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.

[tangor]

Secondary thought:

Win 10 has a feature that allows ad blocking at the OS level (among the other 40+ privacy controls the OS offers). One purpose of the new WIN 10 is to abritrarily update and secure the OS against malware (and that includes malvertising) and, in the interest of their clientel, and reduction in cost and support of same, it might not take much more of the bad behavior on the web to stop such AT THE OS LEVEL.

G has seen some of this coming. Another ignored thread at WW is: [webmasterworld.com...] which addresses Apple's attempt to clean up G's mess... with G telling the Apple developers to shut off HTTPS if they want to get in app ad money from their black box.

G is a big player, of course, but MS and APPLE are just as big ... if not bigger (they supply the engine that allows G to work) and the OS makers may just say (sometime in the future) it's just too expensive to keep fixing what should have to be fixed if One Other Player was doing their Job.

Something to think on.

[MrSavage]

There is a bunch of BS on this thread now. Adblockers being like spam filters? Use your brains. The current Adblockers? It would be like your spam filter calling 99.99% of your mail spam. By default, it all goes in the Junk folder. Further, if a antivirus had the same method then 99.9999% of what you downloaded or tried to install would end up in the quarantine folder by DEFAULT. It's complete crap in the real world, but I get the lazy in people or those who want to strip ads from their life. I guess for now that's fine, but let's keep the debate real. Saying all ads are S and those site should be blacklisted by default is total horseS. No other system (like antivirus programs or email handlers) could operate with the same logic. In terms of fair, it's not just to say it's all scary S and is blacklisted out of the box. Site X runs only Google ads. Oh, Google.com runs Google ads and is whitelisted, but everyone else is blacklisted. Let's drop the malware bad ads crap. It's about stripping ads not about saving your browser. If these clowns whitelist Google, then to say a site running only Google ads needs to be blacklisted? At least call it for what it is. A counter measure to bad ads. LMAO. I know of a great way to watch TV shows ad free. Those are called Torrents. Those are illegal. Adblockers are not illegal, but they strip advertising, but default on pretty much every site out there. With some exceptions. Who wouldn't like to watch a TV show ad free? Most would, but can't.

[edited by: MrSavage at 4:37 pm (utc) on Aug 29, 2015]

[blend27]

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

I tried a couple of times, but I guess something else zapped it. SE Still works as far as I am concerned. But definitely spreading the Word!

[thms]

Win 10 has a feature that allows ad blocking at the OS level (among the other 40+ privacy controls the OS offers).

You insist with this Win 10 nonsense, you were already proven wrong in this thread.

[ember]

Maybe this article has it right. Blockers may force advertising networks to clean up their ads and stop with the annoying ones that block content, start automatically, etc. Ad blockers don't seem to want to destroy the advertising model but rather make it less intrusive. Probably means lost income in the short term but might mean a more sustainable long term.

[nytimes.com ]

[Leosghost]

@mr savage..if you are going to call other peoples facts crap..when your posts show that you personally don't understand the technicalities nor the issues about malware and a whole pile of other web issues ( that are documented all over the internet by people with way more experience that you have ) then I 'm not wasting my time in this thread any more..already your insinuations in previous posts about " I'm not judging ..but" are out of line..that was "passive aggressive", now you are posting "fullon aggressive" calling other people' factual posts "crap" and "BS" is wasting the time of anyone that bothers to try and help you on this thread and topic or on any other thread and topic..

So I'm out of the thread..and won't be posting to aid you in any others..no matter what their subjects..

To trebuchet ( who has still not taken up the other adserving options that I have detailed ) and thms..

I recommend adblockers and not allowing scripts to run ( except if they want to "whitelist" some sites ) to all those whose machines I set up..and to all those whose machines I fix..I'll continue to do so..

Your posts and attitudes shown in this thread has only reinforced that as long as some who run ad sites think that their interests are paramount and that the users should not have the option to block ads, that use their bandwidth, and that can and do serve malware..that users are better off blocking..

adblockers and script blockers are here to stay..you can either keep complaining..or learn ( or pay someone for the scripts ) to use server side to show your ads a different way..

Like P1R said..your business model is dying ..

I am one of a huge and growing number. who will not mourn it's passing..

[robzilla]

Ad blockers don't seem to want to destroy the advertising model but rather make it less intrusive.

