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.

[MrSavage]

Regarding television and the beauty of the PVRing through pesky ads. Notice ads being splashed on the bottom of screens during shows? Ads will get to you, somehow, someway. So the internet will find somehow, someway. If that means Google just keeps everyone on their site using your site content to answer questions, I guess that's a reaction to it. Afterall, the adblockers know better than to block Google.com right? In fact maybe the underlying theme here is that Google's win is to just keep visitors on Google.com at all costs, and let the PR and scraping aspects take a backseat to priority #1, which is their ad revenue business. So when we lose traffic and we choose to suppose adblockers, I guess it's the person pirating/streaming movies for free at home who complains about the 10 minutes of ads before a movie in a theater. I think that's called irony.

We aren't street performers. Remove the hat from the street and only perform to people who have zero coins or cash on them. That's adblocking. Compliments are free and I suppose those "likes" and social are about as useful to the bottom line.

[edited by: MrSavage at 5:05 pm (utc) on Aug 26, 2015]

[Leosghost]

Whereas adblocking just steals the hat.

Nope ..adblocking leaves the hat exactly as the visitor found it..with no more ..and no less money in it..

[MrSavage]

I still stand by the idea that Google, by keeping people on their site at all costs, is a growing site effect. If you think big picture it makes sense. Make up their lost revenue by creating a web that involves Google.com. Now comes with Tweets! However, if you made a worst case scenario, and say 90% of internet users blocked ads tomorrow, Google's play is what? It's to keep people seeing ads on Google.com and giving people most of what they need from the search results themselves. That's how they can counter it. Oddly enough, with people complaining about lost traffic, I guess it's maybe not so wise to mention that you block ads. If I'm killing off the Adwords business with my own two hands, and Google grows more desperate and keeps people on Google.com with less organic search links, how on earth could I be surprised?

[trebuchet]

Nope ..adblocking leaves the hat exactly as the visitor found it..with no more ..and no less money in it..

No, it has less money in it because adblocking removes or conceals it. That's fairly obvious. And you know what? Before long the street performers and the buskers either starve, give up or move behind the closed doors. Think how interesting your streets will be then.

[thms]

When you make a website..you are making street performance art on the internet highway

The ads are like if you were singing or juggling or playing a guitar etc while wearing a billboard front and back for "joe's Pizza"..
The folks watching and listening might want to do so wearing sunglasses, in case you billboards have bright lights and day-glo, because out of the last 100 buskers that they saw ..95 had flashing lights and day-glo billboards front and back..
you tell them that they have to take them off or you won't play or sing or do your stuff..they'll probably move on..
and word will spread..and fewer folks will walk in your direction..and then fewer..til one day, maybe no-one..

That's a poor analogy. The street performer is not paying rent for the space he is using to perform. Publishers are paying rent. And the rent increases as the number of visitors increases. And you suggest that it's ok to enter the publisher's rented space, take out everything you want and refusing to pay the minimal price of seeing ads.

[Leosghost]

You are confusing the ads and the hat..the ads may be a type of hat..but they are not the only one ..

The hat is what they can put coins into..how you monetise your content /performance..if you only have one way, via 3rd party adservers using javascript ( which adblockers "block" ) putting ads into the visitors browser..you are restricting your options, and leaving your income vulnerable to adblockers..

If that is the only choice that you have .

You'll not survive..

[Leosghost]

A lot of sites that use adsense do not pay for the space that they have..
Sites on Blogger for example..you know..where the content scrapers live..

People are not taking out anything..they are looking..they arrive empty handed, they leave empty handed ..
You want them to put their hands in their pockets and leave a coin..you have to find a way how ..

Blocking adblockers is not IMO a viable way..but you can try it..

It is very easy to do..doesn't even require that they have javascript of any kind running..can be done in CSS and HTML..
But that way can be bypassed easily..
or you can "sniff" for adblockers by name or by behaviour..javascript works OK for this..serverside scripts work better..

