Ad blockers are unlikely to kill the Internet.

[EditorialGuy]

The Register has an interesting piece by Tim Worstall titled "Dry those eyes, ad blockers are unlikely to kill the Internet."

The author's thesis is intriguing: According to him, those who use ad blockers are communicating the fact that ads are wasted on them, thereby solving the old dilemma of "I know that half of my advertising budget is wasted, I just don't know which half."

[theregister.co.uk...]

[Leosghost]

Indeed..was reading this earlier..Tim's articles are very often thought provoking..and as always on el reg, the real insights are to be found in the comments..

[lucy24]

That's why I make the TV analogy. If advertisers-- collectively-- had chosen to do so, they would have found a way to prevent manufacturers from including the Mute* function on every remote control ever. They didn't need to, because they know they're not losing anything.


* There exist people who leave the TV unmuted during advertising. I would not have believed this, except that I've got one in my own family.

[ember]

Makes sense.

[tangor]

Almost posted this, but I'd already been too active, besides the Shades of Morpheus was calling.

The commentary is spot on: ad expend that is not wasted on a non-interested viewer as they have removed themselves from the mix.

As for advertising on TV, as an older person I rely on those for an entirely different reason. I am now afflicted with TWB*, for which there is no cure. Were it not for tv commercials I would be in great pain, perhaps even suffer.

^{*Teeny Weenie Bladder disease}

[LifeinAsia]

I thought TV commercials were for fast forwarding. Wait, you mean people still watch live TV? I had to do that at a hotel a few years ago. So painful...

[MrSavage]

Apples and oranges. TV commercials block content, Adsense doesn't. Regarding the articles, not much to say there. Not worth an analysis really but the author assumes that it's a choice people are making. That's faulty logic. Pre installed ad blockers anyone? Default settings? The technology is coming to people, not the other way around.

[robzilla]

Seems rather simple-minded to me. You don't know if you'll respond to an ad until you see it, and assuming all ad blocker users would never otherwise click on or look at ads is ridiculous. In part because I think a significant portion of the people using ad blockers will not actually be the ones to have installed them in the first place -- I've seen this a lot. But also because not all ads are alike; it really is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. More importantly, everyone responds to advertising one way or another, and it's definitely not always the same group of people not responding to any and all advertising. Not in this universe, anyway.

[Leosghost]

That's faulty logic. Pre installed ad blockers anyone?

There are no "pre-installed adblockers"<= name a browser that has an adblocker "pre-installed"..or an OS that has an ad blocker "pre-installed" ?

That's right there are none, right now....and we , and the author of the article are talking about now..
Not what you "imagine" is happening right now..In the future there may be flying cars, and tame unicorns( I could "imagine" them.. but I personally wouldn't jump all over every thread saying that anyone who doesn't think that they both exist now..Is wrong......
So it is a choice that people are making..right now..
Thus..
It is your logic that is faulty..

[robzilla]

There are no pre-installed adblockers..So it is a choice that people are making..
Thus..
It is your logic that is faulty..

There are, in a way, for people sharing a computer (at home, in internet cafés, etc). Also, pre-installed ad blockers may not be common today, but it's not unseen either: some Linux distributions and browsers (Iceweasel, allegedly), for example, come with AdBlock Plus enabled. They're there, and I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing ad blockers bundled into other software in the near future -- e.g. anti-virus and 'internet protection' applications.

It's definitely not a choice for everyone. I doubt anyone minds having one, whether or not they installed it themselves, but the assumption that they would never otherwise click or be influenced by an ad is certainly faulty. Unfortunately, they're a set and forget type of thing.

[Leosghost]

The default browser install on Debian Gnome..was epiphany..which was deemed insecure..
Ice weasel was substituted ( along with a default inclusion of adblock by the security team, ads can , ( and have ) serve malware that attacks debian )..anyone is able to choose another browser and to make it the default in debian..anyone installing debian can obviously be presumed to have the knowledge to install another browser..
[wiki.debian.org...]
[wiki.debian.org...]

When one installs Debian, one reads about what it contains first..and makes an informed choice..one cannot just get a computer with it pre-installed from PC world..or the local big box computer sales ..

Adblockers may very well begin being bundled..but that was not what the author was talking about..to use what "might happen" is to use straw men

In part because I think a significant portion of the people using ad blockers will not actually be the ones to have installed them in the first place -- I've seen this a lot

Beware of "the adblocker installer fairies"..they sneak up and install things in the night when the computer owner isn't looking..