Once users have gotten accustomed to all ads being blocked, all the time, that's an expectation that'll be tough to reverse, I'm afraid. In other words, I think these ad blockers create a block-all-ads mentality and doubt users will settle for "less intrusive" ads.

[edited by: robzilla at 6:38 pm (utc) on Aug 29, 2015]

[tangor]

You insist with this Win 10 nonsense, you were already proven wrong in this thread.

I suggest you actually play with the privacy controls in Win10 before you make such a statement. It's there. Just not exactly the same, but serves the same purpose AS FAR AS ADVERTISING goes.

Gee Whiz, who's spreading FUD now?

(Also look at the three different smart filters, one of which applies to Edge, the other two to the operating system, which includes IE.

Chuckles for me for those who refuse to admit there is a real problem out there, and that something they currently don't like will eventually make them neutered (or worse, simply forgotten, not there, yawn).

This stuff is happening right now. And Now Is The Time to begin addressing that.

Instead of inciting a riot, try inciting a mind meet on vectors of possibilities to stay alive as long as possible? I've done that (no longer dependent as in DEPENDENT on g, for example) but do use all the tools in the toolbox as long as they function properly.

[tangor]

Belatedly, meant to add that since XP Windows has under Internet Options, the ability to kill all third party and javascript in a very draconian manner (it's there in 10, too), but is not as flexible as adblocking softwares that easily allow a site by site whitelisting (and still kill ads and third party). These functions have been built into windows since XP. The new privacy thing in 10 is directed expressly toward advertisers ... and is in addition to the basic denial abilities hard coded into the OS.

These "Internet Options" are as effective as any adblocker, and over the years I have set up the the whitelisting for clients who insist on using IE.

But, again, this is not about blocking.... it is about a perceived loss of 22B in revenue... and that remains, to this day, an unsupported number.

Probably need to bow out of this thread. As the boys in Vegas might say I'm trying to make my point the hard way. But like those spectators at a train wreck, I will most likely stick around. :)

[creeking]

perceived loss of 22B in revenue... and that remains, to this day, an unsupported number

could this also be seen as 22B in advertiser savings?

and that number is being announced by a company that sells a solution. oh, wait............

[Bucklee]

I came to use Adblocker and Noscript by order of seeking to decrease my monthly data usage. And for reference, I have the largest data plan my provider offers. My data usage dropped nearly 20% and has consistently stayed in that range. No more costly overages. No more pages lagging during the load process. Data hungry auto-play video, flash, floating, and expanding ads, are a thing of the past. As well are all other ads with very few exceptions.

Feel free to label me as you wish, but after a dozen years of publishing and monetizing content with ads and products, I completely understand why some people would rather block the ads. The advertising business has gotten well out of hand. If there’s no value to you as a publisher to serve your pages to those running an ad blocking script, then don’t. Just block them. It’s your choice just as it is a personal choice to block ads.

I believe my content and websites are shared for a reason. Because they consist of exceptional quality and exclusive information and I make it a priority not to degrade your user experience with intrusive ads. If you decide to visit my network with an ad-blocker installed you’re most welcome to view all of the content,minus most of the ads of course, and I hope the material provided was what you were looking for. If you also decide to whitelist any of my network sites, maybe I’ve earned your trust, thanks. I do the same for the sites I trust.

[IanCP]

I believe my content and websites are shared for a reason. Because they consist of exceptional quality and exclusive information and I make it a priority not to degrade your user experience with intrusive ads. If you decide to visit my network with an ad-blocker installed you’re most welcome to view all of the content,minus most of the ads of course, and I hope the material provided was what you were looking for. If you also decide to whitelist any of my network sites, maybe I’ve earned your trust, thanks. I do the same for the sites I trust.

A very fair summation for me, I also share your outlook.

As I have said many times previously, my sites were never created with a view of earning revenue. I only turned to Amazon when it became necessary to cover escalating bandwidth costs. That was in the days before even Google was invented.

If I ever get back to the stage where those sites become an intolerable financial burden to maintain? I'll just close them down.

They were never created to generate revenue - that simply became a happy unexpected bonus for me.

If my visitors have Ad Blockers turned on, I know it's not because of my one 728X90 AdSense ad, with perhaps a sprinkling of relevant Amazon affiliate links on a page. It's because so many others have wrecked the internet with all manner of intrusions.