Whichever you choose ..IMO it isn't the best way to deal with the existence of adblockers..

[thms]

A lot of sites that use adsense do not pay for the space that they have..
Sites on Blogger for example..you know..where the content scrapers live..

That's embarassing, I'm not even sure what you are trying to argument here. So because some publishers use Blogger... what? Does the adblocker diferentiate between sites hosted on blogger and paid hosts?

[Leosghost]

You said publishers are paying "rent"..

That's a poor analogy. The street performer is not paying rent for the space he is using to perform. Publishers are paying rent. And the rent increases as the number of visitors increases. And you suggest that it's ok to enter the publisher's rented space, take out everything you want and refusing to pay the minimal price of seeing ads.

You used the "rent paying" to dismiss my analogy..

But very many publishers are not paying rent..I gave an example of those who do not, there are many more, why are you embarrassed ?

You do seem fixed upon "publishers" ..I'm more interested websites..not merely those who run adsense and are adsense publishers..

[edited by: Leosghost at 6:09 pm (utc) on Aug 26, 2015]

[thms]

IMO it isn't the best way to deal with the existence of adblockers..

I think that's the most effective way. Ad blockers will have to get used to seeing a lot of blank pages a day, decreasing productivity.

[MrSavage]

@Leos thanks for the suggestions there. For myself, considering bounce rates and just bad karma, I won't be opting for blocking or hassling just yet. I just think people who block aren't going to click. My only issue right now is digesting how these tools block or deal with affiliate links to places such as Amazon. Adsense has become quite secondary, so the affiliate aspect to me is quite troubling.

[toidi]

If you are counting on the search engines to preserve the adsense business model, you might be in for a surprise. They make more money per click if they don't have to share it with publishers. They can't just eliminate publishers without risking bad pr, but they can let publishers wither away, which seems to be what is going on right now on multiple fronts. Look around, adblockers are just one of the threats, every se update is another junk of your colleagues getting shut down. The way ads are served on a lot of sites breaks the rules, yet the rules are not enforced, this is not an oversite, this is intentional to promote adblockers and drive more publishers out of business.

Pointing fingers, name calling and knee jerk reactions are not going to save your business model, but maybe if you all join forces you can do something. Some ideas have been put out in this thread but seemed to be ignored. Don't expect google or bing to save your business, they want your business.

[trebuchet]

That's a hilarious bunch of conspiracy theories rolled into one comment. "We're actually trying to help you; it's Google that's the enemy", say adblock fanboys. Right.

Whichever you choose ..IMO it isn't the best way to deal with the existence of adblockers.

Of course not. It's against my nature to block anyone. But as things stand, it's the best option and it'll do until something better presents itself.

[Runfun]

Most people keep on saying that visitors with an Adblocker won't click but most revenue I made is by CPM not CPC so whitelisting my website is enough, I don't need clicks to earn some money.

[creeking]

adblocksters never see the hat. it's invisible to them.

imagine their confusion when they see coins being dropped, but they never hit the ground - they vanish (into the invisible hat).

hey, that would be a nice scene for Dr. Who. :)

[csdude55]

How to get ads in front of those who use adblockers ?, ..

I dealt with that a way back in thread..make the delivery mechanism for the ads server side..

But that would not suit the adsense people..

Many moons ago, I signed up for some affiliate programs and loaded the banners server-side, specifically for people running ad blockers.

What I discovered, though, was that ad blockers (at the time, at least) would also block all images that were of standard banner sizes.

It may be different now, that was at least 4 years ago.

Think of it like a street performer..

Spends months learning how to do their "act"..

Performs in public ..on the sidewalk..

They can "hope" to get coins in the hat..

Many people watch..

Some put a coin in the hat..

Some don't..

The performer isn't going to tell all those who don't "drop a coin" that they cannot watch ..because it is in public..

They can only "expect" payment if it is in a closed venue..