People sharing a computer..someone owns it..it is up to them what it's config is..not the other users..they want to allow all scripts ( and deal with the inevitable "infections" ) ..they can buy their own boxes..

Btw..Debian as some of us know, is a "sub set" of linux..linux total share is less than 2%
Debian gnome..is about 10 % of linux installs..so the number of Ice-weasel users is certainly not going to affect anyone's adsense earnings..even if every debian gnome user used only ice-weasel..
[en.wikipedia.org...]

[robzilla]

People sharing a computer..someone owns it..it is up to them what it's config is..not the other users..they want to allow all scripts ( and deal with the inevitable "infections" ) ..they can buy their own boxes..

Most users don't know anything about "scripts", but this is wholly beside the point anyway. If four people share a home computer and one of them (or a helpful uncle or whatever) installs an ad blocker, they all begin to use it. This isn't unusual either, I just saw it in a small business today where one of the owner's daughters had installed a blocker onto all (4) office computers. The article naively suggests anyone using an ad blocker would never otherwise click on an ad, and I think that's unlikely to be true even for the people who have installed the ad blocker themselves, let alone those who haven't. An ad blocker removes the possibility of any ad to influence anyone using that computer. So I'm a skeptic: I don't necessarily think they'll "kill the Internet", but they may very well change it and publishers have good reason to be worried -- the article doesn't make any valid arguments toward reducing that fear.

[Leosghost]

I install linux mint ( using it to type this ) when someone asks me to make their "computer" secure*..Leave their original win "whatever"..put mint in "dual boot"..and then ask if they want adblockers or not..as I have some sites on which I run ads..I don't "insist"..I don't charge for virus removals or other software repairs, or installs..linux is free, but I could charge for my time..but don't..

My "customers" are friends, neighbours ,and the old people that my wife looks after ( many in their own homes ) as part of her job..Many have had win boxen bought for them by their children so as to be able to "keep in touch" with families, grandchildren etc who live elsewhere..If they get infected via ads ( I have seen 8 cases this year, our village has 2000 inhabitants..I "look after" around 50 boxen here )..They cannot afford to pay the €150.oo per annum plus €80.00 "call out" with an additional €50.oo per hour ( each hour is "indivisible", 15 minutes is charged as 1 hour ) that is the "rate" here for computer techs on home visit..

Whatever any of us here think or feel about the rise of adblockers is moot..they are a fact...they are not going to go away..

They have been around for along time..until recently only us "techies" used them ..their rise is not down to "techies" evangelising..it is down to the increasing use by ad networks of the all singing all dancing data heavy ads..and that they have not bothered policing their ads for malware..the 3rd party networks have made the rod for the backs of the sites that depend on ad revenue..

If Google consider the adwords on their SERPs "responsible"..all they have to do to help adsense publishers, is to serve the same "responsible" ads to adsense publishers..Back in the days when adsense did not serve all singing all dancing, stalking ads..most of us using adsense made far more money..

The current situation is not the fault of the users, it is the fault of the 3rd party networks, adsense included, and of some greedy publishers, and some networks, and sites that allow malware, or even distribute it deliberately via scripts in ads..

Some of us have been speaking about the terrible quality of some ads and some networks, and warning that unless networks and publishers cleaned up their acts that there would be a "backlash" from users..Most site owners were too busy "counting the money", watching the adsense stats hourly or daily, watching the PiP threads, and thinking that the gravy train and the webmaster welfare would never end unless they got banned..

Now it may well be too late..and some are still not listening and saying that it is all the adblocker users fault..or imagining the world is something that it is not..

Google isn't going to save anyone, they have already cut a deal with the adblocker companies..and as posted in another thread, Google is really now far more interested by admob, adsense is not something that really concerns Google with the rise of mobile..

*yes , nothing is 100% secure, even if airgapped..but I balance "security" with usability, and need to run software, 99% of users do not need to run software on windows ..( I am one of the 1% who does have some that only run on win boxen, they are airgapped ) mint is easy for those used to windows, especially windows before win 8..

[lucy24]

TV commercials block content, Adsense doesn't.

That's backward. TV commercials determine content. A program is structured around commercial breaks; it's written in segments of so-and-so-many minutes. Blocked www ads may or may not leave visible empty space, depending both on how the specific ad blocker behaves, and how the ad-bearing site is coded.

