IAB Says Ad Blocking is a War on Diversity and Freedom of Expression

[engine]

The IAB's President and Chief Executive Officer, Randall Rothenberg, was pretty scathing in his remarks about Ad Blocking, and what he describes as ad-block profiteers in an opening keynote at the 2016 IAB Annual Leadership Meeting.

One of the ad block companies registered to attend the IAB conference, but, when discovred, the IAB cancelled their registration and returned their money. According to Rothernberg, "For the simple reason that they are stealing from publishers, subverting freedom of the press, operating a business model predicated on censorship of content, and ultimately forcing consumers to pay more money for less – and less diverse – information."

He went on to say, "This is what happens when your only motivation, your only metric, is money. For that is what AdBlock-Plus is: an old-fashioned extortion racket, gussied up in the flowery but false language of contemporary consumerism."

The ad-block profiteers are building for-profit companies whose business models are premised on impeding the movement of commercial, political, and public-service communication between and among producers and consumers. They offer to lift their toll gates for those wealthy enough to pay them off, or who submit to their demands that they constrict their freedom of speech to fit the shackles of their revenue schemes.

Read the full speech, it's worth it. [iab.com...]

On ad blokers, for those of us that are Publishers, we stand to lose, and us advertisers stand to lose, unless we pay to get through the ad blocking. It's a worrying trend, imho.

Earlier stories
Mobile giant Three to block online advertising [webmasterworld.com]
Google Boots Ad Blockers From Google Play [webmasterworld.com]
Ad blocker tracking script for Analytics + AdSense [webmasterworld.com]
IAB Initiative to Combat Ad Blocking: L.E.A.N [webmasterworld.com]
Report: Ad Blocking is Worth $22 Billion in Lost Revenue [webmasterworld.com]
IAB Closely Monitoring The Effects of Ad Blockers [webmasterworld.com]

[Bucklee]

I'm in the U.S.

Remote location with only one provider offering coverage in my area.

I began with their smallest data plan and found my everyday work exceeded that plan in short order. Jumped up to their largest plan and still exceeded that until I began blocking ads.

I'm not a YouTube viewer either. Pretty much just work.

[mcneely]

With regard to data usage, one could always look to see what phone ISP's are investing in what ad firms -- bet there's a connection other than just 4g

[incrediBILL]

The very people bellyaching about "freedom of expression" issues tried to turn people's computers into nothing but ad machines and hijack them away from their owners.

The ad blockers wouldn't even be an issue had greedy abusive pigs not implemented pop ups, pop unders and back in the day, replacing the home page URL and browser hijacking so you couldn't even leave the page. Those people and their practices are largely responsible because they pushed people to the limit that something had to be done just to make sure the browser was usable.

Even the more reputable sites, like Yahoo, NY Times, etc. got greedy and started implementing javascript ads that often slowed browsers down to the point we now have to allow users to stop the scripts when the browser grinds to a halt running all the junk.

Plus many machines back in the day didn't have the horsepower to run animated or video ads that just started playing the minute the browser ran, which tanked an old slow computer.

Now they cry because they're reaping what they sowed.

The problem is the rest of us are suffering because of the situation created by the greedy people out there.

I am sure I lose money as well - that does not make it stealing.

Restaurants have the same problem, they call it dine and dash.

Customers come (visitors), take what they want (read your content), and run out without paying (don't display the impression ad).

If every customer dines and dashes you won't be able to pay the rent and the shop will have to be closed.

However, if someone doesn't want to see the ads they can just get the hell off the site, no free meal, no dine, just dash :)

Simple as that.

There are scripts to thwart ad blockers and other ways to detect them via the first page load. After that first page loads you can force them to enable the scripts or get the hell out. If more groups like the IAB have issue with ad blockers I suggest they help develop and distribute scripts to block ad blockers and distribute them for FREE to as many sites as will install them and fire a shot back at the ad blocking madness.

BLOCKING AD BLOCKERS AT THE SEARCH ENGINE! That would really make a stand IMO because it removes the fight from the individual webmaster and puts it there for ALL ad supported websites in one shot.

Ah, we can dream... :)

But I wouldn't be surprised if Google doesn't help with anti ad blocking in some fashion as they probably have more billions on the table lost because of it, more to gain probably than anyone else. That fact also might also be why they're not providing technology, to not appear intrusive and get the privacy nuts knickers in a knot.

[ergophobe]

The ad blockers wouldn't even be an issue had greedy abusive pigs not implemented pop ups, pop unders and back in the day, replacing the home page URL and browser hijacking so you couldn't even leave the page.

Exactly. I have built most of my career on producing copyrighted materials. I don't downloaded movies or music illegally. I believe in paying for content. There are a half dozen podcasts that I donate to directly, as well as my donations to NPR that support others indirectly. I have almost reached a point where I feel people should put their content behind a paywall and if people won't pay for it, then it probably didn't have that much value. I wish there was a workable micropayment system so I could just pay a penny for ever article I read on Pocket (which is a great de facto ad blocker, incidentally).

