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]

[explorador]

keyplyr: if it was about my post, take a look at "the other thread" where some made an effort to ignore the solutions and suggestions in multiple posts and only focused on a few words, hand picked. If it wasn't about my post, it still applies as valid. We all should focus on what's useful, and not just hand picking what we don't like, it's not only a bad practice, but also a bad manner, some people post very good advice for free and I've seen how many still just try to find the negative there (don't consider me on the quality posts btw, not saying this about me)

Valid concepts from the past: (sorry don't have enough battery to find the posts and quote them, I'm just leaving a public coffee shop after a long thing...). Been remembering something, a concept. I think... it was incredibill, martinibuster and tangor who in diff occasions (it wasn't just one of them) talking about advertising, giving advice to be careful and not to pretend to build sites just for ads (this is different from MFA), yes bold needed based on what happened on the other thread, because "a click on an ad meant a click away from the site". Those posts are kinda old, but the concept is pretty solid to this day.

What they mean is not only what tangor has been saying about diversifying income, (it's all over WebmasterWorld) it's about turning sites into one thing only while weakening the traffic, I remember some members (few) even talked about having ads just on some sections to keep those clicks inside.

[trebuchet]

@worker, I think you can see now what I meant by "scaremongering". There are people here trying to baffle us with BS about the negative ramifications of denying access to adblock users.

My view on this issue, as it is with most things, is to take time and work out the best strategy for you and your site. Take good advice; don't rely on the false authority proclaimed by forum blowhards. Seek expertise from people whose credentials are proven, not claimed. The guy I use for development is a former colleague who is also ex-Google. He assures me that as things stand, there are no known SEO ramifications for redirecting adblockers and the 'cloaking' issue is not relevant. A month or so in and no downslide in SERPs noticed, in fact some of my sites have improved slightly.

Again, I don't see this as a long term solution and it's not one I'm completely happy with (I don't like denying access to anyone, even freeloaders). It wasn't done in anger or for retribution. I simply wanted users to know that my content is produced by knowledgeable, hard working people and that it has value. Hopefully in the future I can settle on an alternative form of monetisation that accommodates everyone.

[MrSavage]

Supporting the concept or idea of adblockers and being an Adsense publisher are mutually exclusive. If they are not mutually exclusive to you, then it's called trolling. I suppose the "Adsense" forum doesn't mandate trying to make money from it, or ways to do better, but isn't the forum about helping make more money from adsense or at least communicating issues that are reducing earnings? I guess people can post wherever they feel the want too, but at a certain point it becomes counter productive to the overall goal of a community. I call it trolling, but that's me. If anyone can claim the two concepts are NOT mutually exclusive, I say, enough said. People can't see it for what it is, so just accept that these conversations are going to derail. Constantly.

[netmeg]

If they are not mutually exclusive to you, then it's called trolling.

They are not mutually exclusive to me, and I am not a troll. Next?

[MrSavage]

If every person used an adblocker (best or worst case scenario based on your perspective), then being an Adsense publisher today is a viable way to make money? Just so that I'm clear. An Adsense publisher, condoning adblockers is not counter productive? I admit, logically I'm a bit confused.

[netmeg]

I am not "just" an AdSense publisher, and I condone ad blockers because I absolutely understand why they have become necessary. I don't believe anyone's content (including my own) is so important that the users will be convinced to roll back the rapidly growing trend (AdBlockPlus was featured/recommended on Good Morning America along with Ghostery this week), I don't think Google's stab at it with Contributor will work at all, and I think we're headed for a big disruption on how web content is funded. Not this year, and maybe not next, but 100% ad revenue is not what I consider to be a sustainable business model.

If I can't wedge my websites into that alternative business model, then I am going to have to wedge myself into different kinds of sites / opportunities. No two ways about it.

That's my plan.

[engine]

Mod note - I cleaned up a bunch of off topic comments to help keep this thread on topic.

