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]

[trebuchet]

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.

Quite correct, @explorador. As I've said, newspapers are going down the toilet. Not only are their print editions dying, their online editions have to compete like they've never had to before. Ad sections overcompensate for falling sales by overloading their pages, which will only hasten their decline. Good journalism also suffers because editorial staff get laid off and content is syndicated or regurgitated. It will be interesting to see what impact Apple's news service has on the industry, if any.

Worth mentioning though that newspapers are only one kind of publisher, and their problems predate the issue of ad coverage and adblocking.

[Leosghost]

Not insulting anyone who publishes because they have "things to share"..sharing does not normally imply financial compensation..
but sites that only exist because of adsense, and whose owners apparently would shutter their sites if adsense ceased to exist or adblockers blocked it on their sites are IMO pure MFA..

MFA is not an acronym for "crappy ad ridden sites" that would be CARS..
MFA is sites whose existence depends on adsense alone..and can encompass those which use other 3rd party ad networks..

Over the years I've been here I've been asked to look at a great many adsense ( or 3rd party ads sites )..I think with the exception of those of Husky pup ( there may be one or two others..ah yes ..there are, explorador's sites, and netmeg's so there may again be a few that I've forgotten ,apologies to those whom I've not mentioned :) ) they have all been solely about the ads , how to serve them, where to get the content from ( frequently scraping ) where to get the images from ( frequently with the copyright owned by someone else )..How to place the ads to maximise the clicks, not because of interest in the ads, but so as to get the maximum revenue..I remember one poster in particular, ( whose site I happened to have visited the week before, who ran a javascript insect crawling up and down next to the adsense ) being extremely vocal about how his site was quality, unlike all the others that tried to trick people into clicking on ads..

His site was obviously aimed at kids and their parents..in the U.S.A ( nice paying "niche" , not like asbestos lawyers used to be, but good CPC ) ..he was doing great..until G slapped down hard on "enticing "accidental" clicks"..boy ..did he get vocal about how G were penalising everyone for the sins of the few etc..

You may be "clean".." your ad placements may be "discreet and non obtrusive "* ..I don't know your site..

But if you have been on the web since the early 90s, you'd know that one never takes anyone at their word on the web when they are saying how great their site is..every parent thinks that their child is cute..

I'm surprised that you are not looking forward to "a pause", during which you can easily live off your accumulated earnings since the early 90s, a pause during which all the MFAs and scrapers wither and die , so that your quality unique site can be one of those left standing when all is done..

Or launching new, non 3rd party ad supported sites, so that they will create the income that you need to live and to be able to continue to share..

The adblocker storm is coming, seems to me that it would make more sense to be building shelter, rather than running around belatedly saying how it is some people's fault..when it isn't.. because they have already made their shelters, because they could see the storm was coming for years now..

* you also, like all of us, have no real idea ( since the advent of "personalised ads" ) what kind of ads are being served on your sites, and to whom..adsense "control panel blocking" notwithstanding..

You could have exactly the kinds of ads that you would not wish, and which adblockers are a reaction to, running on your sites for most of your visitors..

Personalised ads..means you'd not be able to know..

Edited so as to give credit where due..my memory is distracted with other things whilst posting..

[edited by: Leosghost at 4:59 pm (utc) on Sep 17, 2015]

[netmeg]

One thing to consider as well - some of this ad blocker stuff may not be aimed at publishers at all. For example, I just got the new iOS 9 update on my iPhone with the ad blocker built in, and personally, I'm of the opinion that's more of an eff you from Apple to Google than having anything to do with us specifically.

[explorador]

After a second look at my post (indirect reflexive thoughts) take the chance for this: newspaper, that company was HUGE, I said "ignorant owners" because they ignore things and surrender everything to middle depts making decisions. I called "idiots" the marketing dept because they accepted impossible goals and sacrifice June for the sake of May goals, the guy get's fired and they hire another one to last 6 months, and I mean idiots because they are killing the company and the hundreds or thousands making a decent work, but paying the price because someone murdered the ad sales and the content. I was there in so many meetings.

For anyone picking the thread around here and looking as if it went off topic, it's not, I'll tie trebuchet comment on the newspaper regurgitating content and failing to compete to the whole thread, where hundreds of companies alike produce sites with millions of visits who became a nightmare, leaving a bitter taste on advertisers and specially visitors. Their last strategy for now is to hide the content and place a huge ad all over forcing you to click on it. How many will put an adblocker because of this?

Exactly leosghost, just posted about MFA recently here. One thing is suffering losses because of adblockers and people not clicking on ads, but another is because the sites are just made for adsense lacking content, pictures (specially pictures because it became a must nowadays and they don't have it, so they steal it).

