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.

[LifeinAsia]

A visit to the site gives 2 ads above the fold plus a huge in your face popup ad. Just sayin'.

Are the ad blockers blocking most ad networks or specific graphic sizes or ? In other words, if someone is selling direct advertisements on their site with the ad graphics hosted locally, is it likely those ads will be blocked as well?

[pageoneresults]

There are favorite sites (<cough>looking at you, Slate, <cough> who so overdo it with advertising of all types that it's ruined it for everyone.

My number one reason for using my back button? A 728x90 ad that sits right above the brand header and is the first thing you see. As long as I've been on the Internet (2+ Decades), when I see that type of implementation, I think one thing, "they've reached desperation stage". Desperate websites perform desperate measures and all those ads above the viewport wreak of desperateness.

Did I mention the term Desperate?

P. S. Yes, I've turned off my Ad Blocker to participate in this topic. YUCK! I have some choice words for a LOT of websites but I won't denigrate the thread. What are these folks thinking? No wonder why I see so much white space when browsing websites. I thought it was just their CSS allowing for more white space. But no, it's where the ads are supposed to be. Shame on you!

[farmboy]

Google makes a lot or money from the use of ads. So why not take steps to encourage less and less intrusive use of ads? Seems simple.


FarmBoy

[Leosghost]

Possibly the worst site I know is the French news site "le point"..if one does not use an adblocker and noscript, it has ads jumping around everywhere, with massive autoplaying video ads ( with sound ) in the content, they begin playing when you hit the pages that lead of from their index page..They also use anigifs ( which jump and wooosh just like flash ads ) for those who block all images except gifs..
As I don't know if they still serve this stuff when one has a subscription..I have no intention of taking out a subscription ( French companies are none too hot on customer service, and even worse on refunds ) ..instead I buy the magazine on the news stands..the print version still has a lot of ads ( like all magazines) but they don't move and make noises, nor do they try to pretend to be parts of the articles..well some of the ads do..but when one has worked in the ad business before the web existed, the advertorials ( even if they don't say that is what they are ) are easy to spot...and ignore..

If other webmasters didn't make their ads so intrusive..( Google run some really awful ads on some sites via adsense* ) I would n't use adblockers..

*Not down to my "personalised ads"..I watch others surf frequently..There are some real crappy all singing all dancing ads out there in adsense..

[robzilla]

It discriminates based on ad networks, you can configure in most instances.

I think ad blockers are a set-and-forget type of thing for the majority of their users. They're not going to consider turning on ads for every site they visit, so it doesn't really matter how many ads you show. These things are sledgehammers.

[Selen]

Unobtrusive ads aren't being blocked in order to support websites.

Do you know who decides if an ad is 'unobtrusive'? They call them 'adblock supporters.' These human 'supporters' manage the list of 'obtrusive' domains (called 'easy list') that are being added with a default installation of the adblock. They would find domains they have interest in 'unobtrusive' and would add domains they don't like or their competition to the list of 'obtrusive' sites. The adblock system reminds DMOZ's corrupted editing and website inclusion / non-inclusion practices.

Here is the link to the easylist of domains (there are more such default lists related to social buttons, cookies, etc.): [easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org...] - this 'easy list' is being installed by default. You can see sites like searchengineland, searchenginejournals, digitalpoint, webhostingtalk etc. there (plus all others targetted by adblock 'supporters'). Is your site there too, if not then it may be when someone targets it with a couple of clicks from their web browser.

[edited by: Selen at 5:31 pm (utc) on Aug 12, 2015]

[ken_b]

It discriminates based on ad networks, you can configure in most instances.

Unobtrusive ads aren't being blocked in order to support websites.

Thanks. I may have to install Ad Blocker to see how it works.
I usually just use my back button.

.

[dolcevita]

I see the last time on some website some kind of adblocker detection tools/script. You can enter website only if you disable your adblocker.Maybe is time to look around and implement such an script.