Thanks

[MrSavage]

I don't hold a lot of hope in alternative business models. It took an incredible amount of time to make web advertising viable did it not? The whole thing crashed in the past, but has climbed back. I don't think it's realistic at all to think there is going to magically be an alternative to monetizing a website that works for more than a handful of people/webmasters out there. If it's all about privacy, cookies and in-your-face advertising, then it's more than advertising. An affiliate link isn't advertising. But it does require some sort of tracking. If this is a "movement" to banish all these monetization methods for the sake of privacy, then it's going to get real ugly. When there is no money to be made, no matter what industry or what "thing", it dies. Making money from a website is a fad? I have very little faith in there being some magic formula that's going to put money in my pockets which replaces what has been built in terms of ad revenue and affiliate income.

I'm actually quite discouraged more from the webmaster community on this. Some things I just never thought I'd hear. Monetizing a website that doesn't include advertising or affiliate programs? I would rather go fish for the next 10 years than wait for that day to come.

I did come across a site today which censored the article unless I clicked on the Google survey question. That was I think #2 search result. Back button, onto the next link. Maybe the survey and content censorship will become a thing. Imagine that.

[trebuchet]

I call it trolling, but that's me. If anyone can claim the two concepts are NOT mutually exclusive, I say, enough said. People can't see it for what it is, so just accept that these conversations are going to derail.

I don't think anyone here is trolling. We all come here with good intentions and we all have our own knowledge, skills and experiences. The problem may be that we're discussing the future and the future is unknown. Nobody knows how far adblocking will proliferate, whether most/all users will pick it up, how publishers will respond, etc etc. I must admit I do get a little tetchy when people assure me that 'x' will happen or that 'x will lead to y'. The reality is they're guessing as much as anyone else. Nobody posting here has a crystal ball. Even the links posted in these threads comment on how uncertain the post-adblocking future is.

Making money from a website is a fad? I have very little faith in there being some magic formula that's going to put money in my pockets which replaces what has been built in terms of ad revenue and affiliate income.

I'm not quite as 'doom and gloom' as that. I think there will always be ways to monetise online content. Some methods will take more time, effort and expertise than others. The days of anyone simply acquiring free webspace, uploading any old content, pasting in ad code and making are motza are over - and that's not a bad thing. The downside is that monetising with advertising may become more difficult and more specialised. That may lead to a different set of problems.

Most posters here seem to suggest that direct advertising is the solution. Many will go down this path - but it's not going to suitable for every publisher. No doubt there'll be a proliferation of intermediaries. Perhaps we'll see the rise of ad brokers who negotiate ad space on member sites (while taking their cut, of course). Then again, maybe adblocking will evolve and allow users to block direct ads too. Again, too many uncertainties.

[creeking]

there will be a battle between the adblock software companies and the adblock detector companies.

[MrSavage]

If there was a better way, it would have been implemented by, I dunno. Google perhaps? If there was a better way to make money than advertising, then there would be somebody competing with Google on that front. There isn't. If there was a better way, we would be reading about it. We would see posts about it. I think it's impossible to convince me that there is a better revenue generation model other than ads. Newspapers, TV, etc, etc. Ads. Ads. Ads. We have the benefit of affiliate programs, but the only way that works is if there is a tracking mechanism. Isn't that cookies and isn't that the anti (you know what) at this point? Sure, Google can make a go at it without advertising. What!? If they couldn't, then how could I? I'm sure it's possible to invent some magical way to make money from content that doesn't include advertising. Like tell a newspaper that you have a clever way of them making worthwhile revenue again that doesn't include ads. Free papers out there rely on one thing. Ads. If everyone is enabled to block out our Adsense ads, I'm sure, so sure that all those brilliant non ad revenue generators will suddenly kick in. Google must be keeping these a secret also. When there is free, nobody will pay. Subscription? I think a lot of newspapers tried that didn't they? Even if they hand out their papers for free, a lot of them went out of business and continue to go out of business. When Google's YouTube tries subscription? Guess what. They die. A different video site will pop up and that will be free, but aha, it will need to have ads or something of the sort. Everything starts innocently enough. That alternative may even start off ad free and subscription free. It's the internet. A click of a button (back) doesn't cost anything and free is always there somewhere.

[ken_b]

There is a significant difference between advertising (ads) and the delivery system for those ads.

