Report: Google Plans Ad Blocking in Chrome

[tangor]

Alphabet Inc.’s Google is planning to introduce an ad-blocking feature in the mobile and desktop versions of its popular Chrome web browser, according to people familiar with the company’s plans.

The ad-blocking feature, which could be switched on by default within Chrome, would filter out certain online ad types deemed to provide bad experiences for users as they move around the web.

[wsj.com...]
If you can't beat 'em join 'em ... and control the outcome if possible.

[keyplyr]

This is very surprising. Wonder if it will block any of the Adsense advertisers. If so, wouldn't that atest to poor vetting at the utility level?

[tangor]

The article contains details on which types of ads would be affected. Also noted is that if chrome has an ad blocker the user won't be using third party ad blockers (which might be more stringent). Lot of detail in the article, surprising for WSJ report. :)

[Peter_S]

Hi,

It can be a good news for Adsense publishers. The article mentions this ad blocking could be set ON by default. If Google set it ON by default, it's surely won't block adsense ads. And in a way, bad news for other ad networks, that Google can decide to block arbitrarily with all kind of argues.

[keyplyr]

If Google blocks all other ads except Adsense, it will find itself in another anti-trust suite.

Determining which "ad types [are] deemed to provide bad experiences for users" is a fine line to walk. I wonder just how they're going to do that.

[Peter_S]

Google will certainly rely on the "The Coalition for Better Ads" recommendations.

Also, Google triggers its new favorite keyword "Better user experience". I noticed it a word they keep using more and more, for anything. Like that it's making it harder to attack them (from a moral point of view), since they are devoted to improve the user experience, and not for their own profits.

But anything can go into acceptable ads. Beside placement and how invasive ads can be, it can also be about their creative. If the creative is misleading. For example, when I visit sites like CNet, Sourceforge, etc, ... on the downloading page of a software, there are often adsense ads, with download buttons.

Also, for the purpose of better user experience, one day, Google Chrome can decide to forbid all plug-ins / add-ons. and argue they are consuming resources, being unsecured, etc, ... and provide the key features itself.

[engine]

Ironic that it's an ad company doing this, so it's ads, of course, have to meet those defined by the Coalition for Better Ads. It's not just the ads, it's how they are delivered, too.

Earlier discussions on ad blocking.
The Ad Blocking Arms Race May Now Be Over [webmasterworld.com]

[keyplyr]

Ironic the WSJ article had so many ads (at least on mobile) I had a really difficult time reading about adblockers.

[tangor]

Heh, heh! I saw nary a one (NoScript AND ad blocker!).

[farmboy]

Maybe 4/20/2017 is a date to remember for AdSense publishers.

Have you noticed anything different with your account since 4/20/2017?

FarmBoy

[keyplyr]

remember 4/20 ?

[mack]

Google may well assume they can take over the ad-block industry. Become the de facto entity then let it slide away.

Mack.

[ergophobe]

it will find itself in another anti-trust suit

One report said that EU commissioners are looking into it.

[lucy24]

remember 4/20 ?

Only if you're in California ... which, come to think of it, Google is.

But really, isn't an ad blocker for Chrome just another of those inevitable bandwagon-following moves, like when MSIE incorporated multi-tabbed browsing because everyone else in the universe had been doing it for years?

[romerome]

My guess is google should be very concrete about what ads should be blocked and not leave anything to interpretation. in other words target sizes and behaviors but stay away from the content in the ads.

Otherwise in an antitrust lawsuit you will get examples of google banning ads from other ad networks but allowing similar ads from google to go through.

[EditorialGuy]

If Google blocks all other ads except Adsense, it will find itself in another anti-trust suite.

Where did you get the idea that Chrome will block all other ads except AdSense? The Wall Street Journal article makes it clear that "unacceptable ad types" would be those defined by the Coalition for Better ads, such as "pop-ups, auto-playing videos with sound and 'prestitial' ads with countdown timers."

The Coalition for Better Ads has a "Standards" page that may be helpful in understanding what we're discussing here:

[betterads.org...]

[londrum]

could be a good idea. every user who uses this is one less who uses another ad-blocker, which are 100 times worse for publishers because they usually just block absolutely everything, whether it's unobtrusive or not

[keyplyr]

Where did you get the idea that Chrome will block all other ads except AdSense?

Rhetorical EditorialGuy

[EditorialGuy]

Good point, londrum. The user who's driven over the edge by annoying ads (like the autoplay pop-up video ads on Huffington Post) is mostly likely to be the person who goes to the bother of installing an ad-blocker.

[farmboy]

The user who's driven over the edge by annoying ads (like the autoplay pop-up video ads on Huffington Post) is mostly likely to be the person who goes to the bother of installing an ad-blocker.

Not to take this thread off the conversation, but based on the people I see with their eyes glued to the device whether driving, walking, "talking" with someone, etc., I wonder how many know an ad-blocker exists or how to get one and use it.

The statistics I've read lately seem to show a fierce competition between distracted driving and opiod use as causing the most people to be killed these days.

OK, editorial break over, back to Chrome's plans.

FarmBoy

[tangor]

While this could be a topic by itself, it fits this thread, too:

By maintaining its own "blocker", Google would seize the initiative from third-party whitelists, and have a greater say in which ads were acceptable. In effect, Google would become the gatekeeper, the arbiter of taste, diminishing the role of Eyeo, which markets Adblock Plus.

[theregister.co.uk...]

[nonstop]

Google installs ad blocker as default

3rd party ad blocker still needed..

lol

I expect Google is thinking if they block all the 'bad' ads, then all the money being spent on the 'bad' ads will be forced in to the 'good' ads... i.e. Google AdWords

the result: Google makes more money!

which means the 'bad' ad companies will go bust

the result: Google makes more money!

[engine]

>which means the 'bad' ad companies will go bust

As I understand it, if ad companies comply with the Coalition for Better Ads proposals, I don't think they would be classed as "bad," so their ads will work. Seems straightforward to me.

[nonstop]

I looked up the members of the 'Coalition for Better Ads'

Google is one of them

they write the 'proposals' too lol

[engine]

And so are many, many other businesses.
[betterads.org...]

[nonstop]

not THAT many really,

and when you dig into some of them you find google is a member of those agencies too

e.g.

Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB)
Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) – Europe
Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) France
Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) – Tech Lab
Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) – UK

Google is member

these proposals are not being written by an independent agency but a group of advertising agencies that have a lot to gain.

it's a cartel of advertising companies with a few advertising bodies thrown in to make it look legit.


Google wants to write the rules and enforce them.

[engine]

As one of the world's biggest ad companies i'd expect it to be involved. I'd be more concerned if it wasn't involved.

We all want better ads, surely. If you're a publisher you want clicks, if you're an advertiser you want to be seen. I don't want to see bad ads from bad advertisers, nor do I want bad ads on any sites I manage.

[keyplyr]

Absolutely. Since Google manages the ads on my sites, I certainly want Google involved in this process. I want them deeply involved.

[EditorialGuy]

We all want better ads, surely. If you're a publisher you want clicks, if you're an advertiser you want to be seen. I don't want to see bad ads from bad advertisers, nor do I want bad ads on any sites I manage.

Unfortunately, everyone doesn't want better ads, just as everyone doesn't want an end to robocalls and telemarketing scams. But that doesn't mean the Coalition for Better Ads and its members are the bad guys. The bad guys are the greedy, short-sighted publishers who annoy users with intrusive ads that give advertising a bad name.

[nonstop]

Google should not be the judge and jury over what is a good or bad ad, based on their own biased research.

Giving this much power to one or a bunch of corporations is asking for trouble.