When you make a website..you are making street performance art on the internet highway..

I respectfully disagree. The street performer has nothing invested in the immediate performance other than time; presumably, he does not pay rent or insurance for his location, or have paid employees to ensure that the performance is of high quality.

But I do. I pay for the server and bandwidth. I pay employees to provide quality content. This overhead is covered by using ads, and by blocking them you are effectively stealing from me. When you visit my site, it will cost me money. Granted, not a LOT of money, but that money is expected to be recompensed by the placement of ads. By blocking the ads, you remove my ability to recoup the money spent for you to view my content.

(For the record, I am paid RPM, not PPC. So I get paid when you view the ad, regardless of whether you click on it. You don't even have to look at it; if it loads on the page, then I get paid.)

You even included the condition that the street performer can "only 'expect' payment if it is in a closed venue", presumably because he then has overhead. I know of very few websites with absolutely no overhead.

On that note...

In the United States, the Telemarketing Consumer Protection Act makes it illegal to telemarket to cell phones, specifically because doing so may cost the cell phone owner money*:

17: (a) No person or entity may:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, initiate any telephone call
(other than a call made for emergency purposes or is made with the prior express consent
of the called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice;
(iii) To any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.

Consider that. The law states that you may not do something that would cost another entity money, without their express consent. But this is exactly what ad blockers do: they cause you to cost the website provider money.

Based on this same logic, as ad blockers grow in popularity, it will be a matter of time before the laws catch up to finally make them illegal. Otherwise, the internet itself faces extinction.

When 92% of employment in the United States comes from microbusinesses (those with less than 5 employees), and 62% of the employment comes from people that work for themselves at home**, the government simply can't allow a major blow against small businesses like this for much longer. It would have a devastating impact on the nation's economy.

* [fcc.gov...]
** [microbusinessstrategies.com...]

[edited by: bill at 5:09 am (utc) on Aug 28, 2015]

[Leosghost]

@creeking..
You too are confusing ( the monetisation )hat, with the ( adsense ) billboard ads that the ( site ) performer is wearing..what gets blocked by adblockers..is not the only way to serve ads..or to monetise a site..
Haven't see Doctor who since Pertwee..preffered Troughton though..:)

[edited by: Leosghost at 9:38 pm (utc) on Aug 26, 2015]

[Leosghost]

The street performer has nothing invested in the immediate performance other than time; presumably, he does not pay rent or insurance for his location, or have paid employees to ensure that the performance is of high quality.

He had to dedicate the time ( unpaid ) to learn what he does, money for props, instruments and costume etc..and some do indeed have to pay both licences ( to the city or the state or the government to be able to perfom in the street ) and pay someone to pass the hat..

How do you propose that the government of the USA makes illegal the use of adblockers by those of us who do not live in the USA..

The most widely used adblocker comes from a German business..
How is the U.S.A government going to make their business illegal..or the downnloading and using of their software or add ons by U.S.A citizens ( or any one else ) illegal..

I don't think that the U.S.A government ( of any colour ) cares about webmasters..

They care about who pays the campaign contributions and who lobbies with cash..Like Gogle and facebook..and adblockers do not block adwords..which is far more important to Google than adsense..look at the Google "quarterlies"..G could close adsense and ramp up adwords without blinking ..and certainly with no qualms..They might even be willing to take the PR hit..it isn't like they are employing publishers..it wouldn'tbe Google laying off anyone..

I pay for the server and bandwidth. I pay employees to provide quality content. This overhead is covered by using ads, and by blocking them you are effectively stealing from me.

So now adblockers and their users are "stealing" from webmasters..
ROTFALOL..right out of the TISA handbook..:)

[edited by: Leosghost at 10:10 pm (utc) on Aug 26, 2015]

[csdude55]

How do you propose that the government of the USA makes illegal the use of adblockers by those of us who do not live in the USA..

