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]

Yet again I have to remind you all that the effectiveness of online advertising is not based on what you do, it's based on what the two billion other web users do. Don't assume that your own attitudes and behaviours are replicated across the planet. Based on research I've seen, the vast majority of internet users are 'ad blind' and don't click on ads. Advertisers are really only pitching at less than 10% of users. If users come to a relevant site in the buying cycle then that obviously increases. Do users rely on ads for product releases and information? No doubt some do.

I think we've given this debate a hammering and I'm growing a bit weary of it, however I'll say one more thing. All you publishers who have fallen in love with Adblock had better hope you haven't uncorked a particularly nasty genie. Affiliate marketing, direct ad sales, server-side advertising, etc. might all circumvent adblocking now but there's no guarantee that adblocking won't adapt to them, just as you've adopted to adblock. Once you've convinced people that advertising is wrong and they shouldn't have to see it, that's the standard they'll come to expect.

[IanCP]

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?

Aw, a Spoil Sport - not even sporting at all.

[IanCP]

@netmeg
The adblocking revolution is months away

These particular points resonated with me.

"Now we have the situation where news websites are plentiful (some just rewriting, sometimes by machine, sometimes not) and adverts even more so: the attempt by The Verge’s Nilay Patel to pin the blame on mobile browsers’ lack of capability has been effectively shot down by Les Orchard, who pointed out the colossal amount of data that a simple page requires.

That’s where we’re at: websites are getting overloaded with ads, beacons, trackers and scripts that are all scrambling over each other in their attempt to squeeze the last bit of information about us from every page.

AND

"...People are getting p@#$%ed off with the huge data loads pages impose without their consent, and the idea that they’re being tracked without their consent. In this post-Snowden age, the latter particularly bugs people. Fine, I came to your site; record the fact. But you’re watching me wherever I go online? That’s not acceptable.

...In all the years I’ve viewed print adverts, I’ve never had one that:
• filled the page I was trying to read and insisted I either wait or click on a particular point on the page to read the article I came for;
• moved up from off the page to insert itself in front of the article I was reading and ask me to sign up for a mailing list;
• started automatically playing a video advert while I was reading some text;
• infected my computer with malware inserted in the ad;
• ran a Javascript script that pretended I need to pay a ransom, or otherwise blocked any interaction unless I pressed a button saying “OK”;
• turned me away from the page I was reading to a completely different one demanding I download an unrelated app.

[tangor]

Online advertising has become an increasingly potent threat to end-user security on the internet. More hackers than ever are targeting the internet's money engine, using it as a powerful attack vector to hide exploits and compromise huge numbers of victims.

Malvertising, as poisoned ads are known, is as deadly as it is diverse. Hackers are able to poison advertisements with the world's most capable exploit kits, then pay to have it served on a large number of prominent websites. Up to half of users exposed to the very worst forms of malvertising fall victim, yet tracking the attacks is often tricky. Advertisements are dynamic and served only to certain users, on certain websites, in certain conditions, making attacks difficult to study.

Ads as an attack vector was identified in 2007 when security responders began receiving reports of malware hitting user machines as victims viewed online advertisements. By year's end William Salusky of the SANS Internet Storms Centre had concocted a name for the attacks.

[theregister.co.uk...]

Six pages of info/findings, which include ALL advertising platforms, google, too.

[thms]

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?

What's the difference for publishers whether the user is blocking ads on the browser level or the router level? Does this mad script prevent publishers from blocking you?

