IAB Closely Monitoring The Effects of Ad Blockers

Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB)

[engine]

The recent hot topic here of "Ad Blocking Report - 22 billion in lost revenue" [webmasterworld.com] generated much discussion, not least the claims of the total lost revenue potential. That figure estimated is plucked from the air as nobody really knows the real figure. However, what we all know is that ad blocking is becoming more prevalent, and that has a number of implications. Advertisers will suffer because their ads are not seen by potential customers. Agents, Google and Bing will earn less revenue, therefore it may impact their ad-based offerings. Publishers will lose a revenue stream, and that may also impact their content. Smaller publishers in the AdSense arena may simply go out of business. For some publishers that's going to be painful, and for users we may lose an information resource.

When an organisation such as the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) starts monitoring the effect closely, you know ad blocking is becoming a major concern. Calls for lawsuits over ad blocking are way over the top, imho, but the discussion about loss of earnings, from wherever you sit, is going to continue for some time.

"We started taking a look at the remainder of 2015, and the ad-blocking conversation got ratcheted up based on what we were hearing from publishers and their data and the rise of [ad-blocking] incident rates they were seeing," said Scott Cunningham, a senior VP at the IAB and general manager of the trade organization's Technology Lab. IAB Closely Monitoring The Effects of Ad Blockers [adage.com]

Ad-Supported Products and Services: Has it Had its Day [webmasterworld.com].

What do you plan to do to overcome the threat to your income?

[edited by: engine at 1:37 pm (utc) on Sep 8, 2015]

[tangor]

For those who keep saying there's no bandwidth consideration.

Web page, with content and images served from the website:

35 to 100k

Ads displayed, via links in that 35k above (depending on kind):

50k up to 1,3mb

AS SEEN by the end user ... and over his paid for data link through his connection.

No rocket science is required to see that the end user has PAID for ad delivery which did not enhance that visit for the sought after web content.

As for blocking the adblockers, that is one solution: NO SALE and, as customers always do when the door is locked when they arrive during normal business hours, they go to a different store to get what they came after.

This is just ordinary capitalism at work, kiddies. There is nothing personal about any of it! To take personal insult that a more informed user visits your site is a waste of personal energy. If you are in this as a business, then respond to the customer demand. This works even in Progressive, Socialist, or Communistic business environments as well. It's human nature.

Most bang for the buck, that's the customer side.
Best product to get customers, that's the business side.

There are no guarantees, no set it and forget it income streams.

There are many ways to skin a cat. Go find one that works for your site that ALSO addresses the growing adblocker use.

Comments above about wifi and ad blocking are part of a growing number of concerns by airports, public spaces, cities, towns and hamlets offering "hot spots" and the cost of maintaining those... and be very clear on this, no byte moves across the internet via wire, cable, t1 or wireless that is not charged/costed along the way. Period. TANSTAAFL!

Adblockers are, increasingly, being seen as a method to control costs against runaway or abusive advertising. This problem has been coming since the inception of ads on the internet. For a while it was good for some. Now it is a nightmare for all, user, delivery service, even the ad networks themselves. All was self-inflicted and, yet, still a good thing in that it came about without government restrictions.

As we go forward let us hope the players in this game will find common cause to work things out PROPERLY for all concerned, else the government WILL get involved and that, my friends, is a completely different ball (gall) game!

[blend27]

..... AS SEEN by the end user ...

OR NOT! :)

[mcneely]

Is everyone throwing the word "ads" out there to include stripping affiliate links?

Adblockers will strip aff links just like any other adsense type of link if it's written in as such.

I've experienced it both ways ... Sometimes, depending on how the link is written, the adblocker will allow it .. i.e. soandsowidgets/aff-link43-user/ ... Static aff links seem to do much better than the (/fs-bin/click?aff-id=number.blah-blah-blah ) dynamic ones do.

But, to answer your question, yes... for the most part, ads are what they are. Tho' aff links can go either way depending on how they're written in ..

[tangor]

..... AS SEEN by the end user ...

OR NOT! :)

Chuckles, pocketing that saved 1.3mb for the next site discovery! :)

[ember]

WaPo is testing blocking users who block ads.


[adage.com ]/

[Leosghost]

Given the number of places on line that have really detailed coverage of the Homo Naledi ( some places , in English and other languages have been carrying the story for 24 hours longer than the WaPo ) apparently the WaPo doesn't get the idea of "unique" and it has been a while since they have consistently understood "quality"..

Paywalling news sites only works ( if it works at all ) if the news is exclusive and the reporting is of the highest quality..blocking adblockers ( and requesting that they "whitelist" to see the ads ) requires the same criteria..the WaPo may get a nasty ( for them ) surprise..which may well have knock on effect on their offline hard copy sales..

