French Media Takes a Stance on Adblockers - No ads, no Access

[engine]

Members of the French media and publishers are taking a stance against ad blocking, and are joined by music streaming business, Deezer. The message the combined publishers and media organisations are sending out is that users with adblockers will lose access unless the adblockers are removed or disabled.

It's not the first time this has happened as many publishers already stop access, but, in this instance, it's a coalition of publishers which adds strength to the message.

In addition to the websites of numerous French print, radio and television websites, the action was also joined by Deezer, a France-based music streaming service.

In announcing its plans in 2015 to organise joint actions against adblocker software, the Geste trade association said the objective was to remind users that “content and services aren’t free” and emphasise “the indispensible character of advertising as a source of financing”. French Media Takes a Stance on Adblockers - No ads, no Access [theguardian.com]

If you rely on advertising as a revenue stream you have to sympathise. If you're an advertiser you're also going to want this stance to succeed.

Ad blocking is a popular way of eliminating the most annoying of ad-supported sites. In addition, it helps protect users from bad actors that want to deliver a malware payload through their ads.

[londrum]

Blocking ads has become like a religion to some people. From the way they talk about evil adverts, its almost as if it pains them to see one. To them, looking at an advert is on the same level as passive smoking. Nothing you do will ever please those people.

[tangor]

Oddly enough, that's a true statement and sentiment. It does not, however, apply to the majority who use ad blocking as a tool. The comment totally does describe the more vocal dissenters who seek what many politicians seek: control of others. :)

Advertising is necessary for commerce/function. Bad advertisers and bad publishers created this problem (and bad actors on the malicious side have made some of that worse).

Things will change. Eventually. How it will change and how it will be accomplished will pain many and satisfy few. But it will ---and must! --- change. Hopefully it will NOT be by government intervention.

[graeme_p]

the internet has been redefined as a Title II Utility

I think that applies only to ISPs as providers of connectivity. It does not mean what you can do on a web server is regulated. It may allow preventing ISPs from blocking ads.

If government regulation does come in, it will almost certainly come in the form of a ban on ad blocking - governments pretty much do what big media tells them to.

[tangor]

governments pretty much do what big media tells them to.

Depends on the country. USA politicians know who votes them into office, and it isn't big media.

But that is a different subject as this thread is about French media taking a stand.

[trebuchet]

Blocking ads has become like a religion to some people. From the way they talk about evil adverts, its almost as if it pains them to see one. To them, looking at an advert is on the same level as passive smoking. Nothing you do will ever please those people.

Of course. One or two of them have posted here :)

There'll be people to whom all ads are evil, just like there are people who believe in stupid religions and people who can't see the merits of different makes of cell phone. Fortunately those people are in the minority. Whether Joe and Jill Average stick with adblocking if they can't access particular sites they like remains to be seen.

[IanCP]

I also, however, took the time to check what caused the blocker to kick in and found that the page had 21 different tracking urls involved, mostly from different ad serving and metrics collecting companies. It wasn't even actual ads on the page that filtered the site, it was the sheer volume of tracking(I allow ads, but not more than one tracking source per ad)

That is for the most part the basic complaint of so many people, myself included.

Blocking ads has become like a religion to some people

Among the properly informed? I venture to say only a minuscule number, possibly the very same people who also think copyright is evil, and everything is free.

Among the masses? They simply follow the lead of others. Want to remedy the situation?

1. Educate advertisers, media serving organistations, and some publishers as to what is no longer acceptable. Regular ads are - however ads accompanied by a plethora of tracking/junk is NOT acceptable.

2. Then educate the public the internet, as with most media, rely upon advertising for survival. I believe it fair to say the vast majority of people readily accept non-intrusive ads.

What they will not accept is a perception of intrusion, spying, tracking.

I honestly don't know why we are continuing this debate. We rely upon advertising, most of us accept the fact intrusion, tracking is counter productive and hurts us - because it encourages ad blockers.

On the other hand a few seem to think anyone with an ad blocker is to be refused admittance to their sites. That is of course your right, good luck with that policy long term. I think you do yourself more long term harm than good.

[seoskunk]

Perhaps ad blocker could also remove nofollow links as these maybe ads as well. I think that would be a good thing for the internet

[IanCP]

Perhaps ad blocker could also remove nofollow links as these maybe ads as well. I think that would be a good thing for the internet

Why would that possibly be a good thing for the internet? Assuming you weren't being sarcastic.

I only know of nofollow links with affiliate links

[Roman Abramovich]

It's Google who make ad blockers popular because of their stupid ads on videos. I never in my life used an ad blocker for any website, most websites have nice ads or ones you do not notice. I was sick and tired of having to watch adverts before YouTube videos all the time so I installed an ad blocker, and now I see the ads from nobody, the avg person is not going to filter it out to only work on a few sites and not others, they just want them gone. So Google and the likes who rely on ads so much sort of shot themselves in the foot.