I don't, other than by encouraging other countries to follow suit. I'm sure that a significant portion of telemarketers come from other countries, too, and while it may not be legal for them to call my cell phone, there's nothing that the judicial system can really do about it.

But it would still cut down on a significant portion of the problem for US based businesses. For me, it would eliminate 100% of the problem, as we block most non-US IP addresses through the firewall, anyway.

So now adblockers and their users are "stealing" from webmasters..
ROTFALOL..right out of the TISA handbook..:)

I pay money for my server, bandwidth, and employees, with the understanding that site viewers will view ads that compensate for the expense.

10 years ago, this was perfect.

5 years ago, we lost 2% of our revenue to ad blockers.

Today, we lose roughly 50% of our revenue to ad blockers.

Which, as I discussed before, isn't due to any fault of our own. We have 3 ads on our site; two 300x250 on the right column, and a 728x90 at the bottom, so we are not invasive at all. But too many people pick up a virus or spyware on another site or by email, then instead of removing the spyware, they simply install an ad blocker which then punishes every site on the web. Worse, computer repair techs will commonly install ad blockers, even without their customers knowledge or understanding, so that many ad blocker users have no idea that it's even there.

But let's compare the logic. Ten years ago, my site brought in $12,000, paid $7,500 to employees, $1,000 to servers, bandwidth, and other overhead, $1,000 to marketing, and left me with $2,500.

Five years ago, the site brought in $11,760, with the same overhead... leaving me with $2,260. This was already a red flag; even though the ad blockers only caused a 2% loss to the site, it caused a 10% cut in my salary.

Today, the site brings in $6,000, with the same overhead. Even though the traffic has increased, and the quality of the content has improved, thanks solely to ad blockers, I now have to lay off employees. I have no choice but to decrease the overhead to $5,000 for 2 employees, $1,000 to general expenses, have no marketing budget, and now paying myself nothing.

Knowing this, I would like to hear the logic behind how this is NOT stealing. You can't say it's just a "shift in technology", because it's not; it's a concentrated, often ignorant effort to hurt small businesses.

[edited by: bill at 5:10 am (utc) on Aug 28, 2015]

[csdude55]

I don't think that the U.S.A government ( of any colour ) cares about webmasters..

They care about who pays the campaign contributions and who lobbies with cash..Like Gogle and facebook..and adblockers do not block adwords..which is far more important to Google than adsense..look at the Google "quarterlies"..G could close adsense and ramp up adwords without blinking ..and certainly with no qualms..They might even be willing to take the PR hit..it isn't like they are employing publishers..it wouldn'tbe Google laying off anyone..

As I showed before, 62% of the nation's employment is from self employed people that work at home, with no employees. It's safe to assume that a significant percentage of that is from people that work online.

And 92% of the nation's employment comes from microbusinesses with less than 5 employees. It's safe to assume that a significant percentage of that is from small businesses (like mine) that work online.

As those small businesses go bankrupt thanks to ad blockers, and the nation sees unemployment go from 10% to > 50%, they will have no choice but to intervene. Granted, most politicians are extremely naive and ignorant (especially when it comes to technology), but it's still just a matter of time before the DMA or some other lobbyist organization gets through to the right politician.

[edited by: bill at 5:10 am (utc) on Aug 28, 2015]

[Leosghost]

Stealing is taking permanently what someone has ( actual money "in hand")..you are talking about adblockers affecting your "potential income" ( note that I do not say potentially affecting your income ).."potential income" cannot be stolen, because before you actually have it..it doesn' t exist..and what doesn't exist..cannot be stolen..

That said..it sounds like you are not one of the site owners who abused ads..you are paying ( as is anyone affected by adblockers ) for the "sins" of those site owners and ad networks who did "abuse"..Without the abuse ..adblockers wouldn't have been invented..

My hosting is truly unlimited bandwidth and space..and so is my internet access..so serving huge ad laden pages wouldn't cost me over what I already pay ( I run ecom sites ..our own brand, designed and manufactured by us items, high end luxury goods mainly ) and ad sites , but no ads on the ecom sites.

