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.

[pageoneresults]

I think this is related to browsing habits. In the case of Adult sites, celebrity/gossip, top 10 lists, etc. I can understand there's a problem there.

Careful Junior! I'm browsing mostly industry related websites and searching for home related goods. My ESET prevents me from visiting most of those sites you are referring to, not my forte.

I'm visiting News sites that slam me with every form of advertising there is.

I'm visiting industry related Blogs who think that taking over my viewport as soon as I scroll is a good thing.

I'm visiting Fortune 500 sites who think that dropping 50+ cookies on me in one browsing session is acceptable.

I'd be scared to death to visit an adult website or any of the celebrity/gossip/top 10 websites - those are Poster Children for Ad Blockers.

[tangor]

So tell me are you going to disable link clicking on your clients' devices?

Call me obtuse, but what the heck are you talking about? Adblockers block third party ANYTHING. A link, a valid link, is unaffected.

[netmeg]

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.

Me, I'd call that a failure in your business plan, not theft by your users. Unless you put something in your terms and conditions before they access the site that failure to allow your ads to load constitutes a breach of TOS, you don't have much of a leg to stand on claiming "theft" (your costs are irrelevant to the issue at hand - you chose to incur them, nobody forced you, and there's no obligation on the user to reimburse you for them - unless you make it part of your terms and conditions)

Bottom line is, you can't get pissed off at people for violating what you consider to be the terms and conditions of using your site UNLESS YOU FRICKIN' TELL THEM WHAT THEY ARE before they start using your site. And no, it will NOT be obvious to 99.9% of your clientele. So if you're not telling them ahead of time, then STFU about "theft" fer chrissakes.

There's no "implied contract" on a network with eleventy billion different 'stops' on it, so if you want a contract, then you gotta put it out there. And then see what happens to your quality readership.

[Leosghost]

High Five @netmeg.. :)

[csdude55]

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.

Not any more or less legal than any Search Engine or a scraper/MFA scraping your content and slapping Ads all over your content while you actively allowing "that" search engine or a scraper/MFA do so. Try to think that way. Cost of doing business now days, isn't it?

There's a significant difference here in that search engines do nothing more than index and categorize websites that meet their Terms & Conditions. A webmaster can opt out of the program if they want.

That's drastically different from an extortionist that openly hurts your business, unless you agree to pay them. There's no option for me to opt out of the ad blocker's "service".

Since this thread is so fond of analogies... what do you think would happen if you went to, for example, a computer store, and began damaging one computer each day. After a few weeks, you told them that you were planning to damage a computer every day unless they agreed to pay you 30% of the value of each computer that you would have damaged. I have little doubt that you would go to jail.

How is this any different?

1. Blocking Ad Blockers
2. Pay Per View or Subscription Paywalls
3. Serverside or Embedded Advertising
4. Sponsored Articles
5. Advertorials
6. Other forms of advertising merged with content

FWIW, I've tried both #2 and #3. I offer the option to my users to pay an annual subscription of $10 in exchange for a few "premium" features, and to also go ad free.

One person signed up for it. That's it, just one.

And that was a ruinous rate of exchange for me. That user would view 100+ pages a day, so at an average RPM of $1.50, was worth $55 for the year. In the end I lost $45 on the deal.

The people already using ad blockers saw no reason to pay for what they already got for free. Dozens of them SAID they would, sure, but when it came down to it, none of them did.

I'll talk about #3 in the next section...

Call me obtuse, but what the heck are you talking about? Adblockers block third party ANYTHING. A link, a valid link, is unaffected.

I mentioned before that, several years ago, I signed up for several affiliate programs, specifically for users with ad blockers. I downloaded banners to my server, then wrote a simple server-side link to redirect to the affiliate link; eg,

http://www.example.com/link,php?id=1234

The PHP script would access a database, find id=1234, add +1 to a counter, then redirect to the affiliate link.

A few days later, I found a reference to my site on one of the ad block program's message boards (I don't recall which one). A user specifically asked to have both the directory link to the images and the PHP link added to their database for filtering, which they promptly did.

We also sell ads locally. At the time of the above comments, we created a simple 200x200 banner for local businesses, loaded as a PNG or JPG from my server. But these, too, were blocked by ad blockers, by default and regardless of the directory name or file name. They would block any image that was a standard banner size.

So as you can see, they're not just blocking 3rd party content. Upon request, they can and will block anything they like.