[Leosghost]

An awful lot of websites are structured around the ads(ense)..Or only came into being because of the ads(ense )..Those are the ones that the web can well do without..
Hopefully the rise of adblockers will kill them..There will always be collateral damage..always is..the world goes on, the web will go on..different, maybe, but the web will not die..

[lucy24]

"Oi! I've been to this site before and there used to be interesting and informative ads all over the place. Where'd they go? Bring them back!"
... said no computer user, ever.

But that wasn't my point, anyway. My point was that permitting a certain proportion of the public to avoid viewing advertisements did not kill one industry and there's no earthly reason to think it will kill another one.

:: memo to self: find out whether public terminals* at local library have adblockers, as there is no doubt an established policy on this ::


* The ones that use MSIE. The terminals reserved for staff use Firefox.

[MrSavage]

A few point made above are barely worth responding to, but I will. In a sense the forum is becoming a quasi business practices/conspiracy/political/opinions platform, but whatever.

Dolphin browser. Go float your boat and check number of downloads and ratings. I know you will find something contrarian to say because when you know it all, you know it all. The adbocker isn't a marketing angle? It's not a selling point? I will admit that on the app info page, they don't have adblocker in blinking neon lights or anything like that.

Commercials on TV like ads like Adsense? If you can put those into the same basket then I guess there isn't much to say. I can't see the content when the TV ad is running. You can read my website content when I'm displaying Adsense on the same page. The banner ads on YouTube aren't even the same as commercials on TV. I think maybe I give people too much credit, not sure.

To the point of ad blockers killing off the internet, I dunno. Remove all ads from regular TV broadcasts and see what happens. Right. We're already seeing ad laid into the actual TV shows in a similar fashion to what Google is doing on YouTube. Will those pay the bills just like the online version of newspapers? Newspapers and magazines are drying up why? I guess when people don't see the ads, there isn't money in the game. No money equal death in industries.

Right. I'm wrong. Contrarian please speak up! It's your turn.

[MrSavage]

Self reply. I stand corrected on Dolphin having adblocker preinstalled. An add-on, but sold as being part of the browser. How is an add-on listed as a feature? Fodder for know it all, that much I know.

[trebuchet]

I'm over debating the reasons, causes and ethics of adblocking. I'm tired of hearing and responding to the same people here chanting the same ideas, some of them valid, some of them overblown. So I'm not participating at that level.

I think the claim made by the article (that those who install adblockers wouldn't look at ads anyway) is pretty feeble. If adblocking is installed at network or router level, ads won't reach those who might view them. The same applies to shared PCs, company laptops and devices that people use for personal browsing, etc. The other factor is that a lot of people are installing adblockers without being fully informed about the reasons and consequences for doing so. I'm sure there are iOS users who have installed adblock browsers because they've appeared in the top 100 on iTunes.

Of course adblockers won't "kill the internet". But the internet will certainly change. The only question is how.

[tangor]

Of course adblockers won't "kill the internet". But the internet will certainly change. The only question is how.

Some of us already know how it will change, and have been addressing that for years, certainly since 2007. Some aspects of how and why sites need to change have been shared. It is up to others to try it out and see if that works (and it does).

As noted, the continual wail from publishers and the replies by blockers is getting a bit tedious, yet, there's no doubt that something is happening on both sides of the question.

There are ways to deal with this, not easy, not for the faint of heart, and certainly not plug and play for the lazy.

What will die if adblocking becomes more commonplace are the MFA sites. That will be no great loss to anyone. Most of those sites have been a thorn in the side of everyone, including the ad servicing companies!

[trebuchet]

Some of us already know how it will change

With the greatest respect, I'd suggest that you "think you know" rather than "know". Not to say that you're wrong, just that you might not be right.

I think a major upheaval, like adblocking, brings all kinds of consequences, intended and unintended. It's not just a technical shift but also a commercial and cultural one also. Which is why I'm sceptical when coders say they have all the answers to adblocking. That presumes they can predict what users and advertisers will do down the track.

[tangor]

With the greatest respect, I'd suggest that you "think you know" rather than "know". Not to say that you're wrong, just that you might not be right.

But I do. I haven't used ad servicing companies in years (though I still have three sites that use adsense... mostly throwaway but at least paying their keep, so far, but no money in the bank).

I built my own "ad company" 10 years back, mentioned here and other places. At $2m a year in transactions it is ready to grow but I (health reasons) will not be able to do that, so selling to a VC conglomerate. So I do know it can be done, and done well and is not affected by adblockers because it is not done lazy or without cost by advertiser and publisher (each has to pony up). Not a shred of JS or third party is involved...and these are TARGETED ADS, sought and developed by a team of three and me.