I used to have totally different type of site.."service" with some ecom, again our own production..But Google invented adsense, and scrapers began taking my content and monetising it with adsense ..to begin with on the networks such as blogger, blogspot etc..then some of teh scrapers opend their own sites, then along came facebook, pinterest etc ..more scraping by individulas and webmasters..

So..rather than have to spend my life tracking the scrapers down and trying to get Google to shut their adsense accounts..

I changed our business model..moved into areas ( niches ) where Google will never try to take over as they have done in say travel and finance, shopping etc..

Luxury goods and specialist niches in ecom are not affected by downturns in anyone's general economies..:)

Seen the price of a Hermes bag ? ..a Gaultier frock.. ? ..even iphones ?

The rich are not feeling the economic problems..

The not so rich and the not rich at all..?..

Make them want the things that say to them ( frequently subconciously ) "buy me and you'll be part of the "lifestyle" and you can't go wrong..:)

Works for apple ..and very many others..
( Martinibuster made a post about this sort of thing just the other day here )

My ad sponsored sites are a mix of direct sales of adspace and adsense and other serverside delivered ads..
( if they had all the ads blocked..I'd probably keep them running anyway :)

We had employees when we were in B&M..never again..not in France..too expensive and waaay too many administrative problems and potential pitfalls..

I saw your other posts re RPM on different sites..If the 5000k pm is what the biggest and best site is making due to adblockers, then yeah, you have a problem..But again adblockers wouldn't have been invented if some advertisers and some sites had not abused the bandwidth of the vistors and the vistors browsers and given the cost of mobile data contracts in the U.S.A ..is it any wonder that people who might have to pay heavy charges for going over their "data allocation" in their carrier or ISP "deal" decide to use adblockers to block ads that they would have actually be paying to pay to see..

You have my commiserations, but adblockers are an inevitable push back against abusive advertisers and sites..

Those who did not "abuse" are "caught in the crossfire"..

Sites which have pages which weigh 2 mb and upwards with ads, and without them would only weigh 50 k or less, are the problem..

They brought about the invention of adblockers, it is their fault..

[trebuchet]

You have my commiserations, but adblockers are an inevitable push back against abusive advertisers and sites.

That might be why they started but it's not what they've become. They've become a set and forget device that wipes out the cockroaches by wiping out all the insect life around them. The sad part, as @csdude55 explains, is that this wave of adblocking has real life consequences, including the loss of jobs.

But hey, the rich are still spending and business is booming for you, so why should you care?

[Leosghost]

@csdude55

BTW..reading your other posts in this thread
[webmasterworld.com...]
If I had to spend that money and do all that work to make just $2500.00 per month at the beginning 10 years ago..I'd have right away quit and done something else or found another much better paying niche ( for the work and investment involved ) right back 10 years ago..
I certainly wouldn't be doing it now for nothing..nor even for $2500.oo per month..

Given the traffic you have..you should be making waaaay more..even with adblockers in 50% of your logs..

$2500.oo gross salary in France would mean around $1,700.oo net after mandatory social security and pension payments..

In Euros that is about the monthly salary one would make stacking shelves in a supermarket 35 hours per week or flipping burgers for 35 hours a week..and one would sleep more easily..

[Leosghost]

@trebuchet
I care..but I saw the way the whole search engine and online advertising system was going years ago..and adapted what I do to avoid being a casualty of it..( anyone could have, should have, seen, done the same, adapted and avoided the incoming problems )..and I still blame the abusive advertisers and abusive sites..not the reactive adblockers..nor their users..

How many working ( or unemployed, or small business owners ) people in the U.S.A are on a real tight data plan ( because they cannot afford to pay more ) how many of them got/get pushed into extra data charges for "overages" , due to abusively ad heavy sites ..