I don't know about other countries but in my region I see the newspapers failing because they approach the advertising the wrong way (really), I see the advertising market suffering (this is what the thread is about) but this is coming at least in my region: people not trusting websites because from now, many sites will try to sell ads based on lies on non existent traffic, a mini .com bubble, then legit bit sites with decent traffic will have it harder because the market doesn't trust the direct advertising plans, this unless they move faster than the scrappers.

[trebuchet]

I'm surprised that you are not looking forward to "a pause", during which you can easily live off your accumulated earnings since the early 90s, a pause during which all the MFAs and scrapers wither and die , so that your quality unique site can be one of those left standing when all is done..

I have always published online but it's only in the last couple of years that I've stopped working full time to focus on publishing. I could live off savings or return to work at short notice, so I'm not reliant on publishing income. I just like publishing and sharing information for the benefit of others. Sleeping in and not sitting in traffic every morning are ancillary benefits for me :).

The money is not the issue for me, never really has been. Every clickbaiter, every scraper, every Wikipedia mirror, every gossip blogger can go broke and starve, for all I care. I'm more concerned about how adblocking will change the sources, shape and availability of free quality content. I don't think a web filled with paywalls is going to please anyone (except Paypal and Stripe). And I don't think direct advertising is the magic potion either. It will take time, money and expertise to implement. It's not saleable for all kinds of site. And it's by no means safe against future developments in adblocking (as I've said, once you convince users they're entitled to use the web ad-free, that's what they'll expect).

Yes, adblocking will kill the thieves and parasites who rip off our content. But it will also throw a lot of babies out with the bathwater. That's been my position from post one.

[Leosghost]

From a current, parallel thread here..

[webmasterworld.com...]
message #4768022
Posted by trebuchet..

I'm the same as @EditorialGuy. Adsense works for me but as to why it works, I'm only half informed. Theoretically it shouldn't work on my sites, most of which contain 'dry' information, some visual, most of it text. My users aren't buyers, they're readers, researchers, students or people looking to fix something.

I will say though that I too have experienced the slump that follows major site changes. Going responsive, design updates, navigation overhauls, etc. have always caused short term earnings drops (usually 1-2 weeks). As to why this is I can only speculate. Blocking networks and rubbish ads has never achieved much for me so I don't waste time trying it now..

^^^My bold..

Seriously..you can't be bothered now to try to block the crap ads from showing for your visitors..because doing so doesn't improve your earnings..and yet you are surprised that someone invented adblockers and that others ( including some of your visitors ), are using them, to do what you don't want to waste your time doing..

[trebuchet]

And my original reason for trying to block rubbish ads was more about improving user experience than increasing revenue. Mainly because I was sick of seeing belly fat and download button ads and didn't want my visitors to see them either. In the end I gave up because it's like trying to swat flies with a rake. Those ads are a curse, I am quite happy to admit.

[edited by: engine at 6:40 pm (utc) on Sep 25, 2015]
[edit reason] tidied up [/edit]

[Leosghost]

I read what is actually written ,( and comprehend it perfectly ) not what people would like to pretend that they said, wrote, or meant..

I have never said I'm "surprised that someone invented adblockers".

I didn't say that you did say that..so why put the phrase in quotation marks ?
Do you understand the concept of "straw man" arguments..?

No-one is overwrought and hyperbolically defensive about adblockers..but some are definitely panicking about their introduction, despite apparently being part of the the problem, as confirmed by their own posts in parallel threads.. ( sites with low quality, bandwidth eating, crappy ads, unfiltered by the site owner, who doesn't want to waste their time filtering ads ) that the adblockers were in large part invented, and are used by visitors, to counteract..

[trebuchet]

Regarding the quality of ads served through Adsense, I have said above and elsewhere many times that Adsense does serve a fair quota of junk. That's a downside of the program and something I've never liked. I've tried killing junk ads but it's a never ending job.

Having said that, many years in publishing have taught me that sometimes publishers have to tolerate ads that are tacky, ugly or sell/promote things they don't like. If you think for a second that if we all flipped over to direct ad sales that every site of any quality would only be running ads for Tiffany, Peugeot, Apple or fur coats, you're barking mad. Advertising has never worked that way. It's always had its low end.

As I've said a dozen or more times, you can moan and lecture about third party ad serving, ad quality, etc. until your head falls off, but at the end of the day your opinion about what will happen next (and mine for that matter) means nothing. The market will rule. The users will decide what sites they visit, what ads they will tolerate, whether they run adblock and whether they whitelist sites to access their content. Smart publishers will watch, learn and respond.