I'm just collateral damage along with others. Maybe the Ad Blockers might just be the shake out that we perhaps need.

[csdude55]

There are some things about people with ad blockers that I really don't understand. Maybe this can be clarified.

Let's say that you like movies. When a new movie comes out, how do you hear about it?

When a new program is released that you want, but you block ads, how do you find out about it?

When a new product hits the market that you might really want, how do you expect to learn about it?

If a new website is released with content that would truly interest you, how could they possibly reach you without ads?

I'm not being sarcastic, I truly want to know. Do you prefer to just live a life of ignorance, and wait until someone decides to tell you about these things in person? Do you truly believe that word-of-mouth is the only acceptable form of advertising? And if so, how do you think the FIRST person heard about the product, if not for ads?

[Bucklee]

A life of ignorance? Seriously? I obviously don't rely on internet ads to inform me what's going on in the world. And if you believe that makes me any less informed than you, a dark sheltered life you truly must lead.

If I'm interested in new movies I have this thing called a television that is constantly promoting the latest flick via another thing called a commercial. If I may, Black Mass is looking pretty good. Many other things, like new products, are also promoted via these, commercials. Oh no...those are ads!

New website I might be interested in? There are these things called links that seem to magically appear on related websites I visit. Some say the internet was based on those link things.

New programs? I have these amazing little devices that connect to something called the internet where I can find anything without ever seeing an ad if I choose.

Am I being sarcastic? Maybe.

[IanCP]

Do you prefer to just live a life of ignorance, and wait until someone decides to tell you about these things in person?

I can't ever recall one instance where an internet advertisement alerted me to anything at all. Anything - period. Technically? I hear about developments from forums like WebmasterWorld.

I certainly can recall a gazillion ads about items I have already purchased on eBay over the last six months, or purchased online from my local Officeworks supplier of computer supplies and drives.

Nothing new, only what I had already purchased. No, the ads don't bother me, I don't personally block them. Sites with a plethora of ads just tend to lose credibility with me, so I tend to avoid them.

[Mike_Feury]

22 billion in lost revenue
The lost ad revenue figures will double in 2016

Is this magic number similar to the numbers put out by industry groups about game, movie, book, music piracy? Or does it have some realistic basis?

[Mike_Feury]

I can't ever recall one instance where an internet advertisement alerted me to anything at all

I get wanted email ads from a big cultural site every week, which alert me to that week's deals. Similarly with a bigger site, which plays a wanted weekly ad on my desktop. Useful alerts, as I rarely frequent discussion sites on the topic.

But in general, internet advertising is very poorly done. As Ian said, I'm followed around by ads for stuff I've bought, and will probably buy again in 2-3 years time. And that's the good ads--the unacceptable stuff has been well detailed in this thread, and is a problem for publishers to solve, since they caused it.

[MrSavage]

There is a lot of value in this thread and the sediment put forth from some real vets. This thread has really changed my understanding on certain things, big picture wise. Industry wise. Good ideas vs. bad ideas vs. ideas no longer worth investing in. When people are posting on an Adsense forum, trumpeting the value to ad blockers and essentially advocating their use? That should say more than enough. If people could watch TV shows ad free with a legal software intervention, who in their right mind wouldn't use it. I still think it's shameful to be speaking in glowing terms about adblockers on an Adsense forum. I would be ashamed to be using one, yet being on the forum talking about how bad my earnings have become or how Google for some reason is not caring so much about sending me organic traffic. Do you think any of the Google employees or Adwords/Adsense employees would be in the lunch room talking about how great the newest adblocker app is? I would imagine they would be saying get the F out of here. Nothing illegal about adblocking software but it's stupid to be trumpeting it amongst people who are dependent on it. Imagine your interview at Google. First question, "Do you use adblocking software on any of your devices?". I sure would ask that question. With a yes response, I would follow that up with a get the F out of here. That's me and I'm not saying that I'm always politically correct. I have more passion than most though.

It's impossible to create possible solutions or ideas because mainstream adblockers is a "fait de complet" according to many posting here. I'm led to believe it's going to be baked into Apple products, Windows 10, browsers, everything. Ideas have been mentioned already, but a waste of effort and time because everyones going ad free to speed up their mobile connections and save money on data. I guess the mobile carriers will too bake in an adblock because it's better for their signals and customers.