I said already I block ads on news sites whose hardcopy ( with non all singing all dancing ads ) I actually buy weekly..one title alone runs hardcopy cost of $50.oo per month..

If they block me because I have an adblocker, I wont be buying their hard copy offline issues.. I'm sure many others will feel the same way..

[tangor]

It's that action/reaction thingie from physics/science. Some websites will get a wakeup and the users do a walkout.

THOUGH, to be fair, some users will comply. Question is if that number will sufficient to ignore the ads fed to them (adblindness is a very real thing) to keep site revenue on the positive side, sufficient to support the operation and, in the case of news sites, their overhead in that regard (salaries, top level syndication feeds, etc.).

I suspect the entertainment sites will see an even worse fall out as dang few of those site visitors are loyal to anything more than self-gratification.

[blend27]

"Many people already receive our journalism for free online, and in the long run, without income via subscriptions or advertising, we won't be able to deliver the journalism that people coming to our site expect from us."

Married to a Journalist. Tried telling her that in order for her to be heard someone needs to monetize what she has to say. Did not pan out right. I am cooking for the next 4 days, part of the deal.

WaPo should ask what their Journalists have to say about it.

Simply put, I think people come to News sites to read News and not to see the Ads.

"Steve", the executive, does not need a new toy, tie, popular thingy. He used to sell used cars back in the fifties, and 50 others that "work" for him delivering the "news" to the world are just too scared to say something.

Oh, and then name one TV News personality that has not repeated the same "news" 5 times in a different words within 2 minutes of time. I am not talking about commercials here.

[toidi]

On a 20mg wifi i had to wait 15 seconds to read that 7 sentence article from adage about wapo. The page does not scroll until all 6 ads are loaded. The article was definitely not worth the wait or the frozen tablet that had me wonering if something was broken.

[mcneely]

The page does not scroll until all 6 ads are loaded.

And this doesn't happen by accident -- The guy selling the ads guarantees that the ads "will be seen" and the pages are scripted to that effect ... Google does the same thing on Youtube .. You can't navigate to your area, or to another page, until all of the ads load -- On a faster connection, it's not as noticeable though - But that's just how it's done.

[toidi]

And this doesn't happen by accident

WOW! I thought it was just the system but it really is a total disregard for the viewer. The IAB needs to start looking at publisher practices as hard as they are looking at adblockers. Customer abuse will ruin any business eventually.

[mcneely]

The IAB needs to start looking at publisher practices as hard as they are looking at adblockers

Publishers have been leading browsers around by the nose for years -- The end user isn't sure exactly how it all comes together, all they know is that they don't like it. Some guys will write whatever they're paid to write, and some won't -- I'm lucky that I have the luxury of being able to refuse a client request to write a page nefariously - After all, I too am an end user, and I too hate intrusive ads, and I too block those intrusive ads.

As far as blocking the adblockers? well - I'm afraid that the gig is up when it comes to the mess that ad agencies and publishers have created for themselves. The end user will most likely have the final say when it comes to what they want to see and what they don't.

Those who are buying in to the IAB line are blind to the fact that this is all pretty much a faux case put on by the very people that created this problem in the first place. Those who would care to partake in abusive ad practices are whining about the money, or in this case, the money they think they deserve, because they don't have the nads to step up and acknowledge that they are, in the end, totally responsible for the adblocker environment they've created for themselves.

Far be it from those who've made their bed but refuse to lay in it me thinks ...

[Bluejeans]

Those who would care to partake in abusive ad practices are whining about the money, or in this case, the money they think they deserve, because they don't have the nads to step up and acknowledge that they are, in the end, totally responsible for the adblocker environment they've created for themselves.

Except that the good guys are being punished along with the abusers. Not all of us have plastered our sites with intrusive ads. These AdBlocking companies did not have to structure it so the publisher must plead with the user to whitelist their site. They could have just allowed the user to blacklist offending sites which would have been much fairer.

[charvel]

Sites like bristol post .co .uk are a prime example of how the issue has escalated. The site is the go to place for local news and events so is relied upon heavily by the local population. It is plastered in ads including ones that take over the whole screen and make you wait for a counter to hit zero before you can close them. Have a look and see how bad it is. It's so bad that the site will crash your browser on occasions.

Many articles have people not commenting on the content of the article but complaining about the ads with others advising to use ad blockers.

Sites like this that people rely on for important information are taking the P155 and are driving droves of users towards ad blocking solutions as often it's not possible to read the content without blocking them. There is no consideration for their users and what makes it worse is that the site is part of a much larger media company that spews this crap out to all regions around the UK.

[trebuchet]

As I've said before, the worst online advertising practices seem to be the domain of newspapers and other publishers where editorial/content and advertising are managed by different departments and different people.

