Report claims ad blocking will cost industry an estimated $21.8 billion in 2015

p51d007

Posts: 2,724   +2,055
I wouldn't mine banner ads, but the ones I really hate are the ones that POP UP right in your face as you are scrolling an article and you have to click the x just to read the rest, or the ones that AUTOMATICALLY start a video AFTER you are halfway down a page, then you have to scroll back up to figure out which tiny box is playing the OVERLY LOUD video so you can turn the stupid thing off!
In your face ads...make me NEVER want to do business with them, EVER!
Some sites make you turn off ad blocking, just to get the site to even show up.
 

mrjgriffin

Posts: 349   +162
Hi everyone. use ublock origin with every custom filter selected except "easylist without element hiding scripts" use ghostery and under advanced uncheck "ignore first party trackers" and finally use poper blocker. you wont see a single ad or pop up. at least I haven't
 

EClyde

Posts: 2,395   +943
Ads? Some sites exist for nothing but ads... any real info is so minimal one needs to go to the next page where more ads exist....Tough luck on the commercials. I could do with a lot less sites so tuff luck Madison Ave
 

thorpj

Posts: 98   +27
If my statement didn't speak for the aggregate, this thread wouldn't exist.




Exactly. You're worse. You're one of those consumers who has it all figured out.

People don't like ads. They're intrusive and poorly targeted. So, they block them. When the ads are run unintrusively by a trusted source and are targeted well, they are unblocked and often clicked.

If companies and websites want to move people away from Adblock, they need to stop hawking product like crazed drug dealers. But if all they can do is tell me and everyone else to spend money on things we don't need: cry more.

You said that you don't care if adblockers cost industries a lot of money.

Your assertion, is lacking evidence. We're talking about the fact that ad blockers are costing industries money. Like I said, everybody has a vested interest in the industry making money. Because the internet doesn't run on goodwill...

Obviously, you've got it figured out, which is why you know me so well, that you can tell me what kind of person I am. Hmm, I don't think so.

Of course people don't like ads. I hate them too! But back to the point of the article, that ads are costing the industry a lot of money.

Yet again, you do care, you'd just like to think that you don't.
 
D

davislane1

You said that you don't care if adblockers cost industries a lot of money.

I did and I don't.

Obviously, you've got it figured out, which is why you know me so well, that you can tell me what kind of person I am. Hmm, I don't think so.

This may come as a surprise to you, but it's relatively easy to determine the kind of person someone is from their comments. I'm not telling you who you are; you're telling me. And what you're telling me is that you know just enough about the topic to form an opinion, but not quite so much that you actually understand it.

The impact of ad blocking is a theoretical opportunity cost that's based on a number of dubious assumptions. The ads that get blocked don't provide value to users, they don't interest users, and they often disrupt the user experience. Ergo, nobody cares.
 

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,807
It's not that ad blocking is going to cost them 22 billion dollars, it's that ads have become so invasive and annoying that the internet becomes unusable without ad blocking software. I allow ads on sites I frequent(techspot being one of them), but when you're searching multiple pages for something on google just about everyone one of them wants you to watch an ad or login into facebook. I'm sure that if ads were more subtle and not so in your face a larger portion of people wouldn't use ad block. However, these popups and auto play videos on many sites is just too much. It seems like half of browsing the internet is downloading ads.

They need to lose 22 billion dollars, show them that people aren't going to put up with the kind of ads that are being shoved down our throats. .
This is one of the best comments I have read on this site all year, and it has, temporarily, restored my faith in humanity.
 
Last edited:

agb81

Posts: 79   +39
I very much dislike it when the ad loads just fine, to be greeted by a constantly buffering video.

