Adblockers are Ordinary Thiefs (19)
Last week I read an article on Adblockers and their impact on free content that really caught my attention. The article is in Dutch but you can find it here: http://www.demorgen.be/tvmedia/chris...meer-b907e77e/
Basically adblockers allow users to install a piece of software on their computer that blocks all the (annoying?) ads on websites the user surfs to. While at first sight adblockers seem to serve a meaningful purpose and help the user, after analyzing their activity in more detail, one has to conlude that they are hurting the user instead of helping them.
In the above mentioned article Christian Van Thillo, who is the CEO of De Persgroep, a digital publishing company that is focused on the Benelux markets with approx. 5,400 employees and +1.3€ billion in annual revenues, refers to adblockers as “Ordinary Thiefs”.
I agree 100% with the opinion expressed by Mr. Van Thillo for the following two reasons:
1. Free does not exist
There are two models: free vs premium. Website owners either work on a “free” model whereby the user enjoys free content as the advertiser generates its revenues through ads. Or a premium model whereby there are no ads but the user has to pay to get access to the content (e.g. Netflix).
Adblockers will lead website owners to charge their users for the content they provide. This is not good for anyone as the internet should be accessible for everyone, and not just for people who can afford to pay for the content. The user should have the choice to opt for the free model (i.e. for free but with ads) or the premium model (i.e. paying but without ads).
2. Adblockers will still show you Ads and/or sell your data
Although adblockers claim they won’t show you any ads after installing their software on your computer, they will effectively still show you ads. They will only show you ads from advertisers that PAY them to let their ads through. By doing this, the adblocker defeats its own purpose and cheats on the user as they claim to not show you any ads. Adblock Plus, one of the largest adblockers on the Internet, is a business and the primary purpose of a business is to make money by charging advertisers to still show their ads to the users.
Other adblockers such as Ghostery make money by collecting data about your surfing behaviour and then sell that data to publishing companies so they can, guess what, better target their ads to your interests.
Some say adblockers will lead advertisers to rethink their ads and how ads will be displayed to the consumer in the future will change thanks to adblockers. New forms of advertising will come up and replace the old ones. Native advertising is one of these forms, whereby ads are blended in with content and are not so obvious to recognize as the traditional banner ads.
That is partly true, but adblockers will still steal away a substantial part of the revenues website owners need to provide the free content the user enjoys. Native ads complement traditional banner ads, they don’t replace them. In the example of De Persgroep that currently offers most of its digital content for free to their users, they need the advertising revenues to pay for their employees, hosting, offices, etc in order to keep on providing the free content to their readers.
To conclude. Given that adblockers infringe the privacy of users, sell user data to whoever wants to pay for it, defeat their own purpose by still showing ads to users, and last but not least steal away revenues from publishing companies – that are needed to keep on delivering content for free – one can conclude adblockers are a Trojan horse to the end user and should therefore be forbidden by law.
More articles on online advertising on my linkedin profile: https://www.linkedin.com/today/autho...Kj?trk=prof-sm
As far as I know, I havent seen ads in youtube or any other sites that I want to block ads. Adblock plus all the way. Atleast in the states.
Banning adblockers is like banning Uber. If the market decides adblockers are bad, they will die out. If the users like it, others have to adapt or die.
I am very happy with using AdBlocker Chrome extension. Most people that use adblockers are unlikely to provide any value to the advertiser anyway, so the advertisers also win when I don't get shown an ad.
"Free, privacy, poor publishers, selling data..." - That side of the industry can adapt too. There's no reason only advertisers should change their behaviour and publishers not. Regarding the privacy argument: Should we also ban Android? Should we ban all Android apps? Should we shut down the Internet?
There's no good argument for banning adblockers presented here.
What bothers me most about adblockers is that they mislead the user in stating they won't show any ads but that is simply not true.
Even the scammiest advertiser can get its ads through if only they pay the adblocker. Also, the user wants free content and at the same time no ads - that's a combination that cannot work.
