How would you fix digital advertising?

[Marmot]

I’ve participated in a few threads on adblocking over the years and presented my view that the practice is unethical because, simply put, it is effectively stealing from publishers. That might sound like a bold claim, but I consider it to be true.

The content you read was most likely produced by an author who was paid a salary, and was uploaded to a website that cost money to build, host and maintain. That publisher’s revenue model might have been entirely based on advertising income. I think we all understand this but for some reason we seem to ignore it.

Peoples jobs are directly dependent on income derived from advertising, and not just those who work in the marketing department but those right across the business.

Here are two examples within the last couple of months where work forces have been trimmed from publishers who are directly funded by ad revenue.

Verizon: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/23/verizon-media-group-7-percent-layoffs/

Buzzfeed: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/23/buzzfeed-layoffs-2019/

And there will be more to come in 2019.




Display based advertising (banners, videos) comes in all shapes and sizes, and it’s clear that people do not appreciate ad formats which overlay or underlay content, autoplay, take up too much of the screen or in any way disrupt the experience of browsing the internet.

I have seen various arguments for adblocking which I think are ill thought out, but the most common is certainly:

“I’m not turning off my adblocker. If sites want ad revenue they should stop running disruptive ads.”

This is a silly, blanket argument to a problem which is not apparent on every single advertiser, and thus you are depriving ethical publishers of ad revenue based on the unethical behaviour of others. Furthermore, if you’re not happy with the price you’re paying you should stop consuming that content rather than saying the price is too high and consuming it anyway.

The industry certainly does need an overhaul, and there are various initiatives already in place such as the ‘Coalition for Better Ads’ https://www.betterads.org/ and the ‘IAB Gold Standard’ https://www.iabuk.com/goldstandard which aim to solve the problems which consumers and businesses are facing.




To the point:

For those of you unhappy with the current state of digital advertising, which I am sure will be over 90% of you, I want to ask how you would recommend we fix the problem?

Would you prefer to live in a digital advertising free world, where you paid for each piece of content you consumed via micro transactions? Would you prefer a subscription service for the internet similar to Netflix?

If you believe digital advertising does have a place in a publisher’s revenue model, how would you design the experience? Should ads be animated? Should they be static? Should they have sound? Should they be clickable? Should they remain on the borders of the content or can they take centre stage in the midst of it – how would this work on a smartphone?

If popups, overlays, autoplay-with-sound, road-block style, expanding, disrupting ads were replaced with a system more akin to the traditional out-of-home experience we have on buses, underground stations, billboards, etc; would this be preferable? If ads were unclickable, and so the risk of navigating away from the page you’re viewing was removed, and the units were basically just a visual prompt on the outskirts of your content; would that be better?

Would you turn off your adblocker?

 

[Marmot]

As predicted there were a lot of useless one liners but I'm pleasantly surprised to see some of you were actually keen to engage with the debate, as it is an important one.

do you work in the publishing world per chance?

Yes.

I wouldn't fix it, it's broken and in need of no repair.

I couldn’t really deduce much from this single line response. I’ll assume you feel the same way about adblocking as you do about this thread, which is that you’re happy to consume content without contributing anything in return.

I would never turn off my adblocker. That would expose me to ads, which I don't want.

I believe that ads make the content worse. Content is produced to generate ad revenue, rather than to provide good content. E.g. clickbait.

If ads were removed, and a microtransaction model created, and the content improved, then I might contribute.

I would never pay for content before receiving it because that would result in a kind of clickbait which costs me money. The real world gets around false-advertising via refunds, but I bet refunds wouldn't be offered for paywalled digital content.

A way it might work is:
- Person pays x per month into an account.
- Person has a browser extension, when there is content they like, they use the extension to indicate the Like.
- At the end of the month, the monthly amount is divided up between all liked content which takes payment in this way.
- Something similar to this already exists: https://basicattentiontoken.org/

Interesting, thanks.

If the ad experience fundamentally changed you would still not want to be exposed to them? Can I ask, honestly, whether you feel annoyed when you see advertising on billboards, buses, Piccadilly Circus etc. whilst out and about? How about in newspapers and magazines? Or is your negative perception of advertising specifically aimed towards digital?

Ad blockers are epic.

I want to read something not be interrupted by useless adverts, I didnt ask for the article etc to be published. I also didnt ask to pay for it.