Users are picking up on adblocking, as they are entitled to do and as they have some cause to do. But let's just wait and see what happens when there's some pushback. When publishers start blocking content, or ad networks find new and even more aggressive ways to get around adblocking and get in your face.

[edited by: engine at 6:41 pm (utc) on Sep 25, 2015]
[edit reason] tidied up [/edit]

[Leosghost]

You do seem to think that "publishing" means with ads.. ( you might want to look up a definition of the word "publishing")..it doesn't..

As I've said a dozen or more times, you can moan and lecture about third party ad serving, ad quality, etc. until your head falls off, but at the end of the day your opinion means nothing. The market will rule. The users will decide what sites they visit, what ads they will tolerate, whether they run adblock and whether they whitelist sites to access their content. Smart publishers will watch, learn and respond.

I'm neither moaning, nor lecturing, and I have already watched, seen, this has been coming for years, I have responded , adapted, opened new businesses, and have no worries ( as I have said many times ) if adsense and other 3rd party ads disappear..

You however are moaning about adblockers, those who use them, their existence, those who promote them..

The users will indeed decide..you seem particularly worried about those user decisions affecting your sites..

I and others have made many posts in which we have suggested ways in which quality sites can survive the advent of adblockers..you keep saying how these ways cannot be used successfully on your sites, or have not worked in the past on your sites..

Your problem..

I don't have any problem with adblockers, or with what the users decide..

I've been in advertising ( multi million dollar accounts for international agencies and companies right down to little mom and pop type businesses ) since the early 1970s..please do not attempt to try to teach me to suck eggs..

[tangor]

IAB's concern is significant. Webmasters everywhere of any kind, who rely on advertising of any sort, would be wise to open eyes and see what is happening. It has been happening since at least 2007 (and for some file types, much earlier!).

The process is here to stay. It will continue to grow.... and very quickly! as new reports of malverts are surfacing every day. This is not just about "ads" it is about the channel, the exposure to malware via unmonitored or poorly monitored ad serving networks, not just Google, and the very real costs to end users in that regard. This aspect alone is as sure to capture the users of the web as did virus protection, firewalls and others in the past. It will become common practice.

"publishers" who rely entirely on ad servicing will likely suffer the most as that revenue stream is likely to be killed off in the name of security and user protection. The only way around that is certified and regularly monitored ad servicing ... which will drive up the costs and increase the difficulties of playing the game.

It is clear in this thread there are those who oppose, those who accept, and those who "get it", who will also be the ones who will fare better in the coming months and years from a revenue point of view. The opposers will lose. The accepters lose even as they "win", and those who get it will cater to both.

For those who publish to share information because it makes their heart feel good, and are champions of "free stuff" on the web, well, that's a noble and altruistic ideal.

However, those who champion free stuff, TANSTAAFL --- and you so note in saying that the ads allow you to do that. Well, that is no longer altruistic, is it? If the ads are required to keep the free stuff on the web, then, in the age of ad blocking, you will have to find alternative revenue streams. Some have been mentioned: Donations, Direct Ads, Affiliates, Sales (products) and some others not so obvious, such as Google Contributor (which is a way toward making the web like cable television and your site as working for "the company").

And we do understand exactly what you mean, and how you mean it. Truly. We do. And we'll move on.

[edited by: engine at 6:41 pm (utc) on Sep 25, 2015]
[edit reason] tidied up [/edit]

[MrSavage]

There is a saying about you can't learn anything new when you know it all. A lot of opinions are based on grudges and it's up to a reader to figure who has credibility and who doesn't. Which leads me to ask, what does netmeg think about all this?

[trebuchet]

"publishers" who rely entirely on ad servicing will likely suffer the most as that revenue stream is likely to be killed off in the name of security and user protection.

Interesting that you say 'likely'. I'd say 'possibly', for reasons already outlined. And as I've said before, I don't think Joe P. Web-User is blocking ads to avoid tracking or malware. He's doing it because his friends are (peer pressure), it makes his browsing slightly faster and smoother (speed) and he doesn't have to look at ads (convenience). Nobody can stop him making those choices. All I suggest is that there will be a trade off somewhere.

The only way around that is certified and regularly monitored ad servicing ... which will drive up the costs and increase the difficulties of playing the game.

Very true. Full time publishing may become inaccessible to the small publisher. Like most things that will have its pros and cons.

However, those who champion free stuff, TANSTAAFL

Indeed not. As those who may find their favourite sites paywalled and premium optioned shut over the coming years will learn.

