advertisers can place their inventory. How effectively these ads engage the reader is a matter for the companies that produce them.

[thms]

By the way, this is the AdSense forum hence my reference to the Content Network. Never, ever, touch that network, EVER! I've tested multiple times with various campaigns over a 10+ year period and it just gets worse each time I test. We spend a LOT of money and get NO return.

Considering that you don't even know how CPM works and brand recoginition must be an alien concept to you, I guess it didn't work for you because your approach to advertising on the Content Network is using that as a quick buck scheme. It doesn't work like that.

[pageoneresults]

Considering that you don't even know how CPM works.

I did have to Google it just to confirm my "basic understanding" of how CPM works.

And brand recognition must be an alien concept to you.

It is at the level we're discussing. I mean, we're talking about scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

I guess it didn't work for you because your approach to advertising on the Content Network is using that as a quick buck scheme. It doesn't work like that.

It does and it is. The Content Network is a money funnel for publishers and a big hole in the pocket for advertisers. Been there, done that.

You can't force ads on people who don't want to see them. And, if it is your goal to have folks turn on ads just so YOU can make the few pennies via CPM, then I'm sure I'll have the option to exclude my ad from appearing in the inventory of websites who block those with Ad Blocking. I don't want you showing my ad/brand to people who don't want to see it - period.

I'd like to see the websites we're talking about here. I have this sneaky suspicion that I'd find some rather interesting implementations of ads - I might even mistakenly click on one.

[trebuchet]

You can't force ads on people who don't want to see them.

You're bombarded with ads every day. They're not "forced" on you, they're just there. What you do and how you respond when you encounter an ad is entirely up to you. The same applies if/when you visit my sites. It's astoundingly hypocritical for you to turn up with software that prevents a site from loading as the publisher intended it to load, then complaining about being "forced" to load it with ads. Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. The options are simple: either access the site as it was intended to be accessed or go away.

And, if it is your goal to have folks turn on ads just so YOU can make the few pennies via CPM

No. At my traffic levels, CPM impressions are worth hundreds of dollars per month. It is not "a few pennies".

I'm sure I'll have the option to exclude my ad from appearing in the inventory of websites who block those with Ad Blocking

Oh yes, I'm sure ad networks will give you a "no inventory on adblock-blocking sites" option. I'm sure it's headed your way very soon. Tell us when it gets here.

I'd like to see the websites we're talking about here. I have this sneaky suspicion that I'd find some rather interesting implementations of ads - I might even mistakenly click on one.

You've lost the argument if your only recourse is to accuse publishers of dubious practice, without one shred of evidence. My ads are clearly delineated from content and navigation, always have been, always will be. I doubt other publishers posting here play fast and tricky with ad placements either.

[trebuchet]

They need to replace that revenue. I've thought about this and I think their next logical step would be to offer subscription based services for all the stuff that is free now. That subscription would include an Ad-Free experience "for the most part".

Didn't notice this comment. Yes, it's something that needs to be explored. I know Google was considering it but the idea seems to have gone dead lately.

[netmeg]

By the way, this is the AdSense forum hence my reference to the Content Network. Never, ever, touch that network, EVER! I've tested multiple times with various campaigns over a 10+ year period and it just gets worse each time I test. We spend a LOT of money and get NO return.

You know I'm generally with you, but not on this one. The Content Network isn't for everyone, nor for every niche, but it has worked quite well for some of my clients, better than search, even, and it's invaluable for Remarketing. Next time you wanna try it, let me give you some pointers.

[Leosghost]

For information re one of many security reasons to use adblockers, especially on mobile phones..
[theregister.co.uk...]

[trebuchet]

one of many security reasons to use adblockers

People have lost their life savings to Nigerian scammers. One of the many security reasons to ban email.

[blend27]

People have lost their life savings to Nigerian scammers. One of the many security reasons to ban email.

Wonder what CPM is on those emails now days?
Oh wait, we now have JUNK/SPAM filters, never mind...
Sorry, couldn't resist....

[Automotive site]

I think ads are good for web users. Ads often tie in nicely with the content on the page and therefore is an added option or a solution. Besides, I think a couple of ads on a page, provided they are not spammy, can enhance the look of a page. But I hate ads that pop up. Nothing more frustrating than having to close an ad or an email form before the content is made available. I think it should be made clear an ad is an ad, and they should never intrude. The visitor should choose whether to visit an ad.

[blend27]

I think it should be made clear an ad is an ad, and they should never intrude.

Totally agreed.

The visitor should choose whether to visit an ad.

but...

The new rulers of the world don't want our blood, our toil, or even our money. They just want our attention.... [vice.com...]

[trebuchet]

Oh wait, we now have JUNK/SPAM filters, never mind...

Yes. And the people likely to click on a malware ad or fall for a Nigerian 419 scam are likely to be all over junk and spam filters. Of course they are.

@Automotive site, I agree. There should be clear delineation between content and ads. And the user should never have to intervene to close or minimise an ad, that is poor practice.

