Ad-blocking has been in the news lately. To me this is a sign of just how abusive web publishers have been. For the sites that I have run over the decades(!), whenever someone would propose a form of advertising I would preface my response with “Remember that everything on the page has to be something interesting to and useful for the readers.” If the proposed ad could not reasonably be expected to interest a reader then it couldn’t go on the site.
This is not a new idea. Look at New Yorker, for example. The ads are generally interesting and feature great photography. Maybe you don’t want to buy a $10,000 outfit but the ad is entertaining for a few moments.
At photo.net we didn’t have any ads at all until Google Ads became available because that was the first system that put reasonably relevant-to-the-content and relevant-to-the-readers ads on pages.
Perhaps the “ecosystem” (as the VCs like to say) has been permanently damaged by the glut of page views available from Facebook, et al. Nonetheless my first response to “consumers are taking the trouble to install ad blockers” is that publishers are violating what should be the first principle of publishing: include stuff that readers want/need.
FARK had ads for all sorts of stuff and I can’t say they did a great job targeting the audience, BUT, FARK also respected their readers by only allowing ads that were non-intrusive, and by making it easy to report obnoxious ads that slipped through and then promptly getting rid of them.
In the ad policy that follows, I really only object to autoplay (no audio) video ads. I dislike those too. I dislike everything that flashes at me when I am trying to read.
I will try not to ad block sites that have reasonable ads. But behave like a jerk and the sites get hit with ublock origin, but usually after I have tweeted to them about their sins.
>
NOT allowed on Fark:
+ Expandables – ads that expands when you roll over it.
+ Audio ads – ads that starts playing audio without an explicit “click” from the user.
+ Pop-ups/Pop-overs/Pop-unders – ads, including surveys (with the exception of the Scorecard Research survey – see below), that pop up new windows on top (or under) the current window, or slide across your screen.
+ NSFW ads.
+ Malware – anything that tries to get you to install anything on your system.
Allowed:
+ Click-to-do something ads: If you have to click to expand an ad, play audio, open a window, etc., those are allowed.
+ Video ads: Video ads without audio are fine. At times we’ve had reports of these slowing down a user’s system. If this happens to you on a specific ad, report it.
+ Interstitial ads: An intermediate ad that appears when you click a link that takes you off of Fark to another site. We run these very rarely, and when we do, they show up once per day for non-logged-in users. If you see one multiple times a day, there’s something wrong and you should report it.
I think topical magazines have understood this balance far better than the web. Hell, I’ve deliberately bought magazines for a hobby I was interested in just to get an idea of the companies, products and options available via the ads. Pick up a woodworking magazine and it’s full of ads that directly relate to woodworking. Same for photo magazines, home brewing magazines, etc.
As soon as the magazine’s focus drifts away from the hobby/interest focus, the ads get less relevant. The ads in TIME or People magazine can’t assume that the audience is all interested in woodworking gear or SLR lenses. And, as such, they rely more heavily on assumed demographics instead.
Ads based solely on demographics are pretty much always less relevant. Because those less-relevant ads get clicked on less often, they push to be more intrusive.
I’ve been running ad blockers for years, but I often turn the ads back on for sites related to my interests. I just checked right now on homebrewtalk.com with the ad blocker turned off and I see an ad for a new kind of drying rack for washing brewing equipment that interests me and an ad for Williams Brewing’s Maris Otter liquid malt extract, which I didn’t know I could get anywhere. I then flipped over to time.com and it literally popped up an ad for CITI in a modal while a video for a news story ran an ad for CHASE **at the same time** on a page with ads for Boeing. None of that matters to me in the least. Not to mention that the bank ads weren’t even for anything specific, like a credit card with lower interest rates.
I won’t touch a mainstream website without an ad blocker installed, but frequently find myself turning it off on sites that actually have some sort of topical focus.
Muted video ads. Means ill block your ads. Too distracting.
The others why not.
I don’t mind ads that throw an image banner up. What I mind are the abusive ads the block the whole page for 30 seconds with a popup, usually a video, that self-starts and has loud audio in it. This is why I not only install ad-blockers now, I don’t install Flash.
As far as publishers are concerned, it’s an issue of education. The majority of publishers do not realize the medium to long term damage they are doing by driving their audience away with obtrusive advertising. A WordPress plugin that automatically perform A/B tests and would show a publisher something along the lines “by installing this ad network, you have earned $X in the past Y days, increased your page load by Z seconds and reduced your return visitors by F”, would go a long way.
I work for an adveristing company and I’m happy for ad blocking. Block ads today for better ads tomorrow.
CVS, Wallgreen, RiteAid only give sale price if you have their loyalty card.
kroger given “savings’ if you loyalty card that they then track
every purchase and maintain the information and possible sell to other companies.
Target. if you buy anything from them has customer id then tracks your history.
This is done even if you pay in cash.
Insurance company only gives discount if you let them see your credit history.
Even credit card processors will sell the encrypted information of ApplePay back to retailers.
So what were you saying about web publishers.
Hell , back in the day, I used to buy Computer Shopper JUST for the ads – the editorial content was mostly filler.
But as J Wynia points out, this was a niche publication. General interest newspapers, magazines, etc. can’t count on that kind of focused reader. They are really caught between a rock and a hard place – nobody turns to say the Slate webpage in order to get ads for Nissan cars, but if you don’t look at those ads, who is gonna pay for the content? I feel a little bit guilty that I have an ad blocker and never see those adds, but not guilty enough to turn off the ad blocker.
I don’t want even tasteful and relevant ads. The problem is I know ads work. I don’t want to be manipulated into buying things I wouldn’t have otherwise bought.
Joe-
Would you rather pay directly than indirectly for content?
I would gladly pay about $120 every month for a personalized ad free weekly (e-ink or magazine format) filled with long form articles that in sum are better than what I piece together by reading free stuff online. I would never pay a cent just to access a website or forum. Probably the only publication I’m aware of that I would actually pay money for is Foreign Policy. Everything else is too padded with garbage and fluff for me to not feel cheated.