Sure how those ads end up on a website and what happens after a visitor views or clicks on an ad might change, nothing new with things changing. Changing to survive and thrive is pretty much the nature of business.

Advertising isn't going away anytime soon, it's what makes the business world work.

If publishers can't keep up with those changes or can't adapt to them, that's unfortunate, but not being able to keep up or adapt has been the downfall of businesses more or less since time began. For those businesses it might well be time to look for some other form of making a living.

Over my AdSense years I've turned down most direct ad requests because they were so much more work than AdSense, and maybe I've burned those particular bridges, but I have a large file crammed full of other possible ad clients to pursue if needed. I've also got a phone and snail mail postage money, so there's hope :)

I started out with no online audience at all, zero, zip, nada. I primed the pump with some content directly related to, and complementary of, the audience I wanted to attract and then spent a very small amount of actual cash for printing and snail mail postage. I also attended relevant events and talked up the site a bit.

.

[IanCP]

On my local FM station a few days ago there some discussion about AdBlockers between the presenters, and people calling in. I found it very illuminating. It was in response to an article in a Sydney newspaper.

By far most callers were:

a) Younger people 25 40 age group judging by voices. Teenagers wouldn't listen to the 1970-90's music.
b) Mobile/tablet users.
c) None opposed the concept of advertising. All recognised that advertising pays for newspapers, radio, TV, and web sites.
d) Most understood how the internet works.

However -
1. all were absolutely feral over the increasing number of ads
2. the increased load times
3. the affect on their precious bandwidth costs [tracking codes etc. came in for a severe whacking here]
4. AND differentiating between misleading ads and real site content.

Listening in, I really couldn't disagree with them. Advertisers, and some publishers are cutting their own throats. No reasonable person could disagree with their objections, a market agreeable to advertising BUT not having it rammed down their throats, at their cost, with a myriad of tracking data being collected.

In the end I concluded it was an eminent seminar for AdBlockers - brought on as a self defence mechanism against greedy advertisers/publishers.

Advertisers who are alarmed, should first ask themselves what role they play in all this. These listeners were never against the concept of ads - they were virulently against intrusion, data collection and misrepresentation. Who can blame them?

They may not necessarily have been a representative sample, but I suspect their sentiments are widely held. It will only grow.

[MrSavage]

I think there is a misguided aspect to this discussion. We're talking "ad blockers" That means ads. Server side, this side, that side, Adsense, direct ads. Aren't these all the same? The movement, or so people are condoning, is ad attack. Ad blocker doesn't mean, let's only block the bad ones or the ones draining bandwidth. So when people want to talk solutions, if those solutions involve ads, I don't get your point. As in you're going to somehow circumvent the ad free mentality? Comical to me. Make ads that don't look like ads or are outside of the ads looking/behaving circle? Technology can learn and whatever you think you can do to avert ad free mentality, I call it a fultile x 2 battle.

I still think it's asinine to even discuss bandwidth issues and how adblockers are the savior to saving money. All you need to do is think about the past. What was a big file? What was consider a big hard drive? 2GB? What was lot of RAM? What was a fast processor? Etc, etc, etc. Bandwidth usage is/will be no different. An ad or a few ads on a page? That, in short order, will be like me worrying about a jpeg file fitting onto my 2TB hard drive. To think what you have now or pay now is in anyway relevant in the near future? It says you don't understand technology. If anything, Google will try to make sure bandwidth is free so you can watch more video content. If you believe that your mobile data speed is stuck at this speed for the next 5 years? What was LTE? What is 3G? In this case, it's not all relative. The ads aren't going to suddenly blow up your data or your speed on your mobile device. There hasn't been a need to change adsense ads for how many years?

[trebuchet]

@IanCP's summation of why adblockers have exploded is spot on. However I don't think people who phone into talkback radio are necessarily representative of the population. People who take the time to call in are obviously interested and informed enough about the topic. The average joe who uses tech isn't much concerned about how it all works. So long as their device functions (ie, turns on, connects to wifi or a cell network and downloads whatever content they like) then they're happy.