Maybe they need to use the web to look for work, or a second job to make ends meet, maybe their kids need to use the web for homework, whatever, ad heavy sites cost them money to visit ( and search engines don't say in advance "if you click this link the page is gonna be 2 megs of data of your allowance") ..do you say in your pages or the description how much the page weighs ? ..at one time we ( webmasters )used to tell people that images were data "heavy"..and warned them before they clicked that downloading ( displaying images in their browser* ) was going to be 200k or whatever ..nowadays ads can run that big..and no warning..
Visit a few hundred sites a month like that and you can go right through your bandwidth allocation from your carrier or ISP..and then it can get really expensive..

Your visitors have to pay to see the ads, the cost of seeing them comes out of their carrier or ISP bill..and it is their choice if they want to..or not..

My data allowance is unlimited..mobile carrier and ISP..

But many of my visitors may / will not have unlimited allowances..I build my sites thinking about my visitors and what their "restrictions" might be ..not thinking that I'm OK and so can ignore them..

* Lot of people used to "surf" with "images off", because it was too expensive to allow "images on"..that meant they didn't see the ads and banners..

Didn't stop webmasters making money though..many of the big name ad sponsered sites grew in, and, came from out of that time..

Nobody ever blocked the people who didn't allow images..Nobody said that they were "stealing"..or that browser makers "should not allow people to block" images..( you still can block images, without using ad blockers, and you won't see the ads..it is basic "optional" browser behaviour from ever since browsers could show images )..some sites didn't work unless you allowed flash, especially in ads..some still don't..

Want to make "allow flash" mandatory..?

[edited by: Leosghost at 11:51 pm (utc) on Aug 26, 2015]

[MrSavage]

Fantastic and interesting reading. I too have thought that in principle, adblockers are illegal in nature. Similarly, if on television, you had a technology that blanked out ad slots. I'm not talking PVR fast forwarding. I'm talking about the end user isn't subject to anything at all, just silence during the ad breaks. If that technology became mainstream like adblockers appear headed, then the television industry would sit idly by? I'm sure they are going to find something. Just because a technology comes along, it doesn't mean it's for the greater good. If there is no legal grounds, then be assured your television shows will be overrun with dancing ads all over during the show itself. The thing is, the big guys need to start losing their business before the gloves come off. In the case of Google, I still think that their quest for answering on their pages is a play on dealing with their blocked ads. Did someone say that Google ads showing on my sites are immune to adblockers by default? I just need to be understanding this clearly and not misunderstanding what's being said.

Once again, I'll go back to logic. If you are seeking a site/information, there must be more than 100 options. Right? So if one site is brutal on your phone load speed or your eyes, why in cripes sake can't one click back and never return? Why is that concept so difficult? Imagine. Support a site with your visits that puts content in a higher priority than the ads. Is that really too much heavy lifting? Sounds like it is. What if you "like" the site and your friends are using ad block and they get their eyes hurt from ads? Imagine that. So in a sense, the adblocker making a social mention might be throwing friends to the wolves. So very scary indeed...

[Leosghost]

Did someone say that Google ads showing on my sites are immune to adblockers by default?

No..adwords in SERPs are not blocked ( in some adblockers, because Google paid the adblock coder companies to make it so, they are "whitelisted" )..adsense ( and a lot of other ad types and adservers, but some are "whitelisted" on sites, again because they paid the adblock coding companies ) on sites is / are blocked by most adblockers..

[trebuchet]

Visit a few hundred sites a month like that and you can go right through your bandwidth allocation from your carrier or ISP..and then it can get really expensive..

I think we all know what kinds of sites are overloaded with ads. If you feel the need to visit an ad-encrusted site to look at slideshows of celebrities in bikinis or funny pictures, and you burn through your data allowance, there's only one person to blame. Sites with genuinely useful information, professional written or created, tend to be responsible advertisers. Not always, but usually.