[toidi]

This thread is what motivated me to try adblockers. Long, long before that i had a long list of sites that i automatically skip over in the serps because of their advertising policies. Sites that i once regularly used. Now with an adblocker in place i still skip over them, they lost my trust. Adding sites that block adblockers to that list will just be routine. So far i am not missing all those authority sites.

[tangor]

Adblockers started out one way and have evolved into a front line defense against malicious behavior, while still doing that original reason for existence.

Adblockers are not going away. They will, in fact, increase as the malvertising is also increasing.

If the ad networks, or providers, continue to do business as usual and do not make efforts to clean up their pipeline of product, the users have no alternative but to block everything, including the ads some sites use as a revenue stream.

Those sites that claim hundreds of dollars per month on advertising revenue will be hit hardest, and thus should speak loudest to getting the industry to do due diligence in vetting and securing the ads they depend on.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world will protect themselves from the criminals, and I assure you, they have no worry or consideration for those making income from ads when the alternative is their systems compromised, loss of personal info, and theft of their REAL monies, etc.

[thms]

This thread is what motivated me to try adblockers

And I'm sure this thread is also motivating webmasters to shut the doors to freebie seekers.

[trebuchet]

Now with an adblocker in place i still skip over them, they lost my trust. Adding sites that block adblockers to that list will just be routine.

I'm not sure why you adblockheads keep telling us what you do or plan to do, like it's meant to impress or frighten publishers. We know it already You've posted 200 odd posts cheerleading for adblockers (on an Adsense forum, no less). You've produced all kinds of fear mongering, paranoia and conspiracy theories about ads, advertisers, malware, cookies, etc. You defend adblocking to the hilt but paint adblock-blocking as some kind of mortal sin. Your position is clear. My answer to that is:

I don't care. You are not typical users. We know you'll block ads and avoid sites that compel you to load ads. The question is what the two billion users who don't post to this forum will do. The average browser mightn't care too much about viewing ads. He/she might place more value on the content that you lot do. He/she might have a more reasonable view on the correlation between ads and content than you do. If he/she is presented with a page saying "Please help us by whitelisting", he/she might be happy to comply. It's early days but that seems to be the trend on my sites.

Your practices or intentions (and mine, for that matter) aren't evidence that a particular behaviour will prevail or a particular system will or won't work.

[pageoneresults]

Funeral Services for CPM Advertising will be held on Wednesday, September 9, 2015.

[Leosghost]

If you were so sure sure that "typical users" were not the sort of people who do / will use an adblocker..why are you panicking / complaining so much about their use, why the accusations of "theft", why the vitriol towards anyone posting who does not agree with you ?

Why you don't seem to understand what mandated and mandatory mean is interesting too, that would worry me if I thought my child was being referred to your site as an "educational resource"..

Why so aggressive against the freedom of speech /expression of those webmasters who disagree with you..?

BTW..You do realise that if you are serving CPM banners and ads, that it has been perfectly possible for years now to serve them using simple serverside scripts..you can host the banners and ads on your site ..or call them from your server from the advertisers site, or the ad networks site..and you can use scripts to report back to the ad agency or ad networks site the same way..all from within your server..the adblockers "images of a certain size" technique of blocking is trivially easy to defeat..and so everyone would still see your CPM ads..variants of this can even work with no problems for non CPM ( dynamic ads serving) it can all be done serverside..

A "recommended resource" site should also have no problems saying to the educational establishments that recommend its use by students that as it is of such high quality and uniqueness that they recommend it, and as it costs money to run, that access is required on a subscription basis, and that the educational establishments can purchase access codes ( unique to each user/ student ) which will allow them to continue to use the resource site and allow the site to continue to be such a valuable and unique resource..

Unless of course it actually isn't quite so valuable and unique..and the educational establishments say "no", and recommend that their students use another resource ..

I wonder if the average buggy whip makers would have been quite so vitriolic about the invention of the motor car had they had access to fora ?

Would they have advocated legally banning motor cars because they endangered their business model.. ?

Or would they have done, as some did, ( I get nearly 1 million results on Google when I search for horse whips ; ) diversified, or tried to produce a buggy whip of such quality and uniqueness that that people bought them any way..

[blend27]

Funeral Services for CPM Advertising will be held on Wednesday, September 9, 2015.

P1R, You owe me a trip to Laundromat, but you forgot to add that AdBlockHeads no need to attend..

And I'm sure this thread is also motivating webmasters to shut the doors to freebie seekers.

It also motivates webmasters to find an alternative source of revenue for clearly defined demographic. If some webmasters can not find that source, someone else will eat their lunch, and trust me it wont be the freebie seekers. "22 billion in lost revenue" of it.

Trying to change user`s behavior on you site by blocking their access with "Unlock to see the Ads all over what you think you came here for" is almost like telling a person with OCD to lick their boots, both of them.

"Once a label is on something It becomes an it"
-Morcheeba.

Also, Recent message on DDG:

We respect your use of adblock (some of us use it too). Will you please make an exception to support us (our ads don't violate our strict privacy policy)? Alternatively, spread DuckDuckGo!