When you write and create content, the last thing you want is for your content be swamped by advertising. Or for your readers to be annoyed and distracted from engaging with your content.

When you work in advertising, the only thing you care about is your bottom line.

When you are responsible for both, you are usually more responsible.

Local and regional newspapers, even some major dailies, are dying. Those who have shied away from paywalls are filling their online space with ads. It's their last desperate attempt to stay afloat.

[charvel]

Couldn't agree more, and the irony of it all is that by disregarding the user experience, they are accelerating their demise! Unfortunately it has the knock-on effect of creating massive problems for everyone else.

[toidi]

Maybe, if the iab, acting as a trade association, developed guidlines for responsible online advertising, they could then develope a list of responsible publishers that the adblockers can include in their whitelisting.

[trebuchet]

It's a good idea, toidi. Unfortunately I suspect it's too late for a measured solution like that. Once you've given users the capability to block all ads, and told them it's OK to do so, asking them to backtrack and whitelist 'responsible advertisers' isn't going to be popular. Adblocking and its cheer squad have set in motion an anti-advertising culture, without much though about the consequences.

[EditorialGuy]

r. Adblocking and its cheer squad have set in motion an anti-advertising culture, without much though about the consequences.

It really isn't anything new: Opting out of junk mail, using TIVO to skip TV commercials, etc. have been around longer than Web ad blockers. But the direct-mail industry isn't dead yet, and TV commercials haven't disappeared.

[trebuchet]

I think adblocking takes it to another level though. TIVO was never really marketed as a device for avoiding ads, and doing so takes some effort on the user's behalf. Adblockers are set and forget.

[explorador]

mcneely: As far as blocking the adblockers? well - I'm afraid that the gig is up when it comes to the mess that ad agencies and publishers have created for themselves. The end user will most likely have the final say when it comes to what they want to see and what they don't.

Exactly. There are a lot of examples on this thread, it could go on like that but nothing is going to change, those sites are doing it, what about ours? some people use adblockers, some like me use for certain tasks: proxy browsers such as UC mini or Opera Mini (not all versions) because they pre process the content and won't display ads. The amount of bandwidth saved there is huge per month

I agree on several sites being punished by what others do (overloading their sites) but to the user: there is no connection, they just want to avoid the problem, period, and... if at the end a whole bunch of sites load faster, then it's a winner decision.

We could simplify things as: that channel to deliver info (ads) generating (sometimes) an income, is no longer viable, no longer stable, no longer open.

[pageboy]

Now it really begins. Ios9 goes live today, allowing for the first time ad blocker apps to be installed on iPhones and iPads.

[Leosghost]

iphone has around 14% of world smart phone market..ipad has around 30% of world tablet market..

U.S.A figures are higher..

[toidi]

Unfortunately I suspect it's too late for a measured solution like that. Once you've given users the capability to block all ads, and told them it's OK to do so, asking them to backtrack and whitelist 'responsible advertisers' isn't going to be popular. 

the whitelist would be added on the backend by the adblock developers, not the users.

There is power in numbers, if online publishers united, you might be surprised by what can be accomplished, and it is far from too late. Following the various threads on this subject, i see 3 basic reactions by the publishers. Give up, retaliate, or change advertising model. Nobody talks about cleaning up the industry problems that are causing this.

I pay to belong to 2 trade association, i don't like either one, but they watch my back and protect my business.

[trebuchet]

the whitelist would be added on the backend by the adblock developers, not the users.

That would be good, however to play devil's advocate, I think the genie is already out of the bottle. Adblock developers have convinced millions of people they don't have to look at the nasty ads, and that there is software that will help them achieve this. Even if the big developers like ABP backtracked and hardcoded a whitelist into their software, others would develop software based on the original model. Every development that pushes adblocking into the mainstream (e.g. the release of iOS9) makes this kind of compromise even less workable.

Give up, retaliate, or change advertising model. Nobody talks about cleaning up the industry problems that are causing this.

Just surmising but I expect that's because (a) the publishers posting here are responsible with their use of advertising, and (b) they lack the ability to do something about publishers who aren't. It's up to ad networks and crapmeister publishers to address their poor behaviour. And yes, I know that's about as likely as George W. Bush winning a Nobel Prize for literature.

There is power in numbers, if online publishers united, you might be surprised by what can be accomplished

Online publishers are too scattered and diverse to achieve the kind of unity required. Not to mention that Adsense publishers lack the clout of Google, Yahoo, Amazon, etc.

[Leosghost]

I would suggest a read of a recent article on el reg
[theregister.co.uk...]
and definitely read the hundreds of comments that accompany it..
That is the perception and in may cases the actual experience of many of online advertising to date, the "commentards" at el reg are the sort who install adblockers ( and actively promote the use of ad blockers to their friends and family ) few of them are website owners who use 3rd party advertising..