Advertisers and publishers pushed it too far. The FBI problems getting Apple to break into a phone are all of a piece. In both cases, citizen privacy was so deeply invaded beyond what anyone thought was reasonable, that having broken the public trust, citizens are installing blockers to block ads and tracking and Apple is refusing to break into the phone because they know they backlash will be severe.

By interesting circumstances, a photo of my wife and I appeared in an ad recently. I was honestly shocked to see that once I went to a site that ticked me for remarketing, the picture was everywhere. I would see it a dozen times per day, often twice on a single page and on sites that had nothing to do with the original product.

Before that I knew, of course, that I was being tracked and remarketed, but it really brought home the extent of it. At a certain point, I saw myself two too many times and just realized that the whole thing had gotten out of control and if advertisers can't control themselves, citizens will control them through other means.

Also, in my situation, I actually pay for bandwidth quite often and some sites are 50% ads. I would be better off with micropayments, giving them say a penny for every 10 page views. Might even save money at that rate

[piatkow]

I doubt that "most people" have a clue about where ads originate.

Your average member of the public takes print advertising as an analogy and assume that the site owner has seen and included the ads that they are served.

[mrengine]

Apparently the IAB wants to eliminate the ability for me to choose whether or not I want to see advertisements, which I see as infringing on my right to choose. Publishers are free to display ads, but people have the right to block them. This gives everyone the freedom of choice they expect.

[Edge]

Restaurants have the same problem, they call it dine and dash.

Bulls eye... getting ad blocker advocates to engage their empathy is the challenge..

[ken_b]

Your average member of the public takes print advertising as an analogy and assume that the site owner has seen and included the ads that they are served.

That sounds probable.

[Trey_Huynh]

A lot of the ads are not optimized for mobile. In the US, autoplay video ads can easily eat up a lot of bandwith AND slow down the browsing experience easily. While Randall Rothenberg might have a point, he was telling it like a crafty politican. He wants people to take side instead of having a thoughtful discussion

[Nutterum]

This IAB statement is complete Bullsh*t . Ad blockers exist because people want to use them. Booing the entire world for showing the middle finger to the crap quality of ads and obvious click-bait banners they were bombarded with for the last 15 years is hypocritical to say the least. The Internet evolved and the once oblivious user is now well experienced on how he approaches the web. The ball is with the companies to figure out how to approach them.

[Broadway]

This ad blockers thing threatens my business model but I tend to sympathize with users over ad companies.
I'm embarrassed about the garbage that I'm given to show as ads by the companies I use. Bloated loads, a zillion tracking beacons or whatever, disruptive ads. Not to mention ad companies (especially Adsense) that don't place limits on how/where their ads are used.
Beyond the crappy look and experience of so many ad campaigns, the savings in bandwidth alone justifies the use of blockers to me (I block all images when on mobile during travel days when that's the only connectivity I have).
I wish the ad companies would stop b**ching and just give me some quality/ethical ads to work with.

It was my understanding that the AMP guidelines (accelerated mobile pages) toned down what type of activities ads could do. To me, that was a very attractive aspect of it. If I understand all of that correctly, I wish that would become the industry standard. A compromise where both the publisher's and visitor's needs could be met.

[IanCP]

I wish the ad companies would stop b**ching and just give me some quality/ethical ads to work with

I believe we have arrived at this point simply because they are too stupid to even recognise the biggest elephant in the room - ever.

The same comment equally applies to publishers who max out their pages with as many ads as are permissible - you are your own worst enemy because you invite the creation of ad blockers.

When I talk about ad blockers I'm not referring to those capable of white listing for a fee. Just the free tools which allow us to defend against the massive proliferation of data gathering, uninvited videos playing on pages, intrusive ads...

Talk about self inflicted wounds.

[JS_Harris]

In which country(ies) are all you people having data allowance issues?

Canada is problematic, they allow both transfer throttling and bandwidth caps in every plan. Subscribers cannot, by default, set their own speed/download caps because their 'plans' have preset values for each. Quite often a plan will be fast enough to stream Netflix movies(example) but doing so more than 6-7 times in a month will result in overage charges on bandwidth used. Other plans have the opposite problem, loads of bandwidth but at speeds too slow to get HD.

You can upgrade a plan, of course, but that boosts both speed and bandwidth cap and you pay for both. You can also just ignore the bandwidth cap but you will then pay for each GB over your plan limit. They now cap 'overage' charges at $50 or so per month for most plans because it was ordered by law after some $1000+ monthly bills made the news.

Canada does NOT enjoy the 'no throttling allowed' that other countries might take for granted. In fact Canada has taken the road of coming up with fees for EVERYTHING. Own a cat? $30 a year please(with no benefit, it's a pure tax). Live in the north and want a case of bottled water? $75 please, transportation fees. Want to cut the cord and watch over the air TV instead? Not allowed, you've got to get a 'smart' box from a cable company and hook it up to your TV where it listens for word commands(and everything else you say).

Canada has some serious issues with rates and fees, especially with internet service. It wouldn't be so bad if you could carry forward the unused bandwidth which was paid for but, of course, you can't.