So, the consensus is that our investment of time and effort in our site(s) is running its course and likely there isn't a reasonable advertising or money generating mechanism and thus, we can go hobby, or close it down now and call it a day.

[Bucklee]

Huge tech companies have groomed and molded many of today's internet users under the guise of a so-called better user experience. Give us your data and we'll give you tailored, personalized ads, based on the information we have collected about you. My online experience isn't improved by viewing ads. If you really want to improve my user experience, give me the option to opt out. Or maybe a choice of what type of ads I'm served. Of course that's a laughable request. But if everyone were running static banner ads and text links, I doubt we would be having this conversation. It's not as much about the ads themselves as it is the type of ads that are served.

Do flash ads or video ads generate more revenue than text links or static banners?

[csdude55]

A life of ignorance? Seriously? I obviously don't rely on internet ads to inform me what's going on in the world. And if you believe that makes me any less informed than you, a dark sheltered life you truly must lead.

Don't get me wrong, there's no shame in preferring ignorance (meaning, a lack of knowledge). It's just a simple question.

I can't speak for you, but I, personally, would definitely be less informed. Not too long ago, I had an elderly dog with congestive heart failure (she has passed now :-( ), and so I took part in a pet-related message board. Due to that, I saw ads for higher quality pet food than I had been using, which led me to researching and buying one of those brands. I firmly believe that helped extend my dog's life for almost a year. And I wouldn't have known the brand to research if not for the ad.

Similarly, I was recently researching a better brand of kitty litter because my cat was having a hard time breathing around the clay litter, and was then shown ads for Blue's walnut-based litter. It's inexpensive and works great, but had I not seen the ad then I wouldn't have known about it or tried it because it's not available locally.

Right this very minute, on another tab, I'm looking at an ad for Amazon Prime, and that ad includes a coupon code. I was planning to sign up for Prime, anyway (and I'm sure the ad is targeting me because I was reading about it), and now I'm going to save some money.

I can think of hundreds of these examples, I think. $6 T-shirts. Tommy John underwear. I'm not active in any underwear-related message boards, and neither of them have commercials, so without online ads I would have just never known that they existed! But I'm definitely glad that I know now.

So I'm not judging you, really, I just don't understand the logic. If you don't know that something exists, then how would you know to look for it? Relying on someone else in a message board to recommend it is fine... unless they don't.

From the POV of a business that advertises to spread the word about new websites, I'm also curious how I could ever hope to reach people like you. Links from other sites are great, but I offer a region-based service that's relatively unique, so there AREN'T any related websites. Search engine placement is fine, but again, if you don't know that my type of service exists then you wouldn't search for it. Without ads that target people in your area, how would you ever find out about it?

This is why I say that you're choosing a life of ignorance. You prefer to simply never hear about new products or services, unless someone in a message board decides to tell you about it. And if that doesn't happen, then you simply prefer to remain ignorant. Which isn't a bad thing, I guess, unless you don't realize that it's what you're doing.

I still think it's shameful to be speaking in glowing terms about adblockers on an Adsense forum. I would be ashamed to be using one, yet being on the forum talking about how bad my earnings have become or how Google for some reason is not caring so much about sending me organic traffic.

I'm surprised almost daily about people's lack of logic and insight.

I know a woman that is a manager at a local grocery store. She complains that she's underpaid, but then exclusively buys her groceries at Wal-mart! She refuses to shop at her place of employment, even though the prices are often lower and the quality is higher.

I've tried explaining to her that maybe if she would spend her money there, and encourage other people to shop there, then they would make more money and maybe pay her better. But, of course, it falls on deaf ears. She's convinced herself that she wouldn't make a difference, in spite of the obvious logic otherwise.

You know the phrase, cutting off your nose to spite your face?

[pageoneresults]

Google Chrome to block auto-playing Flash ads starting September 1
Video players will still work; non-essential content—like ads—will be blocked.
[arstechnica.com...]

While the move is largely a good one for consumers, advertisers won't be so happy. The vast majority of online advertising still makes use of Flash, even on mobile, where Flash has never been fully supported. A recent report by mobile ad management firm Sizmek (PDF) claimed that advertisers tried to deliver more than 5.35 billion Flash ads in Q1 2015—which ended up defaulting to static images—versus 4.25 billion HTML5 ads.