I'd suggest the average user doesn't know where ads are served from and probably doesn't care. They install adblockers not for technical reasons but because (a) someone has suggested they it (b) it makes pages load faster and cleaner, and (c) if given an easy one-click option to ignore/block ads, a lot of people will. These people don't like ads because they interfere or distract from their consumption of content. They either don't know that content is funded by advertising or they don't care.

[tangor]

Adblockers on mobile may be a blessing in disguise as (noted by industry) approximately 50% of all ad clicks on mobile are accidental.

Mobile folks might gravitate to adblockers because any savings in data consumption will be to their benefit. Not everyone has "unlimited" ... and over the years we have learned that unlimited really does have limits.

[keyplyr]

The mobile trend has been going toward unlimited and everyone I know in my area has an unlimited bandwidth data plan. I never hear mention about limited data plans any more. I think this will be the future for everyone soon.

[trebuchet]

Yep. Definitely more advantages for adblocking on mobile, because of the implications for bandwidth, load times, screen coverage, 'fat fingers', processing power of low to mid range devices, etc.

Another interesting piece here says that "these are training camp days for an industry response to adblocking".

[rapidnewsnetwork.com...]

[IanCP]

@ trebuchet

However I don't think people who phone into talkback radio are necessarily representative of the population. People who take the time to call in are obviously interested and informed enough about the topic

Yes, as I said previously:

"They may not necessarily have been a representative sample, but I suspect their sentiments are widely held. It will only grow."

Your point about them being technically savvy merely indicates they have a wide audience who will certainly listen to them, and then if that advice works? It is most certainly heeded...

It then becomes viral. A classic example of everyone with a stake in the outcome - "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

1. Advertisers need to pare back the rubbish associated with their ads.
2. Google needs to clamp right down on misleading ads.
3. Publishers need to limit not only the number of ads beings shown, but for God's sake cut back on the bumpff emanating from their sites - directly, or indirectly. Right this minute, in Firefox where I use NoScript to avoid the bumpff rubbish, on one news site alone it has blocked:

Scripts Partially Allowed, 20/24 (google.com.au, twitter.com, jquery.com, smh.com.au, googleleadservices.com, google-analytics.com, twimg.com, outbrain.com, tynt.com, chartbeat.com, imrworldwide.com, fairfax.com.au, jwpcdn.com, newrelic.com, demdex.net, optimizely.com, nr-data.net, kampyle.com, adobedtm.com, visualrevenue.com <SCRIPT>: 89...

Good grief, who willingly wants to download all that junk? That doesn't include Facebook and the rest of the Yadda.

[trebuchet]

I suspect their sentiments are widely held. It will only grow.

Yes it will grow, but at what rate? As I said, I don't think the great unwashed are too tech savvy, nor are they much interested in becoming so. As far as any development like adblocking goes, they're only interested in what it does, whether it benefits them and whether they have to expend any effort/brainpower making it work. If there's an obvious benefit and an easy, one-click installation, they'll certainly join the club.

I think the same principles apply to scripts. Good luck convincing the average user that a website firing 24 scripts is a bad thing and that they should install Noscript or Ghostery. Particularly when disabling scripts blocks things like media players or games or social sharing, which they've then got to reactivate. Most users are only interested in the shop front, not what goes on in the stock room or the production line.

[MrSavage]

In a perfect world there is no advertising. That's why these blockers exist. They don't exist for most of the rational points made here. As if 98% of those adblocker users ask themselves, "self, how can I speed up page loads, save oodles of money on my dataplan (LOL)". All they care about is having white space rather than ads. By the same token, TV is better when it's ad free. Saves about 20 minutes of view time for a 1 hour show. YouTube is better without mandatory 15 second ads. Everything, across the board is better without ads. That's what everyone wants. Clearly. Heck even those with ad dependent businesses are wanting and condoning it too. It's an ad blocking party! It doesn't have to make sense. It's a trend. It's trendy apparently. When you have Adsense publishers condoning adblockers, then you really know it's trendy and cool. Trendy outweighs logic sometimes. Perhaps in this situation? Sure, we can invent a monetization method that deals with the ad free mob mentality.

What costs more bandwith? Who's done a "cost analysis" for YouTube's mandatory 15 second or 5 second video ad vs. the ads running on a webpage using Adsense?