Worse, one person complaining can (and did) result in a block for everyone.

I just saw a solid comparison of ten (10) very popular destination sites using an Ad Blocker software - the results are EYE OPENING!

No, the results were very misleading.

She compared 10 sites: New York Times, Business Insider, Macworld, Wired, The Verge, PC Gamer, iMore, Kotaku, Huffington Post, Vice.

Looking at the results with and without an ad blocker, 4 of the sites were significantly different in load times, while 6 were only marginally different. New York Times, Business Insider, and Huffington Post only had a time difference of 2-3 seconds.

I've never once visited Macworld, Wired, or PC Gamer, and I've never heard of The Verge, iMore, Kotaku, or Vice. These may be sites that you regularly visit, but not me.

Further, there was no definition of "load time". Was she counting the time before the page was usable, or until the page had completely loaded? Because those are two completely different things, and the design of the site has a huge impact on its usability.

Had the test been done with sites that I regularly visit, though, or even with the Top 10 sites from Alexa, then I believe the results would have been much different. Instead, she seemed to arbitrarily pick websites that skewed the results.

[edited by: bill at 5:12 am (utc) on Aug 28, 2015]

[csdude55]

BTW as the U.S.A national debt is at $18 trillion and getting worse..( and with the country in hock to the P.R.C which holds all the scrip and whose economy is "sneezing" at the moment ) $18 billion is small change ( and almost a "rounding error" by comparison ) to the U.S.A governments concerns.....( U.S.A governments of any colour ).. <snip> Google and the government ( or any of the candidates, no matter what they might say ) are not going to do anything about this, unless someone discretely gives them a big bag of cash, "or its equivalent in kind"..

I think you're misunderstanding my point.

With +/- 60% of the US population being self employed and working at home, and +/- 90% of all jobs in the US coming from microbusinesses, then it's only a matter of time before the government has no choice but to step in. The economy simply couldn't survive if 50% of the workforce went bankrupt, all because Leosghost can't be bothered to wait an additional 2 seconds for the New York Times to fully load.

Me, I'd call that a failure in your business plan, not theft by your users. Unless you put something in your terms and conditions before they access the site that failure to allow your ads to load constitutes a breach of TOS, you don't have much of a leg to stand on claiming "theft" (your costs are irrelevant to the issue at hand - you chose to incur them, nobody forced you, and there's no obligation on the user to reimburse you for them - unless you make it part of your terms and conditions)

Bottom line is, you can't get pissed off at people for violating what you consider to be the terms and conditions of using your site UNLESS YOU FRICKIN' TELL THEM WHAT THEY ARE before they start using your site. And no, it will NOT be obvious to 99.9% of your clientele. So if you're not telling them ahead of time, then STFU about "theft" fer chrissakes.

There's no "implied contract" on a network with eleventy billion different 'stops' on it, so if you want a contract, then you gotta put it out there. And then see what happens to your quality readership.

OK...

1. You don't know my business plan, so that's rather presumptuous.

2. You have no idea what is in my Terms & Conditions.

3. What makes you think that I'm "pissed"? I'm simply joining a discussion about the ethics, long term outcome of, and immediate impact of the usage of ad blockers.

4. When did I ever make mention of the quoted "implied contract"?

I appreciate your logic, though. Someone goes in to a computer store and steals a laptop... well, the store should have had a sign up that said, "please don't steal my laptops!" They didn't, so there was no implied contract and no theft. After all, the store owner chose to incur the costs of having a store, nobody forced him, right?

[edited by: bill at 5:12 am (utc) on Aug 28, 2015]

[thms]

Bottom line is, you can't get pissed off at people for violating what you consider to be the terms and conditions of using your site UNLESS YOU FRICKIN' TELL THEM WHAT THEY ARE before they start using your site. And no, it will NOT be obvious to 99.9% of your clientele. So if you're not telling them ahead of time, then STFU about "theft" fer chrissakes.

So are you saying that I'm allowed to go into a shop and take everything I want without paying, then all I have to do is say to the shop owner: "Hey you didn't fricking tell me what your terms and conditions are" and go home? See your analogy is weak and if you're not a lawyer it's kind of arrogant to go stfu on others.

[IanCP]

I'm visiting Fortune 500 sites who think that dropping 50+ cookies on me in one browsing session is acceptable.