[MrSavage]

@csdude, I like your walmart example. To relay that here, it would be like her complaining about the pay at a staff meeting with management, and then at the same time telling them all that she shops at Walmart. That's about as smart as what's going on here with adblocking advocates and or Adsense publishers trumpeting how wonderful like becomes and how much faster your browsing experience becomes once you block out ads. She is about 5 out of 10 on the stupidity scale vs. this thread. My opinion only of course. And sure, maybe most of her coworkers at the meeting also shop at walmart for their groceries, but they are smart enough not to admit it at a staff meeting with management.

Addressing the 22 billion in lost revenue, I would agree about it being like the movie industry claims. A lot of hot air. The problem is that the number makes people feel more justified in using them. It help those adblocking technologies become more acceptable.

I don't think a lot of this falls on us the publisher. Google themselves, if they rank garbage, ad laden sites at the top of the SERPS, then are they doing a poor job? If Google provides a mobile SERPS that is topped with mobile sites that are ad laden, thus draining peoples data plans (I LOL at that), then Google isn't getting people the best mobile result are they? Sending people to a site with malware laden ads? A search engine is supposed to know better.

Google can't replace what we do as publishers right now. The problem they are facing is that they are the only real system in any great masse. It's not like they have Microsoft to team up with and work together on the issue. You know, share the PR hit. Like the transition to hosting everyones images themselves, they can do wonders when working together, for good or for bad. But ads? Google is virtually alone on that one. If they prick at the adblocker companies, that's a PR nightmare. If people kill the ads on their end, Google's business is pretty much F'ed. If Google puts too many on their own properties? A new Google will emerge that doesn't have all those ads. Not a good forecast it looks like.

[tangor]

There are some things about people with ad blockers that I really don't understand. Maybe this can be clarified.

Everything mentioned is usually found as a news report on adblocked sites the user has vetted and whitelisted the NEWS part and blocked the ads. Easy peasy stuff.

And if some of these products, like underwear, don't make the news, they are found on shopping sites where (again) part of the site is white listed and the ads are blocked.

Adblockers don't miss much in the way of new stuff... certainly not the newsworthy stuff as there are too many info outlets on the web what still work just great in that regard with the ads blocked.

The blocking, as said time and again, is for security, privacy, and silence (bandwidth). These aspects cannot be ignored. Nor can the same adblocking capabilities built into all Windows OS since XP, or the Apple version of same, nor even Google which is killing off flash ads Sept 1, etc.

It's also true that Advertisers have noted a reduction in quality Publishers.... Google certainly has, hence penguin and panda and the thin content algo changes.

Yet, in recent years the growing threat of malvertising has changed the landscape more than any single aspect of the advertising market as there is a REAL cost to sites and users as a result of malicious payloads and identity theft, loss of data/other personal info, and damage to systems and operating systems WORLD WIDE.

It's getting to the point that even G can't ignore it (hence the recent flash disavow announcement) and you can bet they are working overtime in the background to come up with an alternative, and perhaps vetting the ads submitted more closely. Until that is done, adblockers will continue to increase, and webmasters who continue to ignore these very real issues will see more users with adblockers, and/or locked down browsers that disallow all third party or JS at the front door. What that means is any site that opts for both will likely not even get the visitor for more than a back button.

And that is really "cutting one's nose off to spite their face."

Most sites that see this generally say, javascript is required to view the full contents of this site, or ability to navigate this site." At the same time there's enough NON-JS stuff visible to allow the User to make the determination to whitelist the site domain (and still disregard the rest) and then see a user on site. Most times I allow the site.domain level for any site I visit. I will NOT allow third party anything.

Don't even allow it here at WW. :)

[csdude55]

And if some of these products, like underwear, don't make the news, they are found on shopping sites where (again) part of the site is white listed and the ads are blocked.

I think you're missing the point.

Using Tommy John underwear as an example. I went 35 years of my life as a loyal Hanes customer, mainly because there was a Hanes manufacturing plant in my hometown. I always thought that they were a bit too tight in the front, but I just thought that was something that all men got used to.

In all those years, it never once crossed my mind that I should look for a different brand. And you see, THAT's the problem. Had it not been for seeing an ad for Tommy John a few years ago, I would have NEVER thought to look for something better. I'd still be wearing uncomfortable Hanes briefs.