I personally don't see the intentional ad blocker user as lost revenue. The ones that really matter are the ones who install and app or browser and they have ad blocking on by default. Not a sought after feature, but one that was gift wrapped and that they have no clue about. Other than it's great because everything is just so squeaky clean. Race cars with no logos! The inadvertent ad blocker user are the real loss as I see it. People who want a free lunch will find it. I'm not worried about them.

[tangor]

When MSM (tv, radio, print) picks up on "adblocking" (and they have) it is a sure sign that user penetration is happening. Any reporting after that will only spur it further.

At some point it might even rise to the level of a browser or OS rising to the occasion by blocking by default. It has happened in the past.

[MrSavage]

I hope I'm still alive to see how this all plays out. Nobody wanted to advertise much in newspapers and I don't see that industry doing too hot these days. Fund those online newspaper sites with ads? LOL. Subscription? Free is just a click away. I really wonder how the internet will fare when advertising falls by the wayside. Oh right. This current form of advertising I mean. There is some other magical form of advertising that will work online that will be endorsed by adblockers. We are just transitioning into a new form of advertising online that has yet to make headlines anywhere. No question, this has to be the biggest threat out there. Forget Google and organic traffic. That's nothing. When people can strip your site and view it as they see fit, there isn't a workaround for that. It's hard to compete with the back button. I'm not saying that I'm doomed. I'm just saying that it appears I'm f'd. Not today or tomorrow, but as it goes right now, things are trending in the "you're f'd" camp. Residual value, that's what I'm considering now and which sites are going to have any possible value down the road. If I wanted to sell you my newspaper or magazine business, would there be any takers? I'm almost looking at my sites this way now.

[tangor]

Yikes! Don't give up! :)

It is not as bad as all that, but the times are a'changin' (Bob Dylan). He survived, so can we (those who do ads). The delivery might change (and should), but the business model remains sound (advertisers looking for publishers to splash their ads, and probably that third party ad servicing warehouse to facilitate that, too.)

What needs to change, immediately, is how ads are presented to the end user (who are paying for the traffic, regardless of "unlimited, etc.". They do pay the freight. Can't get around that, and not all broadband is the same. And that requires some restraint or commonsense on the publisher's part. Aafter all, they are the focal point the USER sees! They, who are generally blameless, other than giving up control to let a THIRD PARTY take over part of their website, will be, and are!, blamed for all the tracking, jittery ads, etc. And the malverts, too. We live in weirdly wonderful times.

Secondary is tracking. The EU, in particular, is looking into this "ad stuff" with a very narrow eye... and the USA has a bunch of folks who just like to be left alone (privacy once again). And don't get started in some of the other countries that just don't like the idea at all!

The current business model will morph to meet these end user needs... or dang it! ... a government will get involved and no one will be happy with the results.

MEANWHILE, look at other "stuff to do". Many examples offered, some others not mentioned are out there as well. If ad income is the reason to be on the web, then one should find all those other opportunities. To do nothing is, of course, to fail.

Then again, personal comment, if a site only exists to serve ads and has no other value, then bye-bye with no regrets on my part. We have too much of that out there already.

[netmeg]

Yes but when you have a show like Good Morning America advising people to go install AdBlockPlus or Ghostery, with only a vague description of what it actually does, but using fear tactics (ads can be be infected with viruses and malware, and by the way you're being spied upon) and someone who seems like they know what they're talking about - I bet there was a pretty big bump in installs by the non-tech-savvy after that segment aired.

[MrSavage]

The music industry didn't exactly recover from the advent of mp3. The newspaper industry didn't exactly adapt to the digital era. In a sense I'm starting to view my websites as a music company or a newspaper. Investing big in either of those industries at this point? I'm openly questioning my investments (time) on most every site that I'm running or considering. Let's say I'm skeptical of alternate business models. Could happen. Might happen. Making a bit of money for the next 5 years is fine but if the monetization continues to dwindle then it's simply a less worthwhile investment. This isn't including the fact that rankings and organic traffic are dwindling at the same time. I'm not complaining. Or am I? Fact is the past couple months I've made more money that I have in the past couple of years. However I'm realistic at the same time.