[MrSavage]

If Apple does anything built in to circumvent Google ads, how that wouldn't be taken into a court setting? Let's strip away affiliate links and Google type ads from our OS, or at least make it really easy for apps to be used, then have our own revenue generating system in place. Anyone who F's with revenue streams of the big corporations is bound to get F'ed in the end. It's the corporate way. However what does scare me is the sad state of the music business and how all their lawyers didn't quite reverse the trend of free music for all. Fact is once the revenue streams go away, nobody invests, and things all but die out. No money, no interest. If Apple is going to F with the core of Google's business or create an open door for that to happen? How about a full on screwing of the affiliate link programs? Collectively they will and can fight back on that one. For myself or other Adsense publishers, with all the doomsday, are people now planning a turning out of the lights? I mean by the sounds of it (I will see to believe) the alternative ad generating methods are going to be far behind this push into an ad free web. Is the basic conclusion, after 12 pages, to suggest as Adsense publishers we're all F'ed because the adblocking mob will get their way because, heck, ad free is just so amazing in life? I would ask this, but we all know. What freaking YouTube channels would fold up tonight if you said tomorrow that 70-80% of viewers won't/can't click an ad. No revenue for you, not even close? The affiliate links won't work either. It all dies. Apple wants to be part of that? It's never dull watching this circus.

[pageoneresults]

The scourge is so bad that Cisco's Schultz and the rest of the TALOS team recommend the blockers as a security measure.

I was watching the local news over the weekend, they had a report on Malvertising, they recommended the installation of an Ad Blocker.

[trebuchet]

Apple wants to be part of that? It's never dull watching this circus.

It's sad really. Under Jobs, Apple used to compete on the strength of its products and innovation. Since he went Apple seems to have become less innovative and more concerned about shutting down what opponents do, rather than just doing it better.

I was watching the local news over the weekend, they had a report on Malvertising, they recommended the installation of an Ad Blocker.

I'd have thought a recommendation for good virus and malware protection software would be more in order.

[ken_b]

I was watching the local news over the weekend, they had a report on Malvertising, they recommended the installation of an Ad Blocker.

I'd have thought a recommendation for good virus and malware protection software would be more in order.

Would TV news people know the difference?
.

[trebuchet]

Haha, probably not.

[jpch]

At what % of Visitors using an Ad Blocker do you think would warrant trying to show an alternative message or image?

[thms]

Above 5% is a good starting point.

[timchuma]

I might consider taking Google Ads off part of my site since they do not work too well on non-text content.

I have left them off the blog-section of my website as I wanted to post stuff without having to worry about Google telling me I could not have that content on my own personal section of the site.

I have to laugh at "tube" sites complaining about ad blockers even though the majority of their content is ripped off.

I do have AdBlock disabled on sites where I want to contribute or have been asked personally by the site owner not to block ads.

Might be time to come up with a different strategy to make money since affiliate linking is not working for me either, no one has clicked any of my links any bought something for years.

[creeking]

affiliate linking is not working for me either, no one has clicked any of my links any bought something for years.

years? wow. try some different affiliate links, or just take them down.

[dolcevita]

Regarding my own website, I have just found 2 different videos where they use my website as example. In both videos Ad units are blocked and i think that Ad blocking for every webmaster is nightmare. cbs.com also started to block videos to any visitor of Ad block software.

[jpch]

That's very interesting about CBS.com. I tested it and the first video played but the next one wouldn't and a message appeared that basically said "We can't play this video because a message from our sponsors can't be shown. Please disable your Adblocker and reload the page to watch the video."

Given how many people enjoy watching videos online I would imagine that as soon as Google institutes a similar policy with YouTube and other News sites do the same as CBS many people will find using Adblockers is more trouble than it's worth.

[trebuchet]

"We can't play this video because a message from our sponsors can't be shown. Please disable your Adblocker and reload the page to watch the video."

That's quite a clever way of wording it actually. I may steal.

[tangor]

I use NoScript (which has many little fine tuning options per site) and never saw the above, which is very nicely worded. I can chose which ads (sources) to block, thus the ads FROM the site came through fine, the program played properly. But I did not see any of the third party stuff, or their tracking. It was blocked. :)

This type of ad serving I have no objections with.

[blend27]

NoScript!, Exactly! Java Script Blockers on top of adblockers!

I went to cbs.com > cbs.com/shows/zoo/video/ .