In Firefox I have zero problem with cookies - "Self Destructing Cookies" add-on takes care of that. Each site I visit can be set to "never" if needed.

Back on to the topic of Ad Blockers? I still maintain that publishers themselves are to blame. Why do I say that? Because I have noticed in recent years a heavier incidence of advertisements appearing on the type of sites I regularly visit - Recipe/Download/Hardware/Technology... Some quite misleading as we know. Perhaps an Ad-Blocker turned on when you visit a download site might actually disclose the "real download" button.

Stupid AdSense interest based advertisements on a recipe site - about a USB portable hard drive, from the XYZ Shop where I had already purchased the item several weeks earlier. Pointless. Those IBA ads follow me everywhere, they don't annoy me but they might annoy the hell out of the 50% of web users who have only arrived in recent years.

Advertisements on the list of "News" sites I visit daily aren't much different from their print editions, and are to be expected. No revenue, no news.

The vast majority of web users are nowhere near as technologically savvy as we are, nor understand where the role of advertising and affiliate links play in the survival of the smaller "informational" sites. They lump all sites in together.

Those bigger sites favoured by Google, and the other search engines - with the maximum ads everywhere in your face? Well you created the problem with your greed - so you deal with it - the rest of us are simply collateral damage.

I'll still be around, just as I was around long before AdSense, Google, and most intrusive advertising was even invented.

[netmeg]

So are you saying that I'm allowed to go into a shop and take everything I want without paying, then all I have to do is say to the shop owner: "Hey you didn't fricking tell me what your terms and conditions are" and go home? See your analogy is weak and if you're not a lawyer it's kind of arrogant to go stfu on others.

Oh come on. A website owner is not a shop owner. You put your website up on a world wide open network, without a paywall, invite everyone in (in some cases, PAY to bring them in) and then call them thieves if they access your content with an ad blocker installed (when you haven't bothered to tell them that constitutes theft of content (or services))? And expect them to "just know"?

ork ork ork. Good luck with that. You guys are adorable.

[IanCP]

You guys are adorable

Loved it !

[Leosghost]

<caution ..post may contain a smidgen of irony>

Someone walks in off the street, through the open door, of a store that says it is open to visitors, into a computer store..looks all around ( the lights are on, so it costs the store owner something for electricity, and of course the store owner has to pay rent to be open to visitors, and maybe the store owner paid someone to make a sign on the street that said the store existed at that address )..the person leaves the store with nothing more than they came in with..

The store owner shouts, to anyone who might be listening.."theif"..you should have bought something, or paid me for the electricty that was used while you were in the store, and something towards my rent for the store, after all I have overheads..Hell I had ads on the walls for other stores and stuff, and you kept your dark glasses on all the time and couldn't see them..how am I supposed to make a living if you don't take off your dark glasses and at least look at the ads..you are a thief"..

The visitor says "This store owner is crazy..He calls me a theif because I didn't look at the ads on his walls..The door was open , the sign says "computer store", it doesn't say "ads store"..If he insists that I have to look at the ads on his walls to be allowed to enter his shop, he says it is a contract that I should have known about, he should have that written on all the entrances and windows so that we can all see it before we go in..

The other people outside the store, on the street agree with the visitor..the store owner is crazy..the visitor is definitely not a theif..

Eventually the organisation that is responsible for keeping the signs up on the street gets to hear about how the store owner thinks visitors are theives if they don't look at the ads on his walls..

So the organisation begins to cover up and take down the signs that show the way to his shop..

The store owner then puts up a big sign in all of the windows and entrances to the shop..

"Visitors are only allowed into my wonderful shop, if they look at the ads on my walls, if they don't they are theives"

So..who would go into a shop where the owner called visitors theives if they didn't look at the ads on their walls..

Don't all of you "potential visitors out there" all put your hands up at once..

Yep ..some shop owners are just "adorable" ..

They know precisely how to succeed..and especially what the word "theif" means ..

</caution ..post may contain a smidgen of irony>

[creeking]

......tosses an invisible coin into Netmeg's invisible hat

[trebuchet]

The constant analogies in this thread are really doing my head in. They don't work because there is no direct analogy for what's happening. It's an internet problem so the shopkeeper/street entertainer thing doesn't work.

I for one don't think of adblocking as theft, because the content exists in a virtual realm and can't be stolen, while the ads aren't ads until they are served.