[AlexB77]

Sometimes adds can get annoying on some of the site manly due to their nature, amount and behaviour. I myself use adsense and media.net as one of the main streams for monetising my site with downloadable widgets with 95% of them being absolutely free to download and use for as long as you need while other 5% are either have a free trial and can work for as long as needed without any time limitation, but with limited features and make approximately 30% of my entire monthly revenue. The site in general has more or less 50,000 unique visits daily with approx. 150,000 page views. 10-11% of my site visitors are using Ad Blocker (according to GA). IMO, I should do nothing about this, at least for now for 2 reasons: A) I am not using any of the possible aggressive advertising methods and B) users with Ad Blocker would almost never click on the adds, simply because of the fact that they do not want to see them in the first place.

If the number of visitors will start rising at any time, my way out from this would be only one, I will start charging (very insignificant amount like $0.99) user with Ad Blocker per download of any widget otherwise free for users without one. I would never block user from visiting my site or viewing my content as I see no justifiable reasons for this. I know that I may lose my visitor to a competitor site, but I am sure sooner or later my competition with start doing exactly same.

[Selen]

I will start charging (very insignificant amount like $0.99) user with Ad Blocker per download of any widget otherwise free for users without one.

I would never block user from visiting my site or viewing my content as I see no justifiable reasons for this.

Before you waste hours on developing the script, here is what 80%+ of users would do - they would temporarily disable adblock (it takes 2 seconds to do so), download your widget, and enable it again once they got the stuff for free ;)

[mcneely]

Ad Blocking is "Absolutely" "Not" "Theft" ....

I run ads, and I don't care if someone uses ad blockers or not .. There are enough people out there that can't even configure their browsers, much less anything else, for me to be having to worry about ad blockers. Heck, I even use ad blockers myself ...

90% of my traffic that comes in with an ad blocker is most likely techie anyway - doing the same thing I'm doing.
All of the other folks that come in with no ad blocker (and there are millions of them) are usually the sheeple kind that don't mind Google telling them what they like and what they don't like.

Most of the complaints I see about ad blockers any more come from a lot of big corp types that whine about one person missing one ad somewhere along the way.

[robzilla]

Most of the complaints I see about ad blockers any more come from a lot of big corp types that whine about one person missing one ad somewhere along the way.

I wouldn't underestimate the effect. "41 percent growth year over year", "18 percent of the US internet population is blocking ads". I'm not sure about the numbers, they seem rather high, but I have no doubt that the number of users is growing at a worrying rate. You don't hear many people about it because hardly anyone has any real data on lost revenue, or is even aware of the problem. That will probably change as ad blockers grow their footprint. The ad blockers are here to stay, it seems, and if you depend on the type of advertising that gets blocked it would be unwise to ignore them. And even the computer illiterate have their sources (newspapers, magazines, a wizkid in the family, etc).

[IanCP]

It seems to me that many people are missing the "Elephant in the Room" which is the fact that so many sites have become their own worst enemy.

As others have already observed, the plethora of advertisements across pages [I call it "clutter"] simply invites visitors to seek ways and means to obliterate advertisements. Some of which are also very devious advertisements. Download sites are notorious with download buttons everywhere.

Until Google AdWords, and perhaps other advertisers clean up their act, and get back to the earlier mantra of where "User Experience" is again paramount - users will continue to find ways to evade the rubbish and clutter.

If you want to block the blockers from your sites? Then that is a commercial business decision you can make for yourself. For myself? I'll continue to live with it as it is.

I've noted some comment about removing commercial links e.g. Amazon I assume could be one example. This can be a legitimate cause for concern because many years ago we had instances of installed toolbars hijacking Amazon affiliate links and substituting the toolbars affiliate ID. It took us quite awhile to convince Amazon what was going on.

That is a genuine concern if certain Ad Blockers pull that trick.

[bwnbwn]

Ad blocking is a right, if I so chose to block them this is my right. The problem is caused by greed from Google and the in your face ads that took over the net.

I am working with a company that has both real advertisers and AdSense. The real advertisers average CTR is 5-6% the AdSense CTR is .001 Why?

The average user is sick and tired of this model and my best guess is 3-5 years it will be a done deal, Google better find another revenue stream because it is like Calif. drying up.