Uber and Android add value to the user and their value proposition is clear, transparant and straightforward. That is not the case with an adblocker.
And adblockers do not have the right to capture (read: steal) the revenues generated by a publisher/affiliate. They are freeriding on the backs of every publisher's traffic and making good bank with it.
Originally Posted by manu_adefy
Originally Posted by cbrughmans
Stealing revenue? Really? They provide a service, which the user clearly demands. Does it disrupt business models? Sure, but what's the issue there? Doesn't Uber steal revenue from taxis in the exact same way? Uber provides a taxi service essentially, and is stealing from the taxi drivers who had to go through training, licensing, etc. That's why some European cities have lawsuits going between Uber and taxi companies. What you are suggesting is the same, and absurd. Do you have a vested interest in this? Because your tone is not at all unbiased. I've only heard the same from taxi companies against Uber to be honest. Or was your goal simply to create controversy?
@matuloo: As you can see in the screenshot, you can disable seeing the ads on those websites too. If the ad networks and websites decide to pay for it, it will clearly be a profitable move for them anyway. If they pay and don't make more money than without paying, it's just bad business by them. As long as the user has the easy option to opt out of being targeted by those ads, it's not the user's concern what the ad networks believes to be good business for them.
The fact that it disrupts business-as-usual is the only awesome part of an adblocker. I have also never mentioned "disruption" in my post as I think disruption is great and necessary to transform markets. I am all for market disruption IF it is done in an honest, transparant and straightforward way (like Uber has done). Which in my opinion is not the case with adblockers as the disabling of the ads that pay is either very well hidden in the software the user installs, not communicated at all, or with some adblockers not even possible at all.
I am quite sure that +95% of internet users genuinely think they won't see any ad if they install the software on their computer and that +99% of all users do not know that the adblocker will aggregate and sell their data and surf behaviour to whoever is willing to pay for it. With Uber the value proposition is crystal clear to the user, with adblockers it simply isn't.
You are 100% right that I am not unbiased but who isn't at the end of the day? Everyone here on this forum has a monetary interest in keeping adblockers out as they are stealing revenues from affiliates and networks, and publishing companies, including probably your own company. Therefore it is strange that you are defending them so much, but that is of course your good right.
Originally Posted by manu_adefy
But it still doesnt change what I said. Adblocks literaly say to site owners/ad networks - you either pay us or we will block your ads. Give us part of your revenue or we will take it away from you. Its racketeering to me, plain and simple. Want to create an ad blocking system? Fine do it, but don't make exceptions and block all. This way its just helping the big companies like google to increase their market share. This is not fair business competition at all.
I also dont think Uber is a good example : Uber didnt come to taxi drivers, asking them to drive under their brand or they will send people blocking the doors to their cars. Uber basically just lowered the prices on the market and brought more competition. Its causing the standard taxi business problems for sure, but they dont really block anything.
Originally Posted by cbrughmans
With regards to the monetary interest when it comes to the users on the forum, I think many affiliates understand the following:
a) Users who opt-in (install) ad blockers, are doing so because the ads shown to them have 0 relevance. This means they would be extremely unlikely to convert anyway.
b) The prices will change based on the performance of those impressions, not on the quantity. In the end, the market will account for bots and ad blockers. Of course, you have to keep some things under control but if fairness and monetary benefits are the main concern, the system will fix itself.
c) Trying to fight a change by going backwards is oh so often a bad idea. If there's a clear demand for adblockers, moving towards banning them is not an adaptation, it's a desperation move. Provide a better change than the current adblockers or look to adapt to the inevitable change. Fighting something so many users demand is doomed to fail. What business models have people not thought of because of going with pay-by-seeing-ads model only?