Anyone with a lick of sense, desire, and determination can do the same. But it is not plug and play lazy. Both sides have to play and pay (advertisers and publishers).

It is Madison Avenue.

[Leosghost]

Amazing how the htaccess or php forums never get people who don't know how to "code" either of those file types, posting in them saying how they are "sceptical" that some things in htaccess or php can be done by coders , or outright denying it can be done..

"Breaking news!" :)..coders are already doing this,( and have been doing for a long time ) because they saw the adblockers ( adblockers have been in use for over 5 years now ) rise coming..
If I have a site about trees, and I ( not a 3rd party ) place an image in the header of a tree..Adblockers won't block it ( as long as I avoid using sizes that are known to be ads sizes )..I can add "ad text" to it, with a link to the advertiser..

It doesn't and will not get blocked..because to block it, adblockers would have to block all images from all sites,( including the public's "must haves" like facebook, pinterest etc ) and if that happened no one would use them..

I can even rotate the images in the header..tree, ad, rock, ad, house, rock, tree, ad etc..

All done server side..by coders..can do the same wit text..and track all of this on the server so as to know who gets paid and when..all done by code..which we know how to do..and the sceptics and the deniers don't know how to do..

It's not knowing it all..it is knowing what we are talking about..unlike the sceptics and the deniers..

We also know that whatever the adblockers doing the future, we know how to get our images and our text, whether they be ads or content, seen by users , even those running adblockers..

Listening to non coders talking about what coders can and cannot do what will and speculating about what will not work in the future is like listening to children discussing driving cars..

Learn to code, or pay for coders to do it for you..

But stop keep saying that what you don't know how to do, cannot be done..or might not work in the future..

It isn't true..

It isn't going to solve your , nor anyone else's problems with adblockers..

Learn to code your way out of the problem, or pay someone to do it for you..

At the bottom of every page in WebmasterWorld there is a link to where you can hire coders..members from here who can do what you don't think can be done..I don't advertise there, I don't take clients, not for SEO , coding, anything..too busy..and above all can't be bothered with being told what can and can't be done , or what might and might not work, by those who cannot do it..

If the sceptics and deniers are really lucky, maybe someone will code a free wordpress ( wordpress is "server side" ) plugin to get around adblockers..one or more may already exist..I wouldn't know..I don't use wordpress..

McNeely or maybe it was Iamlost posted elsewhere that Google could always release an API, then adsense could be served from everyone's own domains, via calls from the domain to the adservers..

Many 3rd party ad companies already have such APIs..MS and yahoo do..will Google write one? ..I doubt it, for the same reasons given in that thread, Google do not want to have to control the quality of the sites that run their ads, ( they do not truly control quality of sites in adsense ) nor provide the tech support for "integration"..

Rugby is on..:)

[trebuchet]

So I do know it can be done, and done well and is not affected by adblockers because it is not done lazy or without cost by advertiser and publisher (each has to pony up).

Yes, no doubt. As mentioned though I'm thinking what will work in the long term, years down the line, rather than what will work now or next year. I have a couple of direct ads on my site and there's no doubt they are safe from adblockers now and in the short term. The problem for me is that no tech (including my own) has yet assured me that hard coded direct ads are 100% future proof (mind you, what is?)

It genuinely worries me that unleashing adblockers has legitimised an anti-ad culture that could undermine and possibly threaten even direct ads. The media coverage of adblockers has not made any differentiation between third party and direct ads. How will adblock users react when ads start appearing on the sites they browse. Will they just stomach it? Or will adblocking tools become more aggressive, e.g. scanning for external links, common image sizes, or give users the ability to flag ads or ad slots on a site. I also worry that if both advertiser and publisher are unscrupulous enough, some of the excesses of third party ads might just shift to server side ads

I'm not interested in the subsequent post, which misrepresents my views and contains too much arrogance and condescension to be bothered with.

[Leosghost]

The problem for me is that no tech (including my own) has yet assured me that hard coded direct ads are 100% future proof

They are..change your "tech", for one who knows what they are doing and talking about..scroll down, to "hire a programmer"..
[webmasterworld.com...]
There are plenty to choose, from with years of posting history here, on tech subjects..and many other subjects, not "single issue" posters recently joined..

One of them is even an admin here, who re-wrote the site that you are posting on..and despite the fact that I surf here at WebmasterWorld using adblock( at iBill's suggestion ) I still see the image at the top right..with the link, currently it says donate..it is served directly..