[IanCP]

I agree. However it is not just Google, it is also publishers who are killing the golden goose as well. Publishers control the number of ads per page, and their size/placement - not Google.

Shooting own goals. We all pay for it.

[trebuchet]

Ad blocking is a right, if I so chose to block them this is my right.

Yes, and it's my right to decide who uses my sites and what on terms. So if you come to my sites with an adblocker turned on, you won't get past the front door. Welcome to the new paradigm, well my new paradigm anyway.

I think we all know which publishers and which type of publishers are to blame, i.e. old media, the one-pic-a-page clickbaiters and so on. They have broken the first rule of advertising, which is that ads should never overwhelm content. They started this rot. Adblocking, however, is a sledgehammer response that punishes the innocent with the guilty.

As I've said before, it might be time that Google embraced tighter advertising standards for Adsense publishers and purged the system of those who have no standards.

On a side note, if I browse to a site and a modal automagically appears, I usually hit my back button.

I hope you're not in Europe then or you may have to give up the internet.

[mcneely]

Yes ... Modal dialogues have been more than their fair share of abused these days .. A screen goes dark and I'm required to participate .. Boom .. Back Button.

If a guy is so desperate so as to interrupt my day with his garbage call to action, because he can't do the real work of marketing and shake a few hands once in a while, then he doesn't need my traffic .. it's really rather simple .. A Modal is just as heavy and annoying as music that plays onLoad ... Worthless ... totally worthless.

I won't code a client site with that sort of crap -- and as a matter of speaking, I've already written Modal Dialogue blocking to my to-do list -- maybe as an add-on for Firefox ... we'll see

[AlexB77]

Before you waste hours on developing the script, here is what 80%+ of users would do - they would temporarily disable adblock (it takes 2 seconds to do so), download your widget, and enable it again once they got the stuff for free ;)

User Ip address of users with Ad Blocker is flaged and grey listed for 7 days.

[shri]

A few random thoughts:

- Many of the adblockers are essentially ransomeware as far as I am concerned ( [businessinsider.com...] ). Do not for a second think that they are their to protect you, the user or the webmaster.

- I do not block ads on sites I visit more than once. I wish the ad blockers would have a simple option - allow 1 ad or 2 ads, if the complaint is "too many ads".

- The whole "users will not click on ads" is garbage. Lots of CPM / branding ads which add to the bottom line.

- For those complaining about ads, wait and watch the demise of some of your favourite blogs and free sites, social media networks, forums etc.

People around me are shocked when I tell them that banners have at the most 2 years. Implement self service native advertising (classifieds, text ads, premium advertorials / forum posts / blog posts etc) and implement them now and tweak and test while you still have ad revenues.

FYI - CJR has an article along the same lines, which I picked up from SlashDot.

[cjr.org...]

[trebuchet]

"Few feel an obligation to help publishers out. Some 80 percent of internet users polled by Adobe said they weren’t willing to pay even a small fee to make ads disappear. Readers hate online ads, most users are unwilling to subscribe online (only 11 percent do, according to the Reuters study), and few would pay to make ads go away."

This attitude is disappointing but probably not surprising. Millions of people are happy to torrent copyrighted films and music, so blocking a few ads and freeloading from publishers comes as no surprise. I'm more shocked by the people who post here ( in an Adsense forum, no less) who cheer on adblockers and tell publishers it's all their fault.

[mcneely]

I see the last time on some website some kind of adblocker detection tools/script. You can enter website only if you disable your adblocker. Maybe is time to look around and implement such an script.

AdBlocker? Really?

I don't waste my time ... Disconnect is the Big Hammer in my world ... It's the best ad killer I know of right now ... I don't need to be looking at ads on Facebook, Google, or even my own sites. I don't have time for that.

With Disconnect, I can visit a site that makes 100 different requests of my browser, and not a single one of them gets an answer back ... I'm there -- I read -- They get nothing.

[mcneely]

... who cheer on adblockers and tell publishers it's all their fault.