I can't remember where I read it, but IIRC that's because the content delivery network serving those ads are relatively closer to you than the youtube servers, so less jumps.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,908   +4,154
As much of a shock as it would be to the standard model of the internet, perhaps it is time for advertisers to consider that their advertising does not work. There were signs of this in the TV market years ago, but no one wants to tackle the real problem - advertising does not work. The people who block ads are not likely to buy some cr^p even if they see the ad. Personally, I am tired of being pandered to. When I want to buy something I research it, and advertising has nothing to do with my purchase. I will not impulsively click on some stupid ad even if I am interested in what it presents.

So a word to advertisers - wake up! Advertising, in general, does not work when nearly 50% of internet users block ads. Find a different model to sell your cr^p or get off the internet.
 
Moderate ads are fine but tracking users is NOT fine, and that is a main reason why I use blockers. In my eyes, Google and Facebook took over a "bad guy" role to Microsoft, and I avoid them ("Login widgets", and so on) whereever I can. Knowing my browsing habits is not free and "all happy solidarity".
But I am wiling to allow ads which bring bread to table to my favourite sites, if they follow some fair play policy when it comes to their users privacy.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,908   +4,154
To follow up on my earlier comment, that this "study" was done by PageFair, who markets software designed to circumvent ad blockers, sounds like marketing in all its glory. All PageFair has to do to get clients is convince the internet that ad blockers are the problem.

I am willing to bet that this "study" was nowhere near scientific in nature. Even so, like I said before, if nearly 50% of internet users block ads, then instead of "PageFair" concluding that ad blockers are the problem, perhaps "PageFair" should consider that there is also another possible cause of the problem - the advertising itself.

I am not going to cite references, but several years ago there was a study done on "The Tivo Effect." At that time, advertisers were worried that people using a Tivo would skip commercials and, not buy their products because they had not seen the ad. The study concluded that people skipping ads on a Tivo had no effect on how many people bought an advertiser's product. The study did not posit a reason for the result, but suggested that the subject needed more research and that one of the possible causes was that advertising does not work. AFAIK, no one has followed up to find out why. Instead, we get a company who has an obvious economic interest in the subject trying to tell the internet community that ad blockers are a problem and, oh, by the way, have we got the software for you.

Load of cr^p.
 

PixelMediaArts

Posts: 30   +54
Maybe add this to your list:

6) duplicate detection so that it won't show repeated ads.
7) encourage giveaways/incentives for watching
8) allow for skipping ads so many per hour, etc
9) flag ad for being too repetitive, uneven audio, boring
10) target ads for areas of interest. When I click this ad doesn't interest me. I mean it!
 

roberthi

Posts: 456   +139
Awe...so sad for ad agencies, etc. So sad...sniff sniff. Did you poor little overly intrusive efforts come back to bite you? So sad...
 

lipe123

Posts: 972   +560
Poor babies, bargained on a unsustainable stupid business model and is shocked its not working?

Hosting a site and paying for the bandwidth is ridiculously cheap, of course there are some sites with enormous traffic volumes that would cost more but for the average free site that really shouldn't be a concern.

I'm pretty damn sure just putting a single "please donate here to support us" button would yield better returns and be much less intrusive and annoying. The volume of junk webpages on the internet with "10 tricks about whatever you never knew.." that just serve as click bait for showing tons of ads needs to die in a FIRE!
 

Ziffel

Posts: 75   +62
The media has jumped all over this meaningless story. Please, tell us more about how much money is lost from people fast forwarding commercials on a DVR, or from getting a book from a library (or friend) instead of a bookstore. Oh dear! think how much money is lost from all the people not buying something instead of buying it! We should do a 'news' story on that!

The people that install adblockers aren't looking at or clicking on the bloody things anyway. $22B my arse.
 

OgnDulk

Posts: 27   +7
If you have a good or service I want I will hunt you down to get it, but if you try to force something in my face like a kardashian big fat *** I will resent it and avoid you regardless of what the product or service.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 4,025   +3,157
As much of a shock as it would be to the standard model of the internet, perhaps it is time for advertisers to consider that their advertising does not work. There were signs of this in the TV market years ago, but no one wants to tackle the real problem - advertising does not work. The people who block ads are not likely to buy some cr^p even if they see the ad. Personally, I am tired of being pandered to. When I want to buy something I research it, and advertising has nothing to do with my purchase. I will not impulsively click on some stupid ad even if I am interested in what it presents.

