Ad blocking estimated to cost publishers nearly $22 billion during 2015.

[Bhazor]

https://blog.pagefair.com/2015/ad-blocking-report/

Ad blocking estimated to cost publishers nearly $22 billion during 2015.
There are now 198 million active adblock users around the world.
Ad blocking grew by 41% globally in the last 12 months.
US ad blocking grew by 48% to reach 45 million active users in 12 months up to June 2015.
UK ad blocking grew by 82% to reach 12 million active users in 12 months up to June 2015.

Don't know about you but this gave me a thrill of power at the thought of harming advertising companies. Lips quivering beneath ironic pencil moustache, eyes watering behind plastic lenses with thick 50s style frames, iMac keyboards beneath trembling fingers. A suicide note, penned in third person on the retina display. Lugers going off throughout the building sounding like a pack of Chinese firecrackers. The cleaners emerge, they've seen it before, a black bin liner and a stiff brush in hand. They clean spotless. Pure white paint. A new PR firm arrives the next day.

All because I use a 200kb firefox extension.

[Mango Chimes]

All the websites that you're reading start disappearing.  The small ones, they wither and fail quickly.  The rest are swallowed up by multinational corporations.  All that remains of the varied web you once knew is a collection sub-brands of massive content networks.  Every last homogenised one fills with advertorials and content-marketing bullshit, indistinguishable from actual writing because actual writing has ceased to exist.  You realise in horror the world you have created.

Wracked with guilt, sweaty with culpability, you delete the adblocker from your browser.  But you see no difference.  There is no difference!

It hasn't been active for months.  It's too late.  It's much too late.

[biggytitbo]

Most of the dirge that exists on the internet entirely because of shitty adverts deserves to die and will. The great cull of 'you won't believe these celebrity asses, number 11 is mind blowing' style non-content that adblocking will kill is a thing to be welcomed.

I'm pretty sure the best stuff will remain standing at the end though, whatever funding models emerge.

Like this for instance.

[Stoneage Dinosaurs]

While I turn it off for sites like C&B and the like, I have absolutely no qualms about using AdBlock on most sites, given that 1. they're not very good, 2. they're probably big enough to survive without the revenue anyway, and 3. I only use these sites if I'm bored, so if facebook, the guardian website and twitter stopped existing overnight because their magic wizard people couldn't afford their seventh en-suite petting zoo due to adblockers, it would not make even the slighest snail's smegma of a difference to my overall enjoyment of life, and in fact would problem improve it

[Dr Rock]

I run a small business with not much profit. I advertise on facebook to people who mostly already like my page. Nevertheless if they have adblock on they won't see my ads. I now can't reach all of those if they use adblock and it's really hurting my business. Nevertheless I use adblock, but turn it off for Facebook, as they target your interests quite well for the most part (YMMV) the ads are often of my interest. But it's not all cunty big business running ads, lots of small business use online ads, what are they supposed to do? 

[Famous Mortimer]

If they already like your page, can't you just make a non-advertising post that they'll see? My local veggie place seems to do that quite well - I've got AdBlock but I always see their stuff.

My mileage definitely varies for Facebook, I've had many adverts for UKIP and shite like that because I mention Europe on there from time to time. Not a single advert for anything I might like, like cheesecake and pictures of pretty ladies.

I know we've had this discussion in another thread recently, but there's too much "content" in the world. Think of the million sub-Buzzfeed sites with headlines like biggy mentioned above. Would anyone shed a tear if those sites were driven out of business by lack of ad revenue?

Small sites will be fine, I guess? Hosting fees might go up a bit but it's not like most sites make a ton from ad revenue anyway. The anti-adblock sentiment will get more and more vicious in the media, I'm sure, and they'll spin it as "you're taking food from the mouths of hard-working people" when, of course, they already did that by stealing every good idea they ever had from 4chan or Reddit.

[Replies From View]

I wasn't going to buy anything from those adverts anyway.  Therefore my adblocker has lost them nothing.  I presume this is the same with everyone who's installed an adblocker, as this is the point of using them. 

They're panicking about imaginary money.

[olliebean]

I think a lot of ads work on a pay-per-view basis; if an ad is blocked, it doesn't register as a view so the site hosting the ad loses a tiny amount of ad revenue. Millions of people running blockers makes it add up to a potentially significant loss of revenue.