[trebuchet]

So Google and the likes who rely on ads so much sort of shot themselves in the foot.

Much like display ads on the web, the bulk of revenue from "stupid ads" on Youtube goes to content creators and owners. So by blocking those ads you are hurting content creators much more than you're hurting Google.

Roman's attitude is typical of the seething mass of adblock users though. They're not really concerned about tracking or privacy or bandwidth or malvertising. They just don't want to be annoyed.

[graeme_p]

@iancp I think even fewer people than that want to block all ads. I do think copyright as it currently exists is evil (I cannot understand how how anyone can think it reasonable that books written in Victorian times are still in copyright).

I want to block:

1) annoying ads: animated and video ads in particular
2) trackers

The problem with 2) is that almost all ad networks are trackers so in practice I block ads and a lot more (social media buttons, for example).

On my own sites I use only text ads and link ads. I may rethink that they get blocked anyway.

Unlike Roman I do not find Youtube ads particularly annoying.

[vordmeister]

The weather forecasting site I visit has started running auto playing video ads with sound which continue to play while you try to watch the video forecast making it unwatchable. This leaves ordinary visitors with the choice of either not visiting the site or installing an ad blocker.

Once that ad blocker is installed It will likely stay installed. It is frightening that however responsible you try to be with your own ads it only takes one third party site to get your visitors to install an add blocker.

[londrum]

exactly right -- no matter how responsible you are with your own ads, and how much work you put into cleaning them up, as long as users can continue to block ads across the entire internet with a single click its going to carry on hurting everyone,

They are never going to ban adblockers entirelly, but it would be nice if they could force them to work on a site-by-site basis, so users have to block each site individually.

[Bluejeans]

The gentle solution may well be to politely ask the user to disable the ad blocker, pointing out that our sterling site does not have pop-ups or autoplay video ads. I'm not talking about forcing the visitor to disable in order to view content, just asking. I'll see how it works out and report back.

[Roman Abramovich]

@trebuchet It did not have to be that way though, for example I was perfectly happy when YouTube had ads next to videos, they could have put them anywhere else, but when I started to have to wait 15-30 secs to watch a 2 minute video clip each and every time, then it was time for an ad block. That's a problem for Google if it hurts the creators, and bad luck for us if the creator stops creating. There are good ads, and then there are ads like at the start of videos which are just not needed. Out of all the months I put up with 15-30 second video ads I do not recall ever being interested in anything shown and never did a click.

To be honest any sort of action which forces people to do anything I dislike. If a website pops open a box and I cant find the X easily, they are not visited again, it was the same for YT videos, I was forced to watch an ad if I wanted to watch a video, so the problem was eradicated. If for example ads were hard-coded into YT videos, I would stop watching YouTube too.

I certainly would not be blackmailed by a site telling me I had to enable ads to access and view their site.

[vordmeister]

It appears that it might be possible to be whitelisted by ad blocker if your ads meet their criteria. [adblockplus.org...] There is a fee if more than 10 million ad views are being blocked a month, but otherwise the application is free.

I'm going to give that a shot and see what difference it makes.

[graeme_p]

@vordmeister big media and politicians have called that scheme extortion, and Springer even sued over it. If there is government regulation it is near certain to be banned.

In my view it is a reasonable approach as long as the charges for white-listing are not too high. It would be better if it could be done automatically.

@Bluejeans, do let us know how well it works. I have also been thinking of serving a locally served add in place of the blocked ad.

[trebuchet]

when I started to have to wait 15-30 secs to watch a 2 minute video clip each and every time, then it was time for an ad block

That doesn't negate the fact that it's somebody else's content and you expect to view it for nothing. Not even the trouble of viewing an ad, the vast majority of which are skippable after five seconds.

I have always appreciated and sympathised with the technical arguments for adblocking, i.e. privacy concerns, script bombardment, bandwidth chewing ads, cluttered layouts. But the "don't annoy me with ads" line holds no water with me. If someone's time is so precious and their sensibilities so fragile that they can't watch a few seconds of advertising, they probably shouldn't be on Youtube in the first place.

[tangor]

they probably shouldn't be on Youtube in the first place.

Not surprisingly, many folks come to that same conclusion, ads, adblockers, or not. Same for NYT and other media/news outlets as well.

Not starting an argument, just stating a fact of life on the web. Some folks can be annoyed only so much before they vote with their feet (and wallet).

[jrs79]

I think that we are putting a lot of blame on the user when it is the Ad Blocking companies that is facilitating this. Users did not invent ad blockers. They aren't even doing anything illegal (yet). So, why should they feel bad about this or evil?

They probably don't know that they may be hurting sites that they like which is probably the key to success. You are never going to get your average joe to feel bad for the advertising industry.

I also hear a lot of arguments about how the internet can't be free for businesses to exist. This is true. The biggest question to think is that if your site did not exist would anyone care?