[Nutterum]

Wow, did not knew it was that harsh. Living in Europe does have its perks like unlimited untraceable(if you are smart) internet, both mobile and desktop. Sad to hear that one of the countries I considered as leader in freedom and social driven democracy has such a rotten core when we talk about digital.

[tangor]

USA has similar practices (though not required cable boxes for tv!)

As I noted above, advertising came AFTER the net, is not content (site content), and has become increasingly obnoxious and burdensome ESPECIALLY on mobile plans. Installing ad blockers on my personal systems protected my monthly cap and saves me $36 every month (which is the cost to add another 100gb to the cap).

Where today's internet advertising is wrong is the assumption of free delivery to the publishers.

Old days a publisher (mag, newspaper, etc) had ad departments that charged for ad insertion per/x copies/daily/monthly/whatever... That cost underwrote the PUBLISHER. These days, the web site publisher pays own cost of operation and does not have an ad department, though they seek the ads for revenue to help support their operating costs (original meaning, these days folks think it is get rich quick).

So those are the two paradigms. Pre internet, Post internet ... and in both scenarios there is the customer.

Pre internet days the customer picked up a copy of a publication and payed the price. Post internet the customer pays for their access to the net and the "free" information as found by "free" search engines ... covering all transaction costs based on their access fee (which in part pays the ISP for the cost of service to provide the connection). In this scenario the advertiser/ad service company is an add on neither the customer or the connection service contracted to accept. When ads were about 10% of bandwidth/cost for either the user or the isp it was overlooked. When that overhead was broken and exceeded by a magnitude there's no wonder, or even surprise, that the customer, the isp, or both, would revolt.

Customer revolt is extra costs THEY have to pay, plus intrusive and at time invasive techniques. Isp revolt is burdens on their infrastructure built to handle one level of use, but having to deal with escalating levels which do NOT provide satisfaction to their themselves or their customers.

But for an ad exec to call ad blockers a challenge to free speech and freedom of expression is a crock of you know what!

[Bluejeans]

Even ad blockers aren't a challenge to free speech and freedom of expression they sure are a challenge to a certain type of business model and are possibly a copyright violation. And of course ad blocking companies are running businesses themselves that (OMG, could it be true?) involving tracking users and selling that information. Here is a clearsighted overview:http://www.wired.com/2016/03/heres-how-that-adblocker-youre-using-makes-money/

[FattyB]

Interestingly the other day the UK Culture Secretary called ad-blockers 'modern day protection racket.'

[standard.co.uk...]

Industry starting to put pressure on government, I think this is all building up to a big confrontation with publishers, ad-blocking companies and mobile providers.

People always go on about punishing the advertisers etc but it is the publishers who get it in the neck from all side.

[tangor]

1. Content used to be created by advertising dollars that paid to create that content. Customers knew that and paid.

2, Content (web) is now created by creators and usually (almost always) is offered free. That changed things.

3. Advertising insertion ON TOP of #2 changed things again and the customer is paying the freight for that delivery and poor experience and not liking it.

Publishers do seem to get the worst, then again too many publishers abused the new model. There's a balance out there, yet to be found, that is the answer. We can only hope it is not governmental mandates as we all know how well those usually work out. (sigh)

[IanCP]

Personally my experience going back over two decades is that your #2 came well before #1.

Back when I started there largely was no advertising of any significance available to most publishers until AdSense came along.

I relied upon affiliate income from mainly Amazon, then later Commission Junction to cover my escalating hosting costs with a good drink thrown in as a bonus

Content created by advertising dollars is what I call the latter day "AdSense Phenomenon".

[tangor]

Sorry... left out a bit more detail... that #1 was radio and tv programming before there was an internet, or ahem, even computers. :)

[masterjoe]

Is it just me or will Forbes not let me view their content with an ad blocker running? Wow... talk about greed. Google also still ranks their pages high up even though its an extremely poor user experience. Mo money mo money mo money

[graeme_p]

I have stopped reading Forbes. I do not even use an adblocker as such, I use Privacy Badger.

[ken_b]

Is it just me or ...

Not just you.
I don't use an adblocker as such, but I can't read Forbes because I have cookies turned off.

[trebuchet]

Forbes published a piece in January about its denial of adblock users. Apparently 44% of them whitelisted to access their content.

[forbes.com...]

[Bluejeans]

"Greed" is not the right word. Journalists must be paid to create content for Forbes and all other online magazines and newspapers. Already freelance journalism has gone from being a profession to a side income even with the aggressive advertising that mars their websites.

[JS_Harris]

Need some news or info? Who needs a website! Just talk to your mobile device.... Coming to Google in summer of 2017.

That feedback box in search results is spreading mighty quickly and getting bigger fast. Now we know what the phone will say when we ask it something.

[graeme_p]

@bluejeans, they could have non-obnoxious, lightweight, ads. They have a far bigger potential audience and distribution is cheaper on the internet than in print.

[monetizemore2016]

Ad blocking is the biggest threat. But it also tells us to get to the heart of the problem: poor user experience + annoying ads turn off users. We all need to step up our game whether it's design, content, or advertising.

[IanCP]

All true.