I'm thinking that maybe Adobe and PageFair should be researching the abusive practices of the publishers .. Back in the day, we dealt with the popups and all of the abuse associated with those ... These days we're dealing with abusive ad practices.

Popups might have served a useful purpose once upon a time - but once the abuse ramped up and popup blockers came into being, we all had to sit around for months listening to publishers carry on about how much money they were supposedly losing because of those darned old popup blockers -- Just like now in all of the supposed money being lost because of those darned old adblockers.

It's always going to be blamed on the tools being used to address the underlying problem -- Maybe if these so-called publishers took an honest look in the mirror once in a while, they might discover that it's not the popup blockers or the adblockers that's creating all of their monetary woes ... Maybe if they looked really close, they might suddenly realize that it's them that's causing their losses. We just happen to be writing tools to combat their abusive practices.

I'm not sure about the numbers, they seem rather high, but I have no doubt that the number of users is growing at a worrying rate.

The use of adblockers might be directly connected to the level of abusive ad practices ... might be interesting to see the numbers on that.
Used to be that ads paid out generously ... eh ... these days, not so much. The level of desperation could be directly related to adblocker use.

[engine]

Oh, the irony of this thread being in AdSense, and people discussing ad blockers. :)

Earlier this year I raised the subject of Ad-Supported Products and Services: Has it Had its Day [webmasterworld.com]. I don't think it has, but the more people use adblockers the less revenue there is for AdSense Publishers, and the fewer sites there will be that rely on ads to fund the site's operation. Alternatively, the pay-for-play model may become more appropriate for some types of sites.

The unknown revenue is likely to increase, but, is it really as much as that indicated. I'm not sure that the vast majority of people know about ad blockers.

The other concern is when Joe and Josephine public get an adblocker, unless they know what they are doing, they might end up with a so-called ad blocker actually being malware. It's happened before in the sense of ads being replaced.

The other issue that companies, such as google, need to deal with is to stop the delivery of malware via bad actors. If they don't, it only goes to push the notion of ad blocking to users.

In some respects, the ad business needs to drag itself out of the gutter. Stop forcing ads in front of people in a constant march to increase revenues with a new wheeze. For example, those annoying things that interrupt your reading. Not only is it incredibly frustrating, but it puts me off visiting the site again. I also make sure i ignore the advertiser. Some well-know sites do this, so it's not just down to the smaller publishers.

Ad blindness is another aspect to consider in all of this. It's the easiest form of ad blocking to install. Just don't look at the ads!

[trebuchet]

Maybe if they looked really close, they might suddenly realize that it's them that's causing their losses.

Last time I checked there was no Publishers' Union or Cooperative where we all sit around and plot brain-frying ad barrages on poor innocent browsers. The problem is more complex than just assigning fault.

[toidi]

Following this thread while listening to the wife complain about her internet experience, i tried ff adblocker on her computer. After seeing the incredible increase in speed gained from blocking ads on her machine, i had to put it on mine. I never realized how many ads there are and how much they slow things down. I guess i had subconsciously learned to ignore the ads and did not realize how many there are. It is like a whole new internet. Next are the tablets.

[Whatagreatdayitis]

An increase in ad blocking is yet another reason for me to use adwords to get people to come to my site. If they arrived via adwords then they're not blocking ads.

[elguiri]

I work with one of the large niche affiliate networks and have no other advertising on my sites. (No Adsense, so please forgive me for jumping in on this forum board).

First point: I think we need to get away from the morality issues in this. I'm not saying they're not important to each individual, but they are different for each person and should be understood to be such. (I remember Brett Tabke telling someone off in this forum some years ago for telling others what was unethical in SEO. As he pointed out, the webmasters in WebmasterWorld are among those who built the internet as it is today, and who is Google or anyone else to be saying what's ethical).

What's legal and what's not is another matter.

Second, I'd like someone familiar with this technology to explain to the good members here how exactly Ad Blockers work. I understand they have a blacklist. Is this correct? Do they supplement this with other technology to detect ad networks that are not in their blacklist? Do they look for a particular type of footprint?

My affiliate network provides me with two types of module: a search form, and product lists.