On the other hand, on the odd occasion I turn off my ad blocker for one reason or another I'm reminded that many of the fuckers make the internet a massive pain in the arse to use, or in some cases even outright unusable - for example by popping up shit in front of what I'm reading, or just by making pages take an unacceptably long time to load. If they want me to stop blocking ads, they need to stop making ads that block or impede my access to content.

[biggytitbo]

Yeah its the extreme offensiviness of current online advertising thats the problem, its no exaggeration to say its killing the web. We're a massive media company, yet if you go to one of our articles 2 full screen animated curtains will follow you up ad down the page as you scroll. A massive banner pushes the page almost off the screen. As you read the article an autoplay video advert will suddenly appear within the text, making you completly lose where you were. 2 or 3 betting ads further break up the content. At the bottom a huge slab of 'around the web' still dross takes up more room than the article itself. And whulst you're enjoying all that the page frequently locks up as 5meg of javascript is been loaded to display all this shit.


Its an horrendous user experience, but unfortunetly quite common on many big sites. Its gotten so bad that its prompted not only adblockers but such initiatives as facebook instance articles, apple news and googles AMP. Each of those companies clearly have their own motives but the primary selling point in each case is to  remove all the crap and make the content load fast. Obviously apple and facebook have no interest in the open web and are rubbing their hands in glee as it self destructs.


I don't blame the publishers so much, its the adtech industry itself which is living in the dark ages. They're still using flash, autoplay videos and fixed width, no responsive ads. Trying to get anything more progressive and intelligent from them is impossible. Fraud and privacy shredding tracking is absolutely rife aswell.


Online advertising is basically a massive, massive bubble and its at the point of bursting in spectacular fashion, taking half the web with it. Hopefully what survives can find some better, alternative funding models so we don;t repeat the same mistakes next time.

[Robot DeNiro]

So is that why there's been such a huge increase in people using adblockers in the last year? Has advertising become much worse in the last 12 months?  I've been blocking ads for the last 10 years or more, and am amazed that everyone else wasn't already doing the same, as the ads were annoying enough 10 years ago.  It does seem weird to me that there's been such a sudden spike in people using a technology that is 10+ years old, there must be some reason for it.

[Dr Rock]

If they already like your page, can't you just make a non-advertising post that they'll see?

A reasonable assumption, but it's got 7000 likes, and Facebook only serve it to a tiny fraction of those. They want you to pay to get your post seen by more of them - and then if you do that it's an ad and gets blocked. I reckon FB should serve my posts to anyone who has liked my page (unless they turned off notifications for it), but then they wouldn't get all that cash people pay to have their posts promoted. Cunts aren't they?

[Hollow]

I'm not at all bothered...I don't like seeing that shit, and it's not something I'm willing to care about, their losses.

My mind doesn't want to be bombarded with crap...it hates it.

Let yourself be essentially brainwashed by coke snorting twits...go on, you're helping to pay our costs...no ta.

No-one likes them, it's a universal constant.

One of the reason I sacked off xbox...go away with your macdonalds ads when I've already paid for the live shit...bah...

[Dr Rock]

My mileage definitely varies for Facebook, I've had many adverts for UKIP and shite like that because I mention Europe on there from time to time. Not a single advert for anything I might like, like cheesecake and pictures of pretty ladies.

It won't be to do with what you post - targeting is done by what you have in your 'likes' ('like' cheesecake and you'll get cheesecake-related stuff) or by your age, gender or whether you are single. Or they can filter out who sees their ad if they like Gay Pride or something, they probably do a long list. I've never had an ad for UKIP, maybe you like Labour and they are targeting Labour voters? They possibly target other political parties, at least it means you probably vote. Then again I have likes for Labour too. Look in your likes and see what they might have put on their list.

[Famous Mortimer]

A reasonable assumption, but it's got 7000 likes, and Facebook only serve it to a tiny fraction of those. They want you to pay to get your post seen by more of them - and then if you do that it's an ad and gets blocked. I reckon FB should serve my posts to anyone who has liked my page (unless they turned off notifications for it), but then they wouldn't get all that cash people pay to have their posts promoted. Cunts aren't they?

Sorry to hear that. I would whitelist your page. Well, I'd tell you I had and then not do it.

I'm just so tired of being advertised to everywhere I go. I visit a baseball site a lot, and recently paid $20 to be a supporting member for a year. They provide a lot of good articles and analysis. The guy in charge of the site said "we'd love to be able to tailor our ads and not have them break the page" (lots of people can't view the site on mobile devices, for example) "but as we're not big enough to sell our own ads, we have to rely on Google, and those guys have zero quality control for ad size, intrusiveness, etc.". I was surprised because I kept thinking "I never see ads there" until I remembered I used adblock. If Google (or ad sales body X) can't be bothered to police their own shit, and routinely make sites impossible to visit, why should we as users be made to feel guilty about blocking those ads?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Ad blocking estimated to cost publishers nearly $22 billion during 2015.