[thms]

We respect your use of adblock (some of us use it too). Will you please make an exception to support us (our ads don't violate our strict privacy policy)? Alternatively, spread DuckDuckGo!

This is naive and a lack of understanding of how most people act.

Remember and learn from history. We ended up with DRM and everybody lost.

[tangor]

You've produced all kinds of fear mongering, paranoia and conspiracy theories about ads, advertisers, malware, cookies, etc.

Not really. There is commentary out there. Heck, even tried to let folks know there concerns in this regard in another thread on this same topic (to keep from polluting this topic which has, sadly become septic all by itself. It appears the topic of malvertising needs to be hammered on this thread for the sake of sanity and full disclosure. See:

[theregister.co.uk...]
and
[theregister.co.uk...]

It is only getting worse, kiddies. Adblockers are beginning to make REAL SENSE to users and OS platforms, major sites, etc. Poo-pooing or ignoring, or ranting against the growing consensus is ostrich-head-in-sand behavior. We know the ostrich does not actually do this, but many webmasters do... and there in lies the problem.

[trebuchet]

If you were so sure sure that "typical users" were not the sort of people who do / will use an adblocker..why are you panicking / complaining so much about their use, why the accusations of "theft", why the vitriol towards anyone posting who does not agree with you ?

I've never equated adblocking with theft. I'm not panicking, far from it. I've adapted and continue to look at other possibilities. I understand the causes of adblocking, though I think a lot of the arguments presented in support of it here are exaggerated or overwrought. I could easily be convinced that adblocking is justified and necessary but I'm afraid you guys and your panic stories and constant warnings aren't particularly convincing.

Why you don't seem to understand what mandated and mandatory mean is interesting too, that would worry me if I thought my child was being referred to your site as an "educational resource"..

"Mandated" was the wrong term to use. A couple of my technical sites are on suggested resources lists. They're really just high traffic links. And if you're so paranoid about ads that you can't bear your offspring to look at them, buy a textbook instead. Not that I believe for a second you're that fragile; you're just grasping for a cheap point.

Why so aggressive against the freedom of speech /expression of those webmasters who disagree with you..?

Where is your freedom of speech restricted here? More preciousness because someone disagrees with you.

A "recommended resource" site should also have no problems saying to the educational establishments that recommend its use by students that as it is of such high quality and uniqueness that they recommend it, and as it costs money to run, that access is required on a subscription basis

Actually that's pretty much how my first website started, as an online technical manual used by several colleges on a subscription basis. I know how it all works; I didn't just start doing this yesterday. I much prefer ad-supported content over subscriptions because it reaches a wider audience who can access it for free. This includes people who can't afford to subscribe to websites. Those ads you hate so much? They've helped me and my colleagues produce content that has helped countless other people. But I understand that in your world, fear and loathing of ads trumps content. Fortunately that's only your world. Whether it becomes the broader world remains to be seen.

Unless of course it actually isn't quite so valuable and unique..and the educational establishments say "no", and recommend that their students use another resource

I think you need to re-read that and think about whether it was the appropriate thing to say, given that you know nothing about it.

I wonder if the average buggy whip makers would have been quite so vitriolic about the invention of the motor car had they had access to fora ?

Oh god, another tiresome analogy that doesn't align with the issue. Adblocking is not a motor car. Motor cars were innovations. Adblocking is not an innovation.

Also, Recent message on DDG

Not dissimilar to my own, which is firm but very polite. And did you deactivate your adblocker to use DDG, @blend27?

[tangor]

Remember and learn from history. We ended up with DRM and everybody lost.

Minor misstatement of fact: DRM worked great. The public simply rejected it and found a different route, or avoided the DRM stuff altogether.

Not a good analogy for the adblocker question. DRM was to prevent folks seeing something. Adblockers is folks saying we don't want to see something (or be bedeviled, injured, or hacked.)

However, the DRM thingie (a website that denies folks using adblockers) does reverse fit as a corollary. "I have DRM'd my site. Yield to my demands or".... or what? :)

[tangor]

At one time we had a google person reading and responding on WW. I hope there is one here now, even if lurking, to read this thread in particular as it does equate to their bottom line and to the lax standards they are using to vet the ads on their network(s).

This question is not going away and (if anyone reads the links I've posted here and there) the use of adblockers is increasing at a rate near that of the malvertising which is trashing both the net and the end users. We're talking 200-300% year on year new "blockers" and that should be a real concern to those who rely on unvetted ad networks (and yes, that includes google).

[trebuchet]

@tangor's first link is worrying reading. I have long said that Google's publisher base and ad exchange have both swelled to the point where security is jeopardised. They should be purged and more closely monitored. I also note the article says this:

Therefore the need to block advertisements in the name of security is in your correspondent’s loaded and conflicted opinion. Ads on websites and mobile apps are like those on free-to-air television important alternatives for consumers who cannot or do not wish to pay access fees for quality content. Blocking that source of revenue as a permanent solution only throws fuel on the already raging fire.

That's the problem in a nutshell. Adblocking might minimise the problem but it throws the baby out with the bathwater.