Ad blockers (at least Ad Block - I installed in Firefox today) detect the search form and remove it. This is annoying, but not a huge deal.

The product listings however are generated server-side and these are fine - even though the embedded links are affiliate network URLs - but for the fact that the affiliate network product images disappear. (I have some sites that use an affiliate network button, and others that use a custom button loaded from my server. Just seen that the affiliate network buttons have disappeared with the ad block, so now I know what I'll be doing this evening).

I will probably hack the aff network code, and deliver URLs on my domain for images etc.

This brings me to my third point. You Adsense users don't have this option; I understand it's against Google's TOS to touch their code. With ad blockers knocking bigger and bigger holes in Google's revenue stream, do you think it's only a matter of time before Google starts offering a server-side solution with cleverer coding?

[pageoneresults]

Second, I'd like someone familiar with this technology to explain to the good members here how exactly Ad Blockers work. I understand they have a blacklist. Is this correct? Do they supplement this with other technology to detect ad networks that are not in their blacklist? Do they look for a particular type of footprint?

I'm not at all intimate with how the Ad Blockers work today. I do remember back in the beginning when they first made an appearance, there were some common footprints in the algorithm. ALL of the standard ad/image sizes are detected e.g. 728x90, 300x250, 180x150,160x600, etc. There are a number of footprints that are detectable for each ad network with many of the networks using the same "common footprints".

I've read that you may be able to go "polymorphic" with the signature of your ads but I think there may be some challenging issues in that environment, especially when you piss off your users who have Ad Blockers and your ads magically appear when they should not. Don't do that to me, I won't come back.

I've also read that you can detect the Ad Blockers via JavaScript and display something else in place of the ads being blocked, maybe a message asking the visitor to make a donation. I've donated to many websites over the years. I like to see that "Donate" button on sites that I utilize that don't slam me with a bunch of advertising. What a concept eh?"

There are all sorts of ways to generate revenue from visitors outside the decaying AdWords type ad networks. Break out of that 20th Century mindset. Ask the folks who have Ad Blockers installed what you as a publisher SHOULD do to get in their pants (pockets that is).

[elguiri]

I agree with you pageoneresults, which is why I don't run adsense. My product offerings are integrated, below the fold, in detailed information, and I have good engagement stats.

Still, there are many here whose revenue models may be complex - or may take time to change - and will want to know all their options.

I don't like the idea of a catch all third party software making decisions about my site, and I don't think any webmaster should. In my particular case, what the ad blocker is classifying as an ad, is a product image and a request information button. It's not an ad of the type for which most people would install an ad blocker.

Clearly certain types of advertising are more annoying than others, and it's up to the webmaster to decide just how much he/she wants to piss off users.

[pageoneresults]

The first reply to this topic was from dethfire...

So what is the solution?

I'm going to rephrase that as...

So what are the solutions?

elguiri said...

My product offerings are integrated, below the fold, in detailed information, and I have good engagement stats.

Below the Fold. Integrated Product Offerings. Donate Buttons.

I am no longer a Publisher. When I did dabble in that industry, my main goal was to keep the advertisements minimal and "out of your face". Just because Google allowed you to use three (3) ad units on a page didn't mean you SHOULD have used all three, especially when your content is the primary focus and advertising is secondary. That's my thinking anyway.

I like Below the Fold for a number of reasons. First it allows the user to become comfortable with the page before they see any advertisement. They are there for one thing, what your website is offering. Let them see your offer first, your primary content first, before you start the advertising.

I like Integrated Product Offerings as they are most likely very specific to the page I'm viewing. If I'm interested in the content on that page, there's a strong chance that I am also interested in the Integrated Product Offerings and not some off the wall, who knows where from, ad from a third party network.

I REALLY like Donate Buttons but I'm old school. I know my money is going directly into the site owner's pocket and they deserve it. An example would be my Web Developer Toolbar from Chris Pederick. Look at his website. To me, that is the perfect setup for what he is offering. I've dropped him a couple of C Notes in the past, they were well deserved. I use his Web Developer Toolbar every day.