So a word to advertisers - wake up! Advertising, in general, does not work when nearly 50% of internet users block ads. Find a different model to sell your cr^p or get off the internet.

Well, most of us might agree that we hate it... But I'm pretty sure that it DOES work... that's why they do it.... and why companies can pay BILLIONS to advertise.... We live in a consumer society - so companies are attempting to make us BUY BUY BUY....

If everyone stopped buying, perhaps advertising would stop too... of course, our economy would probably collapse as well...
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,908   +4,154
Well, most of us might agree that we hate it... But I'm pretty sure that it DOES work... that's why they do it.... and why companies can pay BILLIONS to advertise.... We live in a consumer society - so companies are attempting to make us BUY BUY BUY....

If everyone stopped buying, perhaps advertising would stop too... of course, our economy would probably collapse as well...
There are many ways that people can find products to buy, advertising is only one portion of that pie, and the efficacy of advertising is not well-established from a scientific standpoint.

Selling a product and making money on it are completely different from advertising that works. Sure, I know of people who click on ads out of ignorance, but that does not mean that clicking on an ad will generate a sale.

If we can assume that ad blockers are the equivalent of fast-forwarding through ads on a Tivo, then my bet is that ad blockers have little to no effect on sales. So the pertinent question becomes why don't ad blockers have an effect (if, indeed, they do not) as it did in the study on "The Tivo Effect."

The truth of the matter is that most entities that sell things and advertise probably do not query their customers as to whether it was advertising or something else that prompted the sale. If that is the case, then even entities that advertise have no idea what lead to the sale of their product, and if advertising does not really work, then it is a waste of money for companies to advertise.

Advertising is a source of revenue, as we all know, for some internet sites. PageFair wants those sites to believe that ad blockers are inhibiting their revenue stream. As I see it, PageFair is trying to create a market for a product that it sells and that means that anything that comes from PageFair that is aimed at creating that market, in particular, this study, is biased and should not be trusted.

Whether the advertising dollars spent are worth it is another matter that needs further study but it is within the realm of possibility that advertising does not work.
 

Yynxs

Posts: 542   +190
I notice no one is proposing a "pay as you go model" here. Personally, I would prefer an online browser linked account that paid a web page some fraction of a cent as I scrolled through it. Deposit 10 bucks, surf all month with no ads and no one spying on where my curiousity took me. Want to read more? Click here and deposit a penny. No more than a penny a minute transferable no matter how many hot links the web site opens. Close the browser. All connections, all deductions stopped. Doesn't seem like that complex a project.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 4,025   +3,157
Whether the advertising dollars spent are worth it is another matter that needs further study but it is within the realm of possibility that advertising does not work.

Well yes, the POSSIBILITY is there... but are you really so arrogant as to think that we are all smarter than the heads of billion-dollar companies?

I would postulate that the advertising DOES work - which is why it's done...

And yes, this study about ad-blockers looks like self-serving propaganda to sell anti-ad-blocking software...

While television and movies make corporate CEOs out to be lazy and dumb, I hate to be the guy to tell you all that the majority are in fact quite hard-working and EXTREMELY intelligent... the examples on TV are the exceptions, not the rule....
 

paul s2

Posts: 21   +5
I pay for my bandwidth stop advertisers from stealing from me and ill stop adblocking you.
your ads are costing me money to see them
 

gunste24

Posts: 39   +4
Unearned income is not a loss or a cost. Failure to click on a site does not cost Google it just fails to earn them a penny or two.
 

DAOWAce

Posts: 313   +57
I'm fine with text ads, I'm fine with banners that fit in and are relevant to the subject matter.

I'm not fine with audio enabled popups for sexual dating sites injected with malware.