What is this even based on? Bullshit projections based on lost click-throughs. Projections assuming two separate stages happening. Bullshit.

Tip - maybe if the person doesn't want to be advertised to they aren't going to buy your shitty product regardless of whether they can adblock it or not.

The internet didn't use to exist- how much was this costing publishers every year? Should we start suing japanese manufacturers for not inventing videos and DVDs until the 80s and 90s?

[doppelkorn]

I work in marketing and if it all fucked off tomorrow the world would be a better place. Please end my pain.

[Mango Chimes]

The guy in charge of the site said "we'd love to be able to tailor our ads and not have them break the page" (lots of people can't view the site on mobile devices, for example) "but as we're not big enough to sell our own ads, we have to rely on Google, and those guys have zero quality control for ad size, intrusiveness, etc.".

That's absolute bollocks.

[Mango Chimes]

What is this even based on? Bullshit projections based on lost click-throughs. Projections assuming two separate stages happening. Bullshit.

I don't understand what you mean about the 'two separate stages', but they explain the methodology.  It assumes that people blocking ads would generate an equal ad revenue to people who don't block ads, which I'm not sure is true, but it doesn't seem a completely insane way to come up with a figure.

And as previously stated: lots of adverts are served on a per impression not per click basis.  Moreover, click-throughs aren't necessarily the goal.

Tip - maybe if the person doesn't want to be advertised to they aren't going to buy your shitty product regardless of whether they can adblock it or not.

That isn't true, unless all adblockers are living in some post-consumerist society somewhere.  And it's also irrelevant to generating ad income for publishers – only part of that income will have anything to do with a purchase, and even then it's indirect.

And besides, people do click ads.  Would people who use adblockers click ads?  More than they'd proclaim, I reckon.  But if not?  Well if ad-blockers are screening out non-clickers, they are thereby improving the click-through rate and making advertising look more successful and cost-effective to advertisers.

[Replies From View]

I think a lot of ads work on a pay-per-view basis; if an ad is blocked, it doesn't register as a view so the site hosting the ad loses a tiny amount of ad revenue. Millions of people running blockers makes it add up to a potentially significant loss of revenue.

Forgive me for being an old man, but what exactly is the financial transaction of "viewing an advert"?

[Famous Mortimer]

So Mango Chimes, what's your opinion on it? I am of course sure Google would never be economical with the truth in order to increase their own revenue. I will say, though, and feel free to call this absolute bollocks too, I have never ever clicked an advert on any website I've ever been on, on purpose. Those that suddenly resized themselves and made me hate both the product and the site it was on? A few.

[Mango Chimes]

So Mango Chimes, what's your opinion on it?

The guy in charge of the site is either lying or doesn't understand how to put a website together.

[Famous Mortimer]

The guy in charge of the site is either lying or doesn't understand how to put a website together.

Jesus fucking christ. So, Mango Chimes, what's your opinion on the subject raised in the first post?

[Kolba]

So is that why there's been such a huge increase in people using adblockers in the last year? Has advertising become much worse in the last 12 months?  I've been blocking ads for the last 10 years or more, and am amazed that everyone else wasn't already doing the same, as the ads were annoying enough 10 years ago.  It does seem weird to me that there's been such a sudden spike in people using a technology that is 10+ years old, there must be some reason for it.

Whilst I've been browsing the web for about 15 years, I only started blocking ads in the last 2 years or so. For me there are two reasons that I can think of. The first is that adblockers have never been easier to install. Just go the extension page for your browser, type in adblock and choose the highest rated one. One-click install later and you're ready. The second factor is the change in the web experience from being a purely text form. Now when we're browsing we'll jump from a text to video to text to video, and the nature of video ads is that they force you to WAIT. When it was banner ads, they just took up some space that you could scroll past as fast or as slow as you wanted. Even popups, as annoying as they are, only take a second to click the x. With a video ad you're actually stopped in your tracks and forced to WAIT. There's that conscious awareness of my time being wasted which I just didn't get with text ads.

[HappyTree]

I used a friend's laptop yesterday to look at something on Youtube and was surprised to see an ad pop up at the bottom with a x in the corner. I had no idea ads did that, or that there even were any on Youtube.