Which leads me back to the point I've made previously, i.e. that adblockers could compromise and allow ads from responsible publishers. Allow display ads only, not interstitials, video ads, etc. Allow one ad per page. Take whitelisting/blacklisting out of the hands of users and base it on collective user feedback. Something like that, which would allow good content to be funded while killing off the dirtbags. Kind of a fairtrade adblocking, if you like.

But no, this is a see all, kill all solution.

Did someone say that Google ads showing on my sites are immune to adblockers by default?

Google has a sweetheart deal with Adblock Plus that exempts Google properties from being blocked. A sizeable amount of money was involved. I'm not sure if Google ads via Adsense are whitelisted, I suspect they're not.

[Leosghost]

I think we all know what kinds of sites are overloaded with ads. If you feel the need to visit an ad-encrusted site to look at slideshows of celebrities in bikinis or funny pictures, and you burn through your data allowance, there's only one person to blame. Sites with genuinely useful information, professional written or created, tend to be responsible advertisers. Not always, but usually.

I hear that just about every news site..CNN, NBC, etc are chock full of image ads as are the major newspaper websites, NYT, FT etc

Same thing applies here in France..News sites look like Times Square or down town Tokyo..
I already wrote about my preferred French news site " le point"..
le point ( the print edition )has deserved reputation as a respected heavy weight serious newspaper /magazine ..
I saw it once without ad block..auto playing video ads and all..reminded me of the scene from ( I think it is ) bladerunner where the huge video billboards are all over the town..
I don't visit without adblock..
I do buy the print version..in which the ads are not intrusive, they don't move, they don't move the content around so as to be "in my face"..

Even some of Google's one time "poster children" sites .."the builder" for example..used to be more ads ( with adsense in the ad mix ) than content..I could not believe that G said that it was a good example of a site that ran ads and adsense..Many here dissagreed with me..said it was OK and not at all ad heavy ( this was when Google had changed their mind about it, and slapped it with Panda for too many ads on page )..maybe in the U.S.A you are so used to all the ads every where in offline that such sites in online do seem OK..

I remember from my first visit to Florida waay back in the early 70s, seeing a 30ft high neon arrow sign outside an "upmarket" antiques shop in West Palm Beach where I was staying..I was working as a freelance for "The Mouse"..But when in London I was a freelance ad business art director and occasional freelance visualiser/ copywriter..You'd probably nowadays call what I did "consultant"..

Anyway..I was amazed at the "in your face" and really "tacky" billboard , TV, print ads and street signage ads that I saw even in that expensive area..even Worth Avenue was "over ad heavy"..and that was to someone who worked in the ad business..

Maybe that is why adblock was coded in Europe and not in the U.S.A..
By the time U.S.A sites got to the point where the citizens there thought ..Yukkk! ..the Germans were already buliding add ons and software to mitigate the worst of what they saw when surfing U.S.A and non EU sites..
Nowadays in the EU the majority of sites are ( as I said above ) just as bad..

Moving "wrap ads" for ù*à"$ sake !

The fairtrade adblocker you suggest might work..But...you know as well as I ( and the adblock coders ) do ..that "responsible sites" would
only stay "resonsible" until someone bought one out, and the new owners would look at short term revenue, and slap all signing all dancing ads or video wraps on it..and then anothet prevoiusly responsible "whitelisted" site would do the same , and another, etc etc ..

Especially those which have to answer to "investors" and wall street managers ( like some of the big sites , even the news sites, especially the TV news sites )..if they thought that they might be able to make a quick 10 million or so in a quarter ( and thus please the "investors" and get a fat bonus ) by slapping awfull ads ( and lots of them ) on a "fair trade whitelisted" non blocked site..They'd do it in a heart beat..they don' t care about long term..and they'd spoil it again for the rest..

So..I don't think the adblockers will accept anything but "sweetheart" deals..and even then ..they impose "rules of good advertiser conduct"..even when the ad network is paying to be whitelisted..

[blend27]

Never bash the Users(block unwanted to access content) that challenge your system. If they do Learn from it, there is always something to learn...