I look around my office, and see SEVERAL things that I bought because of an ad, and am happier because of it. The keys to my car; it came from a private dealer in another state, and if not for an ad then I wouldn't have even known the car existed. The harness my dog is wearing; she used to chew them up, but now I buy Lupine because they'll replace it for free if it's chewed up. My other dog is chewing on a Best Bully Stick; I used to buy bully sticks locally for $15 each, but saw an ad for these online for less than $3 each (and they're made in the US).

The list goes on and on. I COULD have found them if I knew they existed, but when you don't know they exist then how would you know to look for them?

The blocking, as said time and again, is for security, privacy, and silence (bandwidth). These aspects cannot be ignored.

Now, let's be honest here. The whole "security" thing is really, really an overreaction.

The last time that I can find Google having a malware incident was January 2015, more than 8 months ago.

And as this study showed:

Even at the peak, the numbers are still less than half a percentage of the total sample — just 407 domains out of 100,000... *

Blocking 100% of the ads because, at the peak, less than 0.5% of them had a problem? And based on the article, that "problem" wasn't a security issue as much as an inconvenience; people were being redirected to a spam site as soon as the ad loaded. No virus, no malware, just an inconvenience.

All the way back in 2010, CNET reported that 20% of viruses come from links on Facebook, and another 60% come from apps that you install on Facebook **. That was 80% of viruses coming directly from Facebook in 2010, and I'm sure it's worse now because they didn't change a thing. In comparison, less than 0.5% comes from malvertising. But where are the Facebook blockers?

* [theverge.com...]
** [cnet.com...]

[csdude55]

On the topic of the legality of ad blockers, does anyone remember ReplayTV?

Before Tivo, there was ReplayTV. But unlike Tivo, ReplayTV would completely skip commercials... much like ad blockers.

But the TV industry sued the pants off of ReplayTV, forcing them to sell out to Digital Networks North America. DNNA immediately stopped production on the commercial skipping feature, which ended the lawsuit.

[cnet.com...]

While that did not set a legal precedent, it could have.

When ad blockers came to Google and extorted money, IMO they should have taken the same money and just sued the pants off of the ad blockers. They could have most likely convinced a judge that the extortion was a criminal offense, too.

[tangor]

The list goes on and on. I COULD have found them if I knew they existed, but when you don't know they exist then how would you know to look for them?

Seriously? Where the heck have you been hiding? TV, RADIO, NEWSPAPERS, heck, next door neighbors for that particular product you say you only learned about from an injected internet ad? Must be living a sheltered (or cloistered!) life. :)

Minor chuckles in the above... but seriously that particular product has been hyped as much as that famous jeans designer and while some of it might have been on the web, it certainly was everywhere else!

I'm more inclined to "see" an ad that appears in multiple venues (including the internet) than if it only appears on the internet. Why? Track records indicate that those who advert EVERYWHERE in EVERY media are more likely to be top quality as ad spends of THAT nature indicate some solidarity in the company and the product. Spammers can buy internet ads, or publish, for next to nothing... and that scares me, kiddies. :)

That is not to say that some internet advertising might lead folks to new products. That I freely grant. But I have NEVER relied on ADS alone, regardless of media, to make informed choices of what to buy next. For that I go to the mfgr site, retailer site, or review sites for those kind of products. I'll go to a store to touchie feelie it before buying. And I suspect the vast majority of peeps out there operate the same way. So, advertising views is not the reason folks use adblockers because advertising is every freakin' where! These are the reasons adblockers are in use, and rising in general acceptance/need:

Security (malverts)
Privacy (tracking, PII, etc.)
Silence (that's bandwidth conservation and a clean, billboard free, highway).

Heck, even most of the real highways in America are billboard free because a past First Lady made that her mission while hubby was in office. The publishers back then were ranchers and farmers along roads of all kinds and suddenly that static though dependable revenue disappeared overnight and was nearly completely eradicated within two years.... unless they could prove or get waivers for those billboards. Those advertisers who relied on that "cheap" publishing model had to find other avenues and the publishers just gnashed their teeth and cussed. These days, on the web, the adblockers are only part of the nosee'emads. The rest of the web will see what you offer.... if your site is sufficiently interesting for a visit in the first place. Teeth gnashing might be unnecessary, though fingernail chewing might be in order as the landscape continues to change.