[charvel]

So, regarding this matter, it sounds like the world is going to change quite significantly over the coming months/years and I think we have established some of the root causes of how/why so many people are being driven to block ads. In the interest of keeping this thread productive (it seems to be getting quite heated in here!), some suggestions on alternatives and methods to avoid this would be really interesting to hear/discuss.

[tangor]

There is nothing free in life, not even the first breath out of the womb or the last shovel of dirt on a grave. Everything has a cost.

User pay for their access to the internet, not thee advertisers. Puboishers pay for their hosts, not the users. Everything is interconnected, everything depends on all the other parts.

When one part is abused (publishers and adverts against users) there should be no surprise that users will take notice. Ad in the CROOKS who take advantage of both and the mix becomes true poison.

I do admire many of your thoughts, Know that.

Nothing is free, MOST ESPECIALLY ADS. These cost the users, the providers (ISPs) the internet backbone.... every packet sent has a cost attached, if nothing else, it is the electricity and power involved, much less the infrastructure, etc.

webmaster have their site, which they can operate in any fashion they choose. Some will turn away adblockers and, over the long run, die, some will accept adblockers and still die with attrition over the months and years coming, and others will take proactive measures to seek other revenue streams.

That is what this thread has been about from the get go. Again, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

I ONCE AGAIN say you do have a number of good ideas (though no apparent income reveals) for the adblocker question, and for that, it has been fun.

[edited by: engine at 6:42 pm (utc) on Sep 25, 2015]
[edit reason] tidied up [/edit]

[trebuchet]

Hi charvel,

To recap, the solutions suggested so far (on this thread and others) include:

Denying access to adblockers and asking them to whitelist
PPV or subscription paywalls
Free and premium site structures
Donation begging
Direct ad sales
Affiliate sales
Server side ad delivery
Sponsored articles
Advertorials and other forms of ad/content merging
Google Contributor or similar schemes
Corporate sponsorship
Product sales

[trebuchet]

There is nothing free in life, not even the first breath out of the womb or the last shovel of dirt on a grave. Everything has a cost.

This is very true. The problem is not that I disagree, the problem is that you and your cohort seem to believe the costs to users greatly outweigh the costs to content creators (as distinct from publishers). If a user accesses original content with an adblocker then they ARE having a free lunch, while the content creator is left to starve. But the onus is on publishers to adapt and innovate, I happily accept that. Users will do as they choose, publishers must respond and stay ahead of the game. That's a given.

I'm neither a fan nor a defender of the advertising industry, far from it. But I am a defender of the people who produce and share content (not the parasites who scrape, pilfer and regurgitate it).

Some will turn away adblockers and, over the long run, die, some will accept adblockers and still die with attrition over the months and years coming, and others will take proactive measures to seek other revenue streams.

That statement contains several assumptions and predictions. This will be a long game, I suspect, and predicting the outcome now is a mug's game. We don't know what's around the corner, how many users will take up adblocking, how publishers will respond, what big players like Google will do, how users will react if their access to free content is curtailed, what tactics the advertising industry will adopt to make sure they can still assault our eyeballs. So many unknowns and variables to be making big calls now.

Having vented, I ONCE AGAIN say you do have a number of good ideas (though no apparent income reveals) for the adblocker question

To be honest I'm still giving it a lot of thought and testing the water. The situation is so uncertain I think it's risky to rush into anything. But I do think 2016 will be a pivotal year for many people, me included.

[edited by: engine at 6:42 pm (utc) on Sep 25, 2015]
[edit reason] tidied up [/edit]

[tangor]

To be honest I'm still giving it a lot of thought and testing the water. The situation is so uncertain I think it's risky to rush into anything.

Which is pretty much what all have been suggesting. Now we're talking the same language. :)

Adblockers exist. Will get larger.
Webmasters must react (either adjust or fail)

Sums it up.

As for content creators, they will do that anyway (they don't do it for advertising purposes, they are creators). That's a strawman argument.

[edited by: engine at 6:42 pm (utc) on Sep 25, 2015]
[edit reason] tidied up [/edit]

[trebuchet]

Adblockers exist. Will get larger.

True. But the unanswered question is "how much larger"? And will adblocking peak, fall and trough if/when users find they can't access content? (@Leosghost has posted a BBC link in another thread mentioning this, so it's not just me suggesting it.)

As for content creators, they will do that anyway (they don't do it for advertising purposes, they are creators). That's a strawman argument.

Professional content creators and experts don't do for "advertising" but they do expect payment. If their content can't be monetised they won't be paid, so they won't create new content. Or they'll go and work for big firms who can pay them, which of course has implications for independence, diversity, accountability and transparency. Don't think there's too much straw involved there, though it is transgressing from the main issue.