Bash the users and it is a "link"(SocMed) to a Publisher that Willl back-fire, HARD.

Your Turn.

added: not@Leos

[csdude55]

Stealing is taking permanently what someone has ( actual money "in hand")..you are talking about adblockers affecting your "potential income" ( note that I do not say potentially affecting your income ).."potential income" cannot be stolen, because before you actually have it..it doesn' t exist..and what doesn't exist..cannot be stolen..

Technically, the definition is:

take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

I think it's apt because the ad blocker user is taking my bandwidth with the intent of giving no compensation.

That said..it sounds like you are not one of the site owners who abused ads..you are paying ( as is anyone affected by adblockers ) for the "sins" of those site owners and ad networks who did "abuse"..Without the abuse ..adblockers wouldn't have been invented..

Sites which have pages which weigh 2 mb and upwards with ads, and without them would only weigh 50 k or less, are the problem..

They brought about the invention of adblockers, it is their fault..

As others have implied before me, I honestly don't think that this abuse of ads is what caused the invention and popularity of ad blockers. Maybe in the beginning when 2% of the population had one, but not now.

I suspect that the problem grew with spyware. Many people are simply too ignorant to know how to handle viruses and spyware, or even know what they are; all they know is that they're seeing pop-up ads everywhere, and want it to stop. So a search on Google, or a friend, or a well-intentioned techie leads them to an ad blocker. Which, to them, seems to solve the problem.

I'm not just speculating, either. This information came mainly from people on my website when I asked, why?

How many working ( or unemployed, or small business owners ) people in the U.S.A are on a real tight data plan ( because they cannot afford to pay more ) how many of them got/get pushed into extra data charges for "overages" , due to abusively ad heavy sites ..

I could be wrong about this, but locally it's pretty rare to see limited data plans; everything I see offers unlimited data. This is probably responsive to the recent trend to stream movies, etc.

But like you, I build my sites with speed in mind. A large reason for this is because I've learned that as the load time decreases, my Pages per Session increases. According to Analytics, the average load time for any page on my site is < 3 seconds... even with ads in place.

Similarly, if on television, you had a technology that blanked out ad slots. I'm not talking PVR fast forwarding. I'm talking about the end user isn't subject to anything at all, just silence during the ad breaks. If that technology became mainstream like adblockers appear headed, then the television industry would sit idly by? I'm sure they are going to find something. Just because a technology comes along, it doesn't mean it's for the greater good. If there is no legal grounds, then be assured your television shows will be overrun with dancing ads all over during the show itself.

This brings up an excellent point that I think should interest ad blocker users. What is the eventual outcome of their usage?

On television, we're already seeing more and more product placement ads; eg, TV shows that spent 5 minutes of the show incorporating an iPad in to the story line, or bragging about the characters awesome new car. As commercials go the way of the dinosaur, I suspect that we'll see more and more of this, making the shows themselves become lower quality.

Carrying that over to the web, we'll begin to see most current free content be replaced by paid content. To the point that we'll no longer have any free exchange of ideas and information; all you'll find is information from the highest bidder.

No..adwords in SERPs are not blocked ( in some adblockers, because Google paid the adblock coder companies to make it so, they are "whitelisted" )..adsense ( and a lot of other ad types and adservers, but some are "whitelisted" on sites, again because they paid the adblock coding companies ) on sites is / are blocked by most adblockers..

This leads me back to the question of the legality of ad blockers.

In the US, extortion is a felony in every state.

How can it possibly be legal for a company (eg, an ad blocker) to say, "I am going to actively hurt your business, unless you agree to give me 30% of the revenue that you would have lost to me"? By definition, that's extortion.

How long before each individual site, like mine, is given the option to pay a portion of their proceeds to the ad blocker companies, for the "right" to show ads on our own sites?

[edited by: bill at 5:11 am (utc) on Aug 28, 2015]