I think there's a big distinction between defending adblockers and pointing out the invalidity of your argument when calling for legislation against them. Your main pain point is the bottom line of the publisher, which again I have to bring to the taxi vs Uber analogy. Sprinkling in privacy concerns, when the options are available in the options section, won't make your argument more solid. In fact, how many offers available on your affiliate network monetize users by selling their data? How many of them put big fat red letters that they are selling their data on splash screens? If they don't do it, are you calling for these offers to be banned? Or because they ADD to your bottom line, they are OK? You can't have double standards and be so hypocritical and expect praise, even in a densely gray industry like affiliate marketing.
We agree to disagree 
Originally Posted by matuloo
@Racketeering: If the ads on a certain website are good, the user has the options to unblock them for free, and also has the option of keeping paying websites blocked. It's purely a dumb business decision to pay adblockers if you don't make more money by doing so.
@Uber: Uber didn't go to the taxi companies, and neither are adblockers. They got popular and start hurting some bottom lines, while improving user experience and of course making money themselves as well in the meantime. The comparison of "blocking doors" would be like having adblockers forcefully installed and on, with no uninstall function (opt out vs opt in model). The user has the choice of ubering or not, like they have a choice to install adblockers or not. Saying you should ban ad blockers means the same for the end user as banning Uber, or similar service.
There are nuances of fairness that can be adjusted when it comes to both Uber, adblockers and whatever you want in life. That's why I am NOT saying adblockers are a MUST, I am saying banning them is a ridiculous demand, and hypocritical of someone representing an affiliate network, using arguments that would put a great percentage of offers in the same bucket.
Listen, publishers can whine all day about ad blockers, but this is like whining about a Google or Facebook policy change.
Complaining about this is not going to make one iota of difference.
Adblockers are only going to grow in popularity.
Other players will need to adapt or die.
The German courts and European Commission seem to agree with you there, according to these two articles
http://arstechnica.co.uk/business/20...-german-court/
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/20...ers-eprivacy/1
The victims of this trend, at the end of the day, won't be the publishers, advertisers or networks who have the money and IT to innovate, but rather John and Jane Doe who will end up having to pay for the content they now get for free.
Originally Posted by cmdeal
Originally Posted by cbrughmans
/////////
As a side note related to the discussion of blocking all/just some ads:
Being honest to yourself, there's a bit of a difference in the way and content a user will get promoted by adsense / google display network / doubleclick / generally speaking brand oriented advertising networks and popads, adcash, propeller etc...
Saying ads are ads isn't gonna work on this topic.
=> People are crying about adblockers for years now, I've heard "popups are dead on desktop" for at least 7-8 years now. Still there's people pushing easily medium - high 5 digits daily just with desktop pops. No matter they're becoming more and more popular or not, there'll always be a way to outsmart them and whining about them isn't going to help anybody...
The people complaining most about it are actually the people annoying the user the most.
Huge publishing companies running websites like bild.de are actually taking a different approach: if you visit their site with an adblocker, you won't see the content. If you want, subscribe and enjoy with your adblocker. If not willing to pay, turn off and enjoy content for free. Smarter to adapt in some cases...
Its all supply and demand imo, and as affiliates we just have to constantly adapt
Awesome! The end of adblockers is hopefully in sight.
Adblock Plus is such a f*** nasty company. I hope they go bankrupt A-S-A-P
http://www.adweek.com/news/technolog...etplace-173485
AdBlockers aren't going anywhere, but that move from Adblock to start selling ads is disgusting.. confirming what we always knew, never was about the user, only about the $$$.Expect a rise in popularity of origin block and ghostery soon.Mehdi
So all the other adblockers are holy saints who only care about the user and are not interested in making money?
Adblockers steal revenue from publishers and affiliates, they defy their own purpose by still allowing ads, infringe the user's privacy by aggregating and selling user data, and they don't have a clear value proposition for the user.
Time for them to be pushed out of the market. Facebook seems to agree as well: https://www.exoclick.com/facebook-us...y-ad-blockers/
Home > General > Affiliate Marketing Forum