Media covers trends. When something is trendy, the media needs to get in on the action. My adsense earnings, aside from poor ad quality, is dwindling because of it becoming trendy. People will believe whatever. If fear mongering continues, then ad blockers become mainstream installations. Thus the target audience for my ads is dwindling in a big way. One comforting aspect to this is if it starts hurting Google's business, then something would happen.

In a sense, I'm being perceived as a virus because of the ads on my site. I could certainly see the adblocker developers wanting to push the "malware" agenda. However, when you have a magical white list out of the box or can put ad companies on their knees, only positives can come about. The legality argument hasn't come up yet. If I run Google ads on my site, and that adblocker has whitelisted the mothership, I'm not sure the argument or defense they would have as to why I'm blacklisted out of the box. At this point, it just doesn't matter.

[trebuchet]

I bet there was a pretty big bump in installs by the non-tech-savvy after that segment aired.

No doubt. I wonder how the non-tech savvy will react when Ghostery starts interfering with site functionality and blocking scripts they don't understand. Or when their favourite website starts nagging or denying access because they've got ABP installed. That'll be the real test.

[ember]

People will install ad blockers until their favorite websites start to disappear because their revenue stream dried up.

[MrSavage]

I think websites disappearing is a long way off. This revenue/monetization can dwindle, and dwindle and dwindle before anything really drastic happens. I'm pretty sure this is how life works. If there is money to be made at something, people start doing it or supplying it. When there is less money, the variety, quality and quantity evaporates. So newspapers depend on advertising. So if we all turn to online news, who is going to rent a building, hire reports and staff, all for a new news website. Brand new, not established. Heck, how about the established newspapers? How in the hell have they been able to convert online revenue to come close to offline? Hint: they haven't and they are closing down. Online means squat to them and their infastructure. The online cannot support what they have in terms of the product they supply! If they asked you to invest in that business, who would go for it? Of course that question of monetization comes into play. If they said to you, oh, we will come up with some alternative ad delivery system that isn't going to be blocked or circumvented, a) would you believe them b) would you then invest in that type of business? If you start blocking out ads in mass, then I sure would like to know what online entity can maintain anything worthwhile. Cookies, those should be next to go, which means affiliate incomes should also be disappearing. Removing/sparsing out affiliate ID's or links may just be the next gen ad blocker. Selling point: "Now comes with affiliate link remover!" Nice marketing slogan right there. They can sell the public on the idea of no cookies while they are at it.

[Leosghost]

Joe Public has no idea what an affiliate is..

But..if you told them what an affiliate was..explained it to them, and then told them that they could get stuff cheaper without the seller paying affiliate commission..they would take that deal in a heartbeat..

Direct Adserving does work, done properly it cannot be blocked without blocking all text and all images on the website that serves ads directly..

If they said to you, oh, we will come up with some alternative ad delivery system that isn't going to be blocked or circumvented, a) would you believe them b) would you then invest in that type of business?

Because some webmasters do not know how to do some things, they do not believe those things can be done..that does not mean that they cannot be done..
Nor does it mean that other webmasters, who can do it, and already do it, should ( or will ) explain how it works, how it is done..again..

Don't need investors..nor want them..very many webmasters know how to do it..as do very many big ad networks..

Very big ad networks who already do work with some webmasters, to serve ads directly..

Google could serve ads this way..maybe they will ..but webmasters that want to use such methods, will have to learn how to code..or pay coders..copy and paste is not sufficient to make it work..

What would be left ?
Webmasters who can code, or who learned how to, or paid coders to do it for them..

And ecom sites..that do not need , do not use affiliates..

I have ecom sites as well as adsense serving sites, and direct ad sites..my ecom sites , do not use affiliates..

Ecom sites use session cookies ( they are not blocked )..and if you put something into the shopping cart..they use "cart cookies"..which buyers do not block, if they did they could not buy..ad blockers don't block them either :)

If my adsense sites show major blocking, I'll move them to direct ads serving, like the others ..or make them ad less, and keep them online anyway..people like them..