If advertisers rely only on the internet they are usually not big enough to service the public, or so niche related they can't find any other venue to market their product/services.

If publishers rely on ad network income (ie. Adsense and ilk) they are a hobby that thinks it might like to be a business--or they are happy to achieve operating costs and anything over is just grand fun.

Business websites do not rely on one revenue stream (adsense for example). They have other methods of monetizing and work hard at keeping that presence out there, which includes internet advertising, of course, but goes far beyond that limited exposure and those venues are not affected by adblockers (TV RADIO NEWSPAPERS FILM ENDORSEMENTS CELEBRITY SHILLS etc etc etc).

I still don't know where that 22B number came from. That's the whole point of this now rambling thread which has presented a great number of thoughts and insights into what internet advertising is, and is not.

[tangor]

The last time that I can find Google having a malware incident was January 2015, more than 8 months ago.

Do you think G is the ONLY advertising house out there? If so, that cloistered comment above might be very appropriate!

As for your puppy stuff.... you already had those products in hand and, ad or not, that offer for 3 bucks was out there all along. All you had to do was a search for a product you already use.

Building strawmen arguments is hard work!

If you turn a blind eye to the growing malvert threat, don't be surprised if you find your site blocked by the very search engines many see as life and blood, their very reason to exist.

When non tech sites like NYTimes begins commenting on malverts and the damage they are causing it is time to take a closer look to what CNet, PCworld, ArsTechnica and others have been talking about for the last two years.... recommendating to install an adblocker to avoid this attack vector. This is not FUD. It is very real. Ignore it at your own peril.

Read up on the method of these adverts, how difficult they are to trace, and examine the damage that has been done to websites and end users.

Believe me. I am ALL FOR ADVERTISING on the web. Use it myself... but some streams (ie adsense) not as much as home grown server side (MY SERVER(S)) fully vetted. I have control over that and DO NOT BLOCK adblockers as it is site.domain, not third party, and JS is at the absolute MINIMUM and the site(s) degrade gracefully until JS is truly required (that would be a checkout). Adblockers are welcome visitors as my revenue stream is not caught up in third party or off-site scripting. Diversification.

To all the adsense folks in this adsense forum, if toes have been trod on my sincere apologies. Do know I still run adsense on sites that make sense for that. I just do not weep when an adblock user hits the site.

This thread has generated so much passion by all parties... and the airing both pro and con will benefit those lurkers who read what we babble about, and some might find nuggets of value and avoid mistakes, or move in directions that give them success in the future.

But is dang obvious there are haters, lovers, and confused about either. That is, and should be, a learning experience for us all.

[netmeg]

I don't seem to have a problem finding new things without clicking on internet ads.

And if in-browser ad blockers terrify you, my dev just sent me a script that supposedly blocks ads *at my ASUS router* so they don't even come into the house. How does THAT grab you?

[csdude55]

Seriously? Where the heck have you been hiding? TV, RADIO, NEWSPAPERS, heck, next door neighbors for that particular product you say you only learned about from an injected internet ad? Must be living a sheltered (or cloistered!) life. :)

I don't want to keep harping on the same thing over and over, so I'll concede on this topic after this post.

But FYI, I listen to XM in the car, Pandora in the home, read news online, and for TV only have Netflix and Hulu. So of the alternative ad venues you mentioned, the only place ads exist are online.

I totally agree, though; I would have never made a purchase for any of these products based exclusively on an ad! But in each case, they introduced me to a product that I didn't know existed, and THAT led me to begin the research. If not for the original ad, the research would have never happened.

Do you think G is the ONLY advertising house out there? If so, that cloistered comment above might be very appropriate!

No, but isn't this the Adsense forum? And as of 2014, Adsense claimed to have more than 2 million active publishers, so I daresay it's the most affected by ad blockers.

If we can agree that there's little to no risk of malware from Adsense ads, then would you agree that Ad Blockers should whitelist Adsense by default?

If ad blockers only removed ads that are malicious, or at least met specific criteria giving it the likelihood of being malicious (like the Bayes spam system does), then I don't think I'd have any more problems with them.

[netmeg]

[theoverspill.wordpress.com...]