JS Scripts from these sites tried to load:

gstatic.com
yimg.com
google.com
livefyre.com
googletagservices.com
tiqcdn.com
2mdn.net
twitter.com
cbsi.com
facebook.net
rackcdn.com
ajax.googleapis.com
cbs.com

So out of all those, why would I want Google, FaceBook, Twiiter, 2mdn, tiqcdn, livefyre 's tracking/beaconning/inmyface?

I already pay my cable subscription, which includes CBS HD content. I could watch the same content thru XFINITY online with no ads of get it elsewhere with no ads for free.

[Bluejeans]

Given how many people enjoy watching videos online I would imagine that as soon as Google institutes a similar policy with YouTube and other News sites do the same as CBS many people will find using Adblockers is more trouble than it's worth.

Exactly. And if publishers start implementing the same policy either the use of AdBlockers will melt away or the AdBlocking software will evolve to the point that only the most intrusive ads are blocked.

The message from CBS is a little brusque though. Website publishers would do better to show a message explaining that watching ads supports the free content and allows the publisher to stay in business. Judging from the extensive explanations I have to give in response to cocktail party questions like "but how do you make a living from your websites" I'm sure that the average Joe is unaware of how a web business works. Part of our job in combating this is education.

[trebuchet]

Sorry to disagree, Bluejeans, but I think that's idealistic and unrealistic. The average website user today doesn't seem to care how websites make their money. If they did then they wouldn't bother with adblockers in the first place. They want free content and they want it ad-free. Pleading only gets content creators so far.

I ran a one month trial politely asking adblock users to whitelist or turn off while using my sites. Fewer than 10% did.

Full credit to CBS for taking steps to protect their content from freeloaders.

I already pay my cable subscription, which includes CBS HD content. I could watch the same content thru XFINITY online with no ads of get it elsewhere with no ads for free.

"Get it elsewhere for free" being?

[graeme_p]

The eventual solution will be adds seamlessly embedded in the content, or actually part of the content (like product placements in films).

[Bluejeans]

Sorry to disagree, Bluejeans, but I think that's idealistic and unrealistic. The average website user today doesn't seem to care how websites make their money. If they did then they wouldn't bother with adblockers in the first place. They want free content and they want it ad-free. Pleading only gets content creators so far.

I'm not talking about pleading. I'm talking about blocking AdBlockers and politely explaining why. When that becomes the norm for informational websites, people will get the point. I'm currently averaging about 5%. When that starts climbing into the double digits I'll have to start blocking the freeloaders and then perhaps marketing directly to advertisers on a CPM basis. When advertisers know that their ad will be seen only be people predisposed to look at it, they may be willing to pay a little more.

[trebuchet]

I'm not talking about pleading. I'm talking about blocking AdBlockers and politely explaining why.

Ah, well in that case I DO agree.

(The adblock lovers will be along shortly to tell us again why that's the wrong approach and we should not be turning away users, even freeloaders.)

[netmeg]

I could watch the same content thru XFINITY online with no ads of get it

XFINITY must work differently where you are; we subscribe to just about everything except the adult channels, but anything from a normal broadcast channel that I watch online still has plenty of ads in it.

Ad Blockers are not going away, no matter how politely or how insistently you want to notify your users. The users will just go somewhere else. Very little content is *that* unique or *that* important. Nobody is telling you not to turn away users if that's what you want. I think it will eventually bite you in the ass, but it's your ass.

[Bluejeans]

Ad Blockers are not going away, no matter how politely or how insistently you want to notify your users. The users will just go somewhere else. Very little content is *that* unique or *that* important. Nobody is telling you not to turn away users if that's what you want. I think it will eventually bite you in the ass, but it's your ass.

If my ass gets full of bite marks I can change strategy! Fast.

It might be a worthwhile experiment however. Where are people going to go anyway? In my niche, the competing sites are also ad-supported. I don't see major media outlets going back to their shareholders and explaining that earnings are down a third and they can't do anything about it. They'll block the blockers before I do. Ads cleverly inserted into the text aren't going to work for The New York Times. At least I hope not.

I also don't see how Google is going to let YouTube monetization disappear because people don't want to watch ads. I would think G would insist on whitelisting at some point.