But it is freeloading because it shows a blatant disregard for those who work hard to create content, so that users can have it for nothing. Not even the minor annoyance of having to view an ad or two.

At the end of the day, the annoyance of visual ads/slow loading/cookies will be weighed against free versus paid content. The assumption that 'there will always be free content' is correct, however the quality of this free content will deteriorate because the vast majority of experienced, skilled or informative people will not work for nothing. So block away but you will be paying for it in the long run.

[thms]

Oh come on. A website owner is not a shop owner. You put your website up on a world wide open network, without a paywall, invite everyone in (in some cases, PAY to bring them in) and then call them thieves if they access your content with an ad blocker installed (when you haven't bothered to tell them that constitutes theft of content (or services))? And expect them to "just know"?

Well if they installed the adblocker it's fair to assume they know what they are doing, so pretty much YES they do "just know".

[tangor]

Thread has moved beyond topic to the realm of zingers and who can misstate the underlying problems and realities of adblocking.

For some it is to surf in silence.
For some it is a matter of security.
For some it is a matter of privacy.
For some it is a matter of revenue

Of that 4 some above, three are on the user side.

Where adblockers are coming into their own, and some browsers are adding similar security features is do to the rise of malvertising in the ad networks which is affecting millions of USERS world wide. Publishers complaining about lost revenue are not seeing this very real threat which is addressed in most countries laws against unauthorized malicious intent on computers.

Clean up the ad market, harden it against criminal activity, and perhaps the need for ad blockers will disappear. But as long as that threat continues, and GROWS year on year, do not expect the user, the browser makers, or... ultimately, ISPs. To continue as if nothing is wrong will ultimately see the government(s) get involved as self-regulating is not apparently getting the job done.

Do not expect ad blockers to go away any time soon, nor expect any sympathy from end users worried about their investment in computers and phones and paying for access to the internet... and perhaps tech service to remove malicious payloads from advertising content that has trashed their equipment and exposed their personal data and details to real criminals!

In the cess pool of the internet today, an adblocker is useful for the same reason a condom is useful. Responsible folks protect themselves.

[trebuchet]

Maybe. Just understand that if everyone starts walking around wearing a condom, the only places you'll be putting it will also require a credit card.

[tangor]

And if that's the case, the service behind that paywall best be worth the exchange. After all, a poor site can't be made better with a paywall and dang few sites are worth more than a 10th of a cent a dance (page).

[ken_b]

It isn't like this is the first change in the history of advertising.

As publishers we can
1: hang around and argue about it,
or
2: try to figure out what's coming next and how to successfully implement it.

I'm guessing the second option might be a bit more productive.

What I know for sure is that advertising isn't going away, on the net or anywhere else.

So the question for me is, how do I fit it into my site.

.

[thms]

For some it is to surf in silence.
For some it is a matter of security.
For some it is a matter of privacy.
For some it is a matter of revenue

Of that 4 some above, three are on the user side.

This doesn't work like a football match...

[csdude55]

Someone walks in off the street, through the open door, of a store that says it is open to visitors, into a computer store..looks all around ( the lights are on, so it costs the store owner something for electricity, and of course the store owner has to pay rent to be open to visitors, and maybe the store owner paid someone to make a sign on the street that said the store existed at that address )..the person leaves the store with nothing more than they came in with..

I'm pretty much done discussing this, because nothing is being accomplished. I've shown the real-world problems with ad blockers, but I really don't think anyone cares. We may as well be discussing politics; for the most part, your side is always right, and the opposing side is always wrong.

Just to close up this analogy for my own sense of mind, though...

Leo, we're not talking about being forced to look at ads, we're talking about a service that actively prevents you from seeing ads. And in many cases, that service is being done without your knowledge or consent (eg, people that have had ad blockers installed to Band-aid their spyware).

If your hypothetical store had ads on the wall as a way to pay for the overhead, and there were people intentionally standing in front of each ad, holding up blank pieces of cardboard, solely to block them from other patrons, then I don't think anyone would be surprised that the shop owner is irritated.

Comparing this to real world, though, I think that a book store is more similar to a website. People are welcome to walk in and peruse the books, maybe even read a few pages. Every once in awhile, you might have someone sit down and read the whole book, then put it back on the shelf without paying (or, in the case of Barnes & Nobles, without at least buying a coffee). Which would be a little irritating to the owner, sure, but negligible.