Here are a few scenarios:

1. Ad blockers are made illegal
2. Ad blockers remain legal - Advertisers and Ad Blockers have an arms race to keep one upping each other
3. Ad blockers remain legal and Ad blockers continue to grow. Ad revenue generated via 3rd parties continue to decline causing websites that use monetization model to go under

There are many other scenarios, but I thought that I would throw a few out.

[IanCP]

Here are a few scenarios:
1.. 2.. 3..

How about the most obvious scenario?

Ad serving organisations wake up to themselves at the very same time publishers wake up to themselves? They stop annoying their audience.

If not? They kill the Golden Goose.

I have noticed among acquaintances quite a number of folks who now find the internet is becoming less relevant for them than it was five years ago. Here I speak of people who search for information. As one lady told me only last weekend:

"Why use Google when searching for 'recipes'? The results are nearly always dominated by the usual big 5 to 10 big sites, so I just keep those sites bookmarked and bypass Google entirely."

Other will tell you searching for information on "How to paint/repair widgets" will largely get you results on people trying to get you to either buy or download widgets. No real answer to their question though.

Try my specific search requirement over the last two days - rephrased in 57 different ways:

"Motherboard diagnostic tool."

I cannot believe there isn't a real nifty widget out there somewhere. Lots of claims of course - all ineffectual - especially when dealing with what we in electronics call "intermittent failures" of devices. Before anyone makes a smart comment, be aware this year is my 60th year in electronics, a topic which I also teach.

[tangor]

@IanCP, might be preaching to the choir, but have you tried Bing?

[jrs79]

@IanCP, I agree that your scenario is the most likely. Things are rarely as bad as they seem, like the scenarios that I posted.

I watch Internet TV with ads. Guess when I go get more snacks? All advertising has challenges.

One of the challenges that ad blocking has brought to my attention is ad pricing. I don't have a lot of experience here (only ad buying), but from what I have read a publisher has to sell a lot of ads/impressions for it to generate revenue. I was surprised by the low market value of some of this ad space. Sorry to get off topic but I thought it was relevant.

[trebuchet]

I watch Internet TV with ads. Guess when I go get more snacks? All advertising has challenges.

Of course. I don't know anybody who likes ads. Most barely tolerate them. If I have to watch a 15-second Youtube ad then my mind invariably wanders or I do something else. Occasionally - very occasionally admittedly - I do see an ad that catches my attention. That's the challenge of ad designers, to make something notable, interesting and effective that is worthy of your attention.

I agree with @IanCP above that ads should never be annoying. The problem is that some self entitled Gen Y/Z-ers have pushed the annoyance threshold so low that they now can't bear to look at one single ad. All the homilies about adblocking have only reinforced this view.

[toidi]

I have noticed among acquaintances quite a number of folks who now find the internet is becoming less relevant for them than it was five years ago.

it certainly is harder to find anything of value than it was 10 years ago. Plus the novelty is gone, everthing is the same. IMHO, half of the web could disappear and no one would notice. Most of the little shops have already disappeared or can't be found, much to my dismay.

[jrs79]

I agree with @IanCP above that ads should never be annoying. The problem is that some self entitled Gen Y/Z-ers have pushed the annoyance threshold so low that they now can't bear to look at one single ad. All the homilies about adblocking have only reinforced this view.

You are missing the point. It is not because they are self entitled that they use ad blockers it is because someone is offering them a way to view content w/o the ads. It is probably no different to them than paying Hulu the extra dollars to not see ads. In fact, this is a business model that younger audiences are used to (Hulu, Spotify, Etc).

The challenge is not for designers to make better ads. The challenge is for publishers to find a way to make money with their content. That could be a pay wall or selling ads so relevant to your users that they actually want to see them.

For example, there are niche sites that I visit that advertise niche products. I go there specifically to learn about new and niche companies in the space. I click them.

[tangor]

You are missing the point. It is not because they are self entitled that they use ad blockers it is because someone is offering them a way to view content w/o the ads.

And we know how well that worked out with cable tv. :)

Started out ad free, but not any longer ... so the viewer/user ends up paying to be ad free and STILL gets ads. It is this inherent dishonesty of content providers and service companies that give rise to ad blockers.

We already have the example of ad block plus that is working deals to show ads. Nothing changes except the big get even bigger and the little guy gets shut out.

[londrum]

i came across a really bad example of adverts in an iOS app the other day.
like most apps, they let you pay 79p to remove the ads... but it turns out that it was only for the "3rd party ads". when you pay the money it just reverts to showing adverts for the developer's other apps instead.

[trebuchet]

You are missing the point. It is not because they are self entitled that they use ad blockers it is because someone is offering them a way to view content w/o the ads. It is probably no different to them than paying Hulu the extra dollars to not see ads. In fact, this is a business model that younger audiences are used to.

Expect that in this instance they're not paying anyone, so it's not really a business model at all.

[jrs79]

@trebuchet, I am sure that the people selling ad blocker have a business model (or at least think they do!). Free is never free.

@Tangor, Seems like we are on the same page about how this will play out in the end.