[netmeg]

I have a bunch of sites. More than 40, fewer than 100. Currently I'm thinking over every site (or at least every group of sites) and asking myself "Can this one survive outside of the ad revenue model?" I suspect by this time 2016, I will either have fewer sites, or a different mix.

This is probably a worthwhile exercise for everyone. Ads aren't going to disappear overnight, or even in 2016, I don't think. But it never hurts to do some what-if models and start thinking about it.

My main moneymakers - I'm not planning on going completely ad-free, but I'm pretty sure I can start transitioning them to other business models. Some of the others - not so much. (There's only two of us and so many hours in a day)

[charvel]

Beginning to think Apple's update with adblocker included is an attempt to push more publishers towards apps and away from web (and google).

[EditorialGuy]

For what it's worth, I'm just not seeing any obvious impact from adblockers. (Informational site, catering to a broad international readership.)

Does anyone here know of any studies that break down adblocker use by sector and/or audience demographics?

[RedBar]

BBC article today:

Does ad blocking herald the end of the free internet?

[bbc.co.uk...]

[EditorialGuy]

No, ad blocking doesn't herald the end of the free Internet.

It could mean a continuing decline in the quality of news and entertainment sites, though, as they lard up their pages even more with "sponsored content" and other low-quality junk..

And, of course, it could mean an ongoing battle, both technological and legal, between the big ad networks and the people who make ad blockers.

Side note: Some of the most annoying ads are "house ads," in my experience. Just the other day, I went to the Web site of a major cruise line, and I had to close three windows before I could get to the underlying home page: (1) An invitation to subscribe to the cruise line's newsletter, (2) a window with special offers, and (3) a chat window that invited me to chat with a representative. It seems that every pissant blog these days has a "subscribe to my newsletter" pop-up. Silly me--I thought choosing "block pop-ups" in my browser settings might actually block pop-ups.

[explorador]

EditorialGuy, I've seen the same behavior 1, 2, 3. This whole thing really confuses me because from the user perspective and also from the webmaster and sometimes seller: content (quality) goes first. And what this guys are doing is hiding it after 3 steps, first begging then offers and then trying to force talking with someone.

I discussed such matters at the newspaper I worked for, also with clients trying to sell their stuff and it seems difficult to get to them on why that's wrong, at the end is just my opinion. The funny thing is I've been getting a lot of daily mails on some of my sites where I don't sell anything, so I've been exploring that area (is not my thing). Not trying to hijack the thread, but what I think one of the main problems and possible solutions is better posted on the other one about strategies. It's about ad serving.

[EditorialGuy]

EditorialGuy, I've seen the same behavior 1, 2, 3. This whole thing really confuses me because from the user perspective and also from the webmaster and sometimes seller: content (quality) goes first. And what this guys are doing is hiding it after 3 steps, first begging then offers and then trying to force talking with someone

I'd love to see Google Search take this kind of thing into account as a ranking factor. Already, Google has the "Page Layout Algorithm" that's supposed to ding publishers who put too many ads above the fold, but ads above the fold aren't nearly as annoying as pop-up windows (whether for house ads or third-party ads).

Of course, there are times when the page with the three pop-up windows is the best (or at least the most expected) result. If John Doe searches for "Widget Cruises," he expects to be taken to the Widget Cruises Web site. But what if John is searching for "SS Widget II" or "Widget cruises in the Mediterranean"? For such a search, there's no reason why a widgetcruises dot com page with three pop-ups has to be at the top of the results.

[RedBar]

BBC article today:

Does ad blocking herald the end of the free internet?

This was the BBC's headline, not mine just in case anyone thought it may be:-)

[blend27]

I'd love to see Google Search take this kind of thing into account as a ranking factor.

They been doing it for a while now...

1 You get Ranked!
2. You Get Tanked :(
3. You start paying Adwords and slowly drift to page 6.....

Happens to everyone's site eventually... That is their biz model unfortunately :(

[netmeg]

I still would like to know how to determine if ad blocking really is an issue. I *know* mobile is an issue. I haven't been able to ferret out an ad blocker footprint from my log files.

[Leosghost]

Looking for evidence of an adblocker is fairly simple..create a div that would correspond to one that is known to be blocked by adblockers, check to see if it is "displayed"..count the number of times that it is..then look at your actual page view numbers corresponding to that time period..calculate your % of pages served to adblockers ( and thus ads not seen ) from there..

Could break it down further and look for user agents , and match them up so as to get the percentages by user agent..

Might be useful to know if you already know that you get higher apple device use on your site (s ) , compared to android users etc, than would be "average"..do the same for desktop traffic..