I did just buy a cool new gizmo for guitars about 2 minutes after seeing an ad for one. But this was on Youtube in an actual video demo'ing the thing in question which I had chosen to watch myself. So that kind of advertising is useful to me and I've no grump about it. Not a chance in hell I'm ever going to un-block page ads in general.

[Repeater]

get it right fuckin up them

[Depressed Beyond Tables]

So is that why there's been such a huge increase in people using adblockers in the last year? Has advertising become much worse in the last 12 months?  I've been blocking ads for the last 10 years or more, and am amazed that everyone else wasn't already doing the same, as the ads were annoying enough 10 years ago.  It does seem weird to me that there's been such a sudden spike in people using a technology that is 10+ years old, there must be some reason for it.

They seem to be getting more obnoxious with popups and popunders and pages that you can close and control your browser.

[Thomas]

If adverts weren't such obnoxious gits, consumers might not want them to fuck off. The issues are all discussed lucidly above. If I'm browsing a local news site and some brightly coloured, buffering ad springs up, blocking the article I'm trying to read about a tragic housefire, I just close the page. I don't hang about patiently for the ad to finish. Does that still count as a view, bringing in the revenue?

See, I find that I bear little ill-feeling towards the ads in podcasts, when the host is obliged to take thirty seconds to advertise SpongeBob SquareSpace or whatever. 'Product, price, wanna buy it? Back to podcast.' None of this Johnny Depp perfume ad narrative, girl on the platform smile, they're gonna taste great, aspiration, mums and dads, 'just a blade of grassss' wank. Ads improve or get blocked.

People have been employing televisual adblockers for decades, through the 'leave the room' and 'change the channel' methods. Presumably the revenue is still happy. In fact, that gives me an idea. Perhaps some interwebs boffin might design something that allows the ad to play, but invisibly.

The ad technically plays and the website gets its revenue, we get to browse in peace, meaning we stick with the website and bring in the views and good feedback, and the company trying to flog something doesn't lose out because nobody was going to buy the advertised shit anyway.

[Big Jack McBastard]

One of the main reasons I stopped watching broadcast telly[nb]along with 95% of it being dogrot[/nb] was ads, I didn't migrate to the internet to see more of the cunts. I'd never buy anything off the back of an ad anyway, in fact I'd go out of my way to avoid it and ward people off whatever the product/service is for thinking that's a way to behave.

Cry 'b-but muh business model' all you like, they're utterly obnoxious at the best of times and when they're using some sly shit like invisible frames, or built in re-directs, or auto pop-ups I either chop them out with an Element Inspector or instantly close the window and don't bother going back.

Surely ad revenue is piss miserable for any given site and they do much much better out of donations anyway, at least then you know people aren't just tolerating you.

I use NoScript and a couple of other bits and bobs too so a lot of clusterfuck cluttered sites look like there's barely anything but text on them unless I decide to let something run.

[MojoJojo]

Surely ad revenue is piss miserable for any given site and they do much much better out of donations anyway, at least then you know people aren't just tolerating you.

This is one of those comments which just makes me wonder what your reference points are. Which is another way of saying you are mental.

Yes, ad revenue is piss miserable, but the idea that donations are a decent source of income is fucking laughable. This is one of the few sites I know of where donations might meet advertising costs[nb]OK, thinking a bit more about it they probably do. Whatever. [/nb] But that's from a relatively small but dedicated usergroup, and virtually nothing invested in terms of content.

Have you seen the Guardian's begging banners recently? Do you think that is a winning strategy?

I think another way of looking at this is not as a shortage of demand - by which I mean anyone willing to actually pay for the deluge of crap on the internet we spend our time reading, but as a massive excess of supply. Too many people with an opinion and the ability to write to a spec meaning you can get shit content for nothing. People who want to be a writer even if they don't get paid for it.

[Big Jack McBastard]

This is one of those comments which just makes me wonder what your reference points are.

Ahem

This is one of the few sites I know of where donations might meet advertising costs

I'll wager my ring that they trounce them.

If donations bring in 1 penny more than ad revenue then they're doing better though donations.

Granted, regularly delivered content driven sites or Ytube whores are more likely to garner people punting a few quid their way, decent podcasts/some piece getting her norks out on a webcam etc will also do the trick.

I'm talking about sites/people/services that 'deserve' to survive, ad revenue being next to nothing on most sites one donation could beat years of those dribbling pennies.