This is probably the most inane response so far. I think you must be trolling? You didn't ask for the article etc to be published? That's like saying I didn't ask for the restaurant down the road to open so I'm fine to go in there and eat dinner without paying. If you don't want to be interrupted by adverts that's fine, but you shouldn't be on the websites.

I don't care about ads as such, it's an accepted thing to me now.
But the ones that I absolutley hate are autoplay videos and anything that moves the content of the page around, they do my head in!

Great, so if the disruptive element of digital advertising could be removed, you would be happy remain exposed to advertising online?

Can I ask how you feel about pre-roll and mid-roll video advertising? Pre-roll and mid-roll ARE effectively disrupting your experience because you have to wait before you can watch the video you just clicked on etc, but if you're not happy with autoplay and you don't want pre-roll then there aren't many options left for video advertisers. Very few people would opt in to watching video ads unless they were rewarded (with content) for doing so. Obviously video advertising is the primary source of income for YouTube.

I'm actually quite happy with the current ad models for the sites I visit, which is mostly forums news sites and blogs. What I'm not happy about is ads on mobile the screens are too small and the ads take up too much room making it easy to fat finger and take you away from the content and not to mention eating up your data allowance. I am considering getting a mobile ad blocker

If ads had no click functionality would you still be opposed to the ads on mobile? Unfortunately due to the size limitations on mobile there are very few options available to publishers. As for data allowances, I understand this concern however with a growing number of unlimited data plans I think this is less of an issue every day.

Of a site wants me to turn off Adblock then I will never go back to it.... Unless it's 100% critical.

Again, I just can't understand this mentality. I just read this as "if I'm ever asked to pay for anything then I won't visit that business again, unless it's life or death"

You say blocking ad is "unethical" I would say the way advertising companies do business is unethical. They serve up ads and take no responsibility for the ads for damage they do!
While adverts have to run scripts to display ads I am not turning off my Ad Blocker. Poisoned ads are a major vector for being hacked and I have no desire to be hacked!
What needs to end is targeted ads, this would stop the need to track people.
Ads should be served from the site not got from a third party.
Ads being served from the Website would also mean they do not need a script to display.
Advertisers have only themselves to blame for the rise of Ad Blockers and until they sort themselves out it is not going away.

The scripts are largely due to something called 'programmatic advertising' which is effectively the movement away from contextual placements into audience buying placements. If you're selling fishing rods then you might think fishing websites are the best bet, but keen fisherman don't only browse fishing related content, they also browse holiday content, they also look at lifestyle and entertainment, sport, cooking, and much more. Programmatic has allowed brands the ability to buy the individual rather than the ad slot.

An end to targeted ads wouldn't stop the need to track people either. Brands still want to know where their money is going and senior business stakeholders are not happy with verbal reassurances that their adspend is working, they need quantifiable results. Thirds parties (such as Doubleclick, Sizmek, etc.) are employed to verify that what the publisher is saying is true, and some code is necessary to do this.

If adblock is unethical, then presumably ignoring adverts that are on screen is also unethical. Or in fact seeing the advert but then choosing not to spend money on whatever it is selling.

@op how much random crap do you buy through the adverts you diligently refuse to ignore?

Probably a lot more than I would care to admit. I get the point you're making, but I'm sure you don't actually believe that you're not subconsciously affected by advertising, and subsequently display a higher propensity to convert off the back of it. This is the fabric of the industry and it is why 4 of the 5 largest companies in the world derive revenue from digital advertising.

Personally I try to adblock as little as possible actually - especially stuff like YouTube I don't block at all.

Why I do is firmly because of situations where the ads are detrimental to the experience especially ads that autoplay sound, mess with the layout of the page dynamically making it difficult to stay on the content I'm looking for or change default behaviour making navigation difficult, etc. or are still busy loading several minutes later - especially sites that are more ad than content.

I think you will have a hard time getting a lot of people to turn off their adblockers though even if the manner they were delivered in was considerate especially some seem to have a deep rooted grudge that the money is going to someone other than themselves.

So with that said I'm going to presume that if the industry was fundamentally revamped to become non-intrusive, you would have no qualms removing your adblocker. You don't have anything against 'advertising' but you don't want your day to be ruined.

As a secondary point I would really question what type of sites you are visiting where there are more ads than content? Very occasionally I get sent a daily mail link with a humorous title or such, and yes the experience is awful, but that is once a month maybe. Practically all of the sites I visit these days have fairly conservative ad placements, no autoplay with sound or anything like that at all.