One could realistically say that theirs is indicative of the voice of the IT literate internet using public..

Hardly surprising that we are where we are today..

re organisations of online publishers..

A disclosure..Many years before the internet, while working in advertising across multiple media, I was one of those who had some "supposed" input into the ASA ( advertising standards authority )..it was ( and still is ) a "trade body" in the UK ..with codes of practice etc..I use the word "supposed" in quotes, because although I and others were often asked fro our opinions prior to ads going live, whatever objections we raised on ethical or truthful grounds were always overruled by " well lets run it anyway, by the time anyone objects, we'll have made the money, the client will have paid, and we'll only get ( actually give ourselves ) a slap on the wrist and be told don't run the same ad again"..That was the way the ASA ( the UK advertising trade body ) ran over 3 decades ago..nothing has changed since then..

The ad industry cannot be relied upon to be self policing or self regulating, no industry can be relied upon to be self policing or self regulating..

The fashion industry claims to agree that there was a problem with anorexic models being shown as the ideal..

So they said they would not use obviously anorexic models on photo shoots, magazines and runways..

But only last month there was again a major story in the industry that leaked out to the general press of a model who is in her early twenties, over 1 metre 80 tall and who is considered now too "heavy" at 47 kgs to get any work since she put on a couple of kilos..

Before anyone says , "but look at the super models, Cara Delavigne and Kate Moss etc , they are not stick thin and they get work"..that is at the height of their careers..they can be the size they are because they have "made it" ..when they began ( just like the girls beginning today ) they were told you must lose weight or there is no work..

The industry says one thing..and does another..

The online ad industry is just the same..it could have been responsible towards the users, instead it just thought of the money..

Note I do not say "the advertisers"...they want ads that convert and do not alienate their potential customers, but the "ad agencies" ( especially the ones who work online, ( and 99.9% of "publishers" ) are only interested in impressions and views and revenue from pushing ads..the product that is in the ads, and the end viewer are the least of their concerns..

Adblockers are going to be better for the people who make the things that are in the ads ( maybe not for "belly fat et al" ) and the end users..and for "publishers" who have original , unique , quality content that can adapt..

Those who don't have original unique quality content, ( yes it needs all 3 of those ) and or cannot adapt..are not owed a living..

[trebuchet]

and 99.9% of "publishers" are only interested in impressions and views and revenue from pushing ads

Wrong.

[Leosghost]

Had I said 100% I would have been wrong ( I'm also a "publisher" ;) ..but one only has to look around the web ( and not only at ones' own site, and ones own revenue, placements etc ) to know that 99.9% is probably a conservative figure..

Those in the .1% if they were not only interested in pushing ads and their ad revenue, would still run their sites, without ads..I'm one of those .1%..

my congratulations upon your reading speed, I read fast, but I could not have read the el reg thread with all the comments in the time between my posting the link to it, and your reply :)

[trebuchet]

You're still wrong.

Not only that, you're insulting those of us who publish because we have things to share, not because we're in it for the money. Then again, that's been the hallmark of pro-adblock arguments here: denigration of all content and content creators because of greedy publishers, scrapers and clickbaiters.

Been publishing on the web since the early 1990s. I do it to share knowledge and information with people. Advertising revenue just allows me more time to produce more content. I am not "owed a living" - but at least I create and share. I'm probably "owed a living" more than jokers who make adblocking software then ask for Google cash to open some of the gates.

[explorador]

and 99.9% of "publishers" are only interested in impressions and views and revenue from pushing ads

It gets tricky, worked for the largest newspaper and media company of my country, huge, and they killed their own products filling it with garbage making the sites (no kidding) as big as 5MB each one. The impact of this company and their sites sure means something to millions of visitors ending hating the ads.

Now, publishers? can't say I disagree but in this case we are talking 1 company affecting millions. The owners are ignorant (really) and many owners are just the sons of the originals (not involved now), the market dept is filled with idiots and they are just trying to make the most out of it even if they kill the sites. Doesn't matter because they as publishers don't care about potential damage as us, publishers who also are owners and browse the web (we are also clients).

When I left the company they were changing people like crazy failing to see their mistake, they still do, they are in a terrible situation. But sure they affected millions of users tired of ads.

I still look at the thread and my suggestion is changing our view from "the advertising world" as a river we can't change, to what is in our hands that we can do something about it. Sure the advertising world sounds terrible now but I don't have to follow every single rule of them, I'm not them, I'm not part of them. I also agree many sites (mine) will continue without advertising. One site of mine has been passing the marks of one of the media company... (that I created for them) and I'm just a one man band but with a very different mindset.