Until those types of ads go away, I will never cease adblocking and doing everything I can to keep those ads blocked. The most I do is whitelist content creators on Youtube/Twitch and very specific sites.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,908   +4,154
Whether the advertising dollars spent are worth it is another matter that needs further study but it is within the realm of possibility that advertising does not work.

Well yes, the POSSIBILITY is there... but are you really so arrogant as to think that we are all smarter than the heads of billion-dollar companies?

I would postulate that the advertising DOES work - which is why it's done...

And yes, this study about ad-blockers looks like self-serving propaganda to sell anti-ad-blocking software...

While television and movies make corporate CEOs out to be lazy and dumb, I hate to be the guy to tell you all that the majority are in fact quite hard-working and EXTREMELY intelligent... the examples on TV are the exceptions, not the rule....
Actually, I would not call it arrogance. Many execs are like horses with blinders on. They see the world from their level and at their level, the world looks much different. When something comes along that is outside of their standard model, they sometimes do not want to face it. I do not judge real execs by supposing that they are anything like FICTIONAL execs that appear in FICTIONAL dramas.

For instance, look at Kodak. They, Kodak, that is, invented the digital camera. Yet they, at that time, were making all kinds of money on film and photographic paper, both of which were cash cows for them. I don't know what went into the decision, but Kodak made the decision not to pursue the digital camera and look at what happened to them.

Shortly after the study on the Tivo was done, there was an article similar to this that appeared on Engadget. I responded to a forum thread about the article in a similar manner and said that there was evidence that advertising did not work. An individual who identified himself as an industry exec responded to my comments, I presented the evidence to him in the form of a link to the tivo study that contained their conclusions that advertising does not work, and all he could say back to me was, essentially, "I do not want to face that prospect." So why would he say that? Simply because it would mean that they would have to re-write the book and start from scratch and make a different model - and to the industry, that is terrifying.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. However, do you find yourself clicking on ads that you see on the internet and subsequently buying that product? Do you find yourself seeing an ad on TV and then going out and buying everything you see in an ad? Formulate an answer to whether or not advertising works based on what you yourself do then have a look at these - http://phys.org/news/2010-12-digital-video-behavior.html
http://phys.org/news/2010-05-tivo-kryptonite-advertising.html

from the second link:
“Companies are afraid of a ‘TiVo effect’ and are changing their media spending as a result,” says Fuqua Professor Carl L. Mela. “But we find no change in people’s shopping patterns when we compare a group that has TiVo with a group that doesn’t. The manufacturers’ fears seem to be overstated.”

The way that I see advertising is that it most often far overplays that value of a product. Take Progressive commercials, for instance. Consumer Reports did a study on them that appears in this month's issue, and found that Progressive, even claiming what they do, is one of the most expensive insurance companies out there. Advertising is marketing, and marketing will do everything it can to make you think that you are not good enough, you can save money, it can make you better, etc., most of it pure BS aimed at selling their products.

Like I said, PageFair is trying to create a market for their product. They are doing that by pretending to be experts in the field and artificially trying to create a market for it. There will be companies who buy into their BS. To bad for them.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 4,025   +3,157
You kind of made my point for me...
“Companies are afraid of a ‘TiVo effect’ and are changing their media spending as a result,” says Fuqua Professor Carl L. Mela. “But we find no change in people’s shopping patterns when we compare a group that has TiVo with a group that doesn’t. The manufacturers’ fears seem to be overstated.”

Buying patterns HAVEN'T changed!! This means that whatever they are doing is WORKING!!!

Again, of course we aren't immediately buying whatever we click on... but it kind of works subliminally too... you see 100 ads for a Sony Camera - the next time you are in a position to choose a camera - you might be a bit more inclined to go with Sony (or at least look at it) because you've already been exposed to the possibility....

These guys AREN'T stupid... they don't spend billions for no reason.... and they have tons of VERY PROFITABLE quarterly and annual reports that back it up...