[EditorialGuy]

The eventual solution will be adds seamlessly embedded in the content, or actually part of the content (like product placements in films).

There's already quite a bit of that around ("sponsored content" has been on a roll lately), and relevant affiliate links can work well for information sites, such as travel destination sites or product-review sites, whose readers are researching purchases.

As far as ad blockers are concerned, until Google panics, I'm not going to reach for the smelling salts. (Google has a lot more to lose from ad blockers than I do.)

[tangor]

(The adblock lovers will be along shortly to tell us again why that's the wrong approach and we should not be turning away users, even freeloaders.)

Not really. It's "your" site and you should run it exactly the way you think you should.

I block only ads that do not originate on the site.
I block only JS that does not originate on the site.
I block all tracking by third parties.
I block all content that is third party (that's CDNs et al)

So if your site serves ads from the site and your JS is homegrown for specific purpose on the site, then I'm In Like Flynn and enjoy seeing your lovely stuff as I allow site.tld in my "blocker" and anything that generates from that specific I will see all day long.

Webmasters should look to alternatives on revenue streams (including site level ads) in addition to the status quo ... as the user base is changing and we must change with it.

I do understand that some webmasters might be reluctant to set up an advertising department (person, or themselves) to manage site level ads/income as that is a lot of work. However, there's no doubt that the ROI on advertising done that way is far superior to the "set it and forget it" of adsense and other ad serving networks.... most of which are third party to your site, thus subject to the actions of adblockers (or js blockers, too).

If the web, and advertising income, is how you make a living, then always look for the next step, next avenue, next direction... and don't be slow as the net changes daily though at times it seems glacial in that change. The old adage "There's always more than one way to skin a cat" applies to advertising on the net.

Adblockers are a sign to webmasters that the current methods of ad delivery (noise, abuse, security, tracking, malware, etc.) are no longer accepted by consumers. There's that other old adage: "The Customer Is Always Right" now applies.

Dang difficult to change the Customer as they are an Irresistible Force, but the happy news is that it is very easy to change the Business (as Business is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN an Immovable Object) to meet the Customer Need. Failure to do so will be the end of that Business.

Ad blocking is not going away.

One can take steps to find ways to serve that 25-29% of user uptake on all the continents, or one can truck along as usual with the remaining (and diminishing) %.

[trebuchet]

The users will just go somewhere else. Very little content is *that* unique or *that* important.

That might be true of the content you produce and the audiences you attract. But it's a big web with many different types and levels of content.

Nobody is telling you not to turn away users if that's what you want. I think it will eventually bite you in the ass, but it's your ass.

I don't turn them away. I tell them if they want to come in, they've got to comply. They get an option and if they choose not to accept, that's their decision. That's significantly different to being "turned away". And your opinions about my ass are about as useful as my opinions about yours, i.e. not very.

Not really. It's "your" site and you should run it exactly the way you think you should.

Finally a common sense observation.

I do understand that some webmasters might be reluctant to set up an advertising department

Native advertising is one solution to adblocking but as you say, a lot of publishers and companies will have to hire more people to sell space, manage ad-serving and so forth. That entails greater costs and different approaches, which may well mean more aggressive advertising techniques. So while server-side ads might negate privacy and malware concerns, we could well end up right back where we started.

Ad blocking is not going away.

Nope, me either. The question is how widely it will be accepted.

[tangor]

Security researchers have uncovered a malvertising attack run over ad networks and aimed at users of dating site Match.com.

The tainted ads are mainly targeting UK users, security firm Malwarebytes warns. Match.com's servers themselves have not been breached.

The latest attack follows a similar assault against Match's sister site PlentyofFish last month. The same gang are using Google shortened URLs that ultimately lead, through a series of redirections, to sites hosting the Angler exploit kit, according to Malwarebytes.

The assault against lovestruck users of Match.com is ultimately geared towards flinging variants of the CryptoWall ransomware and the Bedep ad fraud Trojan.

[theregister.co.uk...]

Yet another reason for the growth of adblockers.