[bird]

First rule of business if you want to make money off your site in the long run: Don't annoy your visitors.

The problem for me is that no tech (including my own) has yet assured me that hard coded direct ads are 100% future proof (mind you, what is?)

There's an interplay of technical and social mechanisms in effect there. Of course it is technically possible to block any element on any web page. But the people who write rules for ad blockers will only do so if it's actually worth the effort. If you annoy a sufficient number of visitors badly enough, then even your direct ads will eventually get blocked. Otherwise they should be reasonably safe.

It genuinely worries me that unleashing adblockers has legitimised an anti-ad culture that could undermine and possibly threaten even direct ads.

It is not adblockers that have "legitimised an anti-ad culture". Annoyingly obtrusive ads have done that.

[trebuchet]

Of course it is technically possible to block any element on any web page. But the people who write rules for ad blockers will only do so if it's actually worth the effort.

Or, alternatively, if there is sufficient demand and/or financial incentive. And given that adblocking is fast becoming an industry of its own, I have my doubts that it will stop evolving once a critical mass of third party ads are blocked.

It is not adblockers that have "legitimised an anti-ad culture". Annoyingly obtrusive ads have done that.

Oh they've certainly caused it but it's adblockers who have legitimised it. The adblock lobby has told users that ads are nasty and should be blocked. They haven't really said which ads - just "ads". A lot of users have become accustomed to seeing no ads (the ABP forum is full of posters complaining that they "can see ads on xyz.com"). I wonder how they'll respond when we tell them "oh not all ads are bad... you just have to look at these direct ads now".

[edited by: trebuchet at 6:21 pm (utc) on Oct 18, 2015]

[Leosghost]

Of course it is technically possible to block any element on any web page. But the people who write rules for ad blockers will only do so if it's actually worth the effort. If you annoy a sufficient number of visitors badly enough, then even your direct ads will eventually get blocked. Otherwise they should be reasonably safe.

Agreed, one can block anything, but ( and I certainly don't think it is a good idea to do this ) if the site owner keeps changing the sizes and other characteristics of image ads ( such as which folder they are served from etc ) of directly served ads, the adblockers would have no alternative but to block all images from all sites..( never going to happen, because as I said above they'd be blocking 99.99999% of the web..and the adblocker users would not want sites with no images, or they' d have to whitelist images from certain sites and block all the rest, including all the sites that users would want to see, so adblocker makers wouldn't do this* ) or block only images from a particular site..and as each site began to use the same techniques, the "block list" would become immensely long..

Vast areas of the web would be "blocked"..

No adblocker coder would do so, because to do so would mean that no-one would ever install their adblocker..

It would be worse than the old days of AOL..so no adblocker coder is ever going to do it..

The same would apply to "blocking" text..obviously if you block all text..or all images, the web ceases to exist..

So any one who serves their ads directly and abuses their "ease of access to the browser", will see no visitors at all..

Those who do not abuse direct serving of ads, will have no worries..

The only people who appear to be worried about the rise of adblockers are those who are using exclusively 3rd party networks, and who either do not know how to code so as to serve ads directly, or do not want to pay coders to write the code that would allow them to do so..or think ( maybe even know ) that their sites are not good quality enough, not interesting enough, to live by revenues from direct advertisers..

They haven't really said which ads - just "ads"

Untrue..they have said responsible ads are OK and do not / will not get blocked..Truth in posts aids discussion... <snip>

[edited by: martinibuster at 12:32 am (utc) on Oct 19, 2015]
[edit reason] Removed off-topic speculation of member motivations. [/edit]

[trebuchet]

Untrue..they have said responsible ads are OK and do not / will not get blocked

Those with contextual awareness will know I was referring to third party vs. direct ads, of which there has been little or no differentiation in mainstream media coverage of adblocking.

Truth in posts aids discussion

So does comprehension.

[tangor]

This is an evolving situation for webmasters (publishers, ie, third party reliance on ads such as adsense). Those who do not run ads have no problems. Those who run direct ads do no have immediate problems. Those who run direct ads and do it responsibly, and are targeted for their SITE and their USERS, will probably see no problems.

The web will change. It will not die. But it will change. But for some sites they will see drastic to complete revenue failure because they were never built to be a website, just a place to hang ads for low-hanging income (which these days is running in the pennies, nickles and dimes, and is not sufficient income to make a mortgage payment, much less get a Whopper meal every day).