Now, imagine that literally half of the people walking in to the store picked up a book, then sat down and read it cover to cover, only to leave without buying anything. And this happened consistently, day after day. Would you then be surprised that the owner was more than a little irritated?

No need to reply to that, as I'm unsubscribing from the thread and getting back to trying to find ways to make money. But hopefully, the explanation will help to persuade someone that their use of an ad blocker is morally wrong, whether they can justify it in their mind or not.

[netmeg]

I doubt it.

Let's be honest, if we *were* up front about ad blockers and told the users ahead of time that they wouldn't be seeing content unless they turned them off, most of them would peel off in a heartbeat, because most of our sites don't hold enough perceived value to overcome that - not yours, and not mine. A few will stick around, but most won't, because most of what we do can eventually be found elsewhere in "good enough" form.

And if I had a quick and painless way to collect money from mobile users, I wouldn't mind experimenting one year and asking them to donate fifty cents or a buck and take all the ads off altogether. (80% of my traffic is mobile, and if there is such a payment system, I haven't found it yet) It would be an interesting experiment for sure.

You're gonna have to come up with something if you want to stay in this business, because ad blockers are not going away. In fact the growth in the past year or two has been pretty stunning. And we're a long long way off before all the "good enough" content dries up. Not in my lifetime, maybe in yours.

[MrSavage]

First, I still shake my head that any Adsense publisher would be advocating or using an ad blocker themselves. I consider myself honest, respectful and an astute judge of character. Integrity is very important to me. I'm not judging but I can see through certain things for what they are.

What this report (bring back to the OP) says to me is this. If people start question why Google is strategizing to keep people on their properties and pages at all costs? Adblockers. If you start losing out to Google because they found a source that they can post on their results page that answers the question or covers the subject of your content? One word. Adblockers.

If as people here say it's for sure, 100% for sure taking over everyone's browser and it's so much better for all, then maybe Google is listening to that and has been listening to those footsteps for a year or two. If they can't monetize from ads showing on your site? Their option is to kick your ass to the curb and keep as much traffic on their site(s) as possible because hey, they have an agreement (is that what that would be called) so that they are by default, whitelisted.

Think Google can't see the issue here? Did they not remove adblockers from Chrome extensions? It's more a PR issue for them now. However at the end of the day, when your site mean zilch in the world of Adsense and organic traffic? Let's come full circle. Those lovely, novel and handy ad blocker contributed to you getting kicked to the curb. Google doesn't care so much about your organic traffic right? I could see why if each month less and less people are getting to view your ads.

So to me that is the irony of it all. I take Google's side on this one. I think most every complaint about lost traffic or rankings or being pushed down the SERPS has one simple answer. You just have to ask yourself if you're supporting your own demise.

One question I need an answer to. Because there are 1000 similar sites, why are people here so bound to those awful ad laden, cookie dropping sites? As in, you honestly can't find an alternative source of that same information? You choose not to because why? Why would you support something that caused you to implement a software solution to remove something you hate so much, yet you bless them with your visits. It makes ZERO sense to me logically.

The cynical side of me wants to ask people who post about lost rankings in Google or less organic results if they are using an Adblocker. Even with that, people won't understand the irony of the situation.

[ember]

Is there somewhere in Analytics where you can see if ad blockers are an issue? Is it Publisher Monetized Pageviews?

[trebuchet]

Let's be honest, if we *were* up front about ad blockers and told the users ahead of time that they wouldn't be seeing content unless they turned them off, most of them would peel off in a heartbeat, because most of our sites don't hold enough perceived value to overcome that - not yours, and not mine.

A big assumption on your part. I'm getting about 22% of visitors redirected to my turn-off-your-adblocker landing page, and about three quarters of those are complying. Then again I'm in the fortunate situation of having some of my sites mandated by certain school/college courses, so they're a captive audience.

Whether adblock users will willingly whitelist or disable to view your site depends on a number of factors, including site quality, site authority, site uniqueness and responsible use of advertising. If you're offering something that's not offered elsewhere, you'll probably win. If you're offering something that can be found on Wikipedia then you probably won't (and you probably weren't before adblocking came along).

If you are right though and most adblock users just hit the 'back' button, that doesn't bode well for those hoping to monetise through paywalls. If adblock users don't value a site enough to whitelist it then they're certainly not going to pay.

I wouldn't mind experimenting one year and asking them to donate fifty cents or a buck and take all the ads off altogether.

Right. Good luck with that then. If you get lucky, you might rake in enough for a meal.

And we're a long long way off before all the "good enough" content dries up. Not in my lifetime, maybe in yours.

Probably. You and your users might be OK with 'good enough' content. But some of us want to produce and publish excellent content. I'm afraid adblocking will only lead to the growing mediocrity of online content.

[tangor]

Then again I'm in the fortunate situation of having some of my sites mandated by certain school/college courses, so they're a captive audience.

Knew there was something fishy in the commentary. :)

Not apples and oranges. You have a captive audience. :)

And you are running ads against a captive audience and dislike ad blockers? Isn't the schools covering your costs? Or some kind of recompense if you are MANDATED?

The rest of the world is as netmeg and I see it (and the others, too... just drain bead at the moment).

Ad block exists for three reasons.

Blatant ads (poor business with the clientele)

Security (against malverts which is becoming a near catastrophe)

and

PRIVACY (we don't like the ghoulish tracking which has nothing to do with your site, only that your site supports such by allowing, nay, eagerly embraces, such intrusive activity for a few cents per thousand).

The commerce sites I operate do not use third party advertising. Product sales does the revenue stream.

The info sites I operate have their "captive" audience because what I have they want... and they are willing to donate to the care and upkeep of same, and to such extent of 15-17% above annual costs.

The few sites I manage for clients who really do not have a business plan have third party ads on them, done responsibly, and just... that is just barely! ... make back their expenses and night out at MacDonald's twice a month and two beers at the local bar on the way home.

Gone are the days of adverts paying a mortgage on a half mill house, though there are some who manage to do so (dang few, but some).

Successful websites, these days, do not rely on third party (ie, google) ads to generate revenue as a true income. Most times it barely covers operations. Unless you are a national/international brand, where you can do whatever the heck you like because even stupidity cannot take you down, then you're in the middle and bottom where the rest are... and that magic machine of 2002 which was google then, no longer works the same way.

The market is entirely too saturated with both advertisers and publishers (and most without a clue) and in the eternal chase for income the ordinary behavior has become absurd behavior and the public, your visitors, and those who service THEM have responded.

Partly because of the tracking (privacy)
Partly because of malverts (no explantion needed)
Partly because of the cacophony of capitalism run amok among clueless webmasters.

[creeking]

Then again I'm in the fortunate situation of having some of my sites mandated by certain school/college courses, so they're a captive audience.

Knew there was something fishy in the commentary. :)

You have a captive audience. :)

hahaha. really. my system works! oh, did I almost forget to mention that they are required to whitelist because they fail school if they don't? hahaha

[trebuchet]

Not apples and oranges. You have a captive audience. :)

hahaha. really. my system works! oh, did I almost forget to mention that they are required to whitelist because they fail school if they don't? hahaha

And you must have failed comprehension. I said "some of my sites". More specifically, on three sites of 17 that I operate. And they are suggested links on course material, not compulsory reading. They don't have to use it, it's on a collection of suggested resources.

On those three sites they're whitelisting at 75% and on the others at about 60% plus. So in my case your "adblockers will just hit the back button" theory is even less plausible than whoever it was here that said "Windows 10 adblocks by default".

[edited by: trebuchet at 2:01 pm (utc) on Aug 28, 2015]

[pageoneresults]

A big assumption on your part. I'm getting about 22% of visitors redirected to my turn-off-your-adblocker landing page, and about three quarters of those are complying.

I'm trying to understand the logic here. I get blocked if I had an Ad Blocker. If I turn it off, I get access. Okay, so I turn it off for your site, get what I want, then turn it back on. What did that do for you? I surely am not going to click any ads while my Ad Blocker is off so what is the purpose of blocking me to begin with? Those with Ad Blockers are not going to click your ads if you ask them to turn it off. It doesn't make sense. So I "see" your ads, big deal, now what? I sure as hell ain't clickin' on any of them. So what now?

[trebuchet]

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

[pageoneresults]

Do you really need me to school you on how CPM ads work?

Probably. I already noted in a previous reply that I'm a bit ADD. Although I do have a basic understanding of CPM - I think.

As an Advertiser, I don't want to pay for my ad showing to people that don't want to see it, what are you thinking? That's seems like you're ripping me off yes? If there is any theft going on here, it's the CPM Advertising model.