I’ve donated to adblocker. That shows where I stand on the issue.

Actually it tells me nothing at all other than you are discontented with the status quo, which I already predicted in my opening post.

• Auto playing videos with sound? No.
• Ad audio louder than the video/music you want to listen to? No (I'm looking at you Spotify)
• Ad video longer than the clip I want to watch? No
• Popup I have to hunt for the [X] symbol on when I open a page? No.

• Unobtrusive ad that doesn't get in the way? Yes.
• Short videos (like YouTube does with an option to skip after a few seconds)? Yes

Something like that

Thanks, that's nice and clear.

C'mon lad. Someone showed me a YouTube video at work and it had a pre-roll advert. I was like "where is the video?" and she said it's an advert. Lo and behold I later realised that my home PC blocks YT adverts as I had uBlock installed and that I didn't know that YT adverts existed. So as an experiment, I disabled uBlock to see how I'd get on with YT with ads. Unbearable for me imo. A pre-roll ad before the video, 4 banner ads during the video that cover part of the actual video (video was only 10 minutes long), then more video ads after the relevant video is finished.

Sod that. No seriously, sod that. I don't have a TV, so YT is my TV and I pay my internet provider £38/month to access the internet, and that is only on the medium tariff. I don't think that I have to pay extra or see ads to access YT on the principle that I have contributed 180 videos myself on that platform. You gain from the community and you also give to the community.

Maybe you have a slight point as you do contribute directly through content upload, however how does that content you upload pay for YouTubes hosting fees?

 

[Marmot]

Adverts don't work on me. I ignore 99.9% of all adverts completely and automatically.

I would beg to differ, advertising works on nearly everyone.

If an advertiser is paying to display an ad to me, then they are wasting their money.

Again, from the data I see on a daily basis I don't believe this to be the case. There is a subconscious element you are unaware of.

I block the ads with an ad-blocker because they often:

1) cause excessive load times on pages. Without ads/javascript, a page might load in <1 sec. With ads the page is still loading 5-10s later...

5G will solve this.

2) follow me around when I scroll. Full page-width at the top, then if I scroll down, they follow me as a smaller version of themselves
3) start video with sound, often on every page
4) are excessively large - ie the "letterbox" ads on the left and right of your screen
5) are excessively bright, animated, in-your-face. By their nature they scream at you for your attention. By design.

So, as you mention a few points down, if the animated, flashing, scrolling, autoplaying issues were solved, and ads were just static billboards you would be happy to turn off adblocker.

This is not the experience I want from a leisure activity. Imagine you went to a health spa (if that's your cup of tea) to unwax and relind. Now imagine somebody followed you around everywhere you went in the spa, shouting at you to buy coffee, cars, over-50s dating (I'm not even 50 WTF), holidays to Ibitha (yuck). It would ruin it, even if the spa itself was free the experience would be so miserable you wouldn't go again.

Fine, "you wouldn't go again", except you do go again, only with your eyes glued shut and your fingers in your ears this time. If the health spa specifically stated above its front door that advertising is how payment is made, do you think that your actions are ethical? You've been forewarned but you choose to ignore the instructions and consume the experience for free.

Some static adverts on the walls would be fine; some brochures lying around the place would be fine; but the ad industry as a whole is moving towards high-impact, bright, moving adverts. E.g. see football matches, where all the banners are now electronic and all adds are now movies.

I think this thread is well-intentioned but futile. The industry as a whole has chosen HIGH IMPACT IN YOUR FACE LOUD MOVING TRIPPY COLOURS! Perhaps because they see us as low attention span fools or perhaps because, in a world full of advertising, you now need to really jump out/annoy/accost your audience to get noticed.

I don't think things will change for the better - I think if it's possible they'll get worse. So my ad-blocker is here to stay for the moment, but I'm sure eventually ads will be created that it is impossible to block. Like ads that are inserted into the content and served by the site you landed on - not served by a 3rd party.

As you say, the industry has ended up like this because of changing consumer habits and a crowded advertising marketplace. It is making ludicrous amounts of money for a few big players and there does need to be change. As for the thread being futile, I'm not trying to change the world, just get some peoples thoughts

 

[Marmot]

Double post

 

[Marmot]

Sorry Chrcoluk, I responded to the first half of the thread but my +multiquote was getting a bit long.

Some malware is spread via advertising networks.

Do you have any examples of this? I used to see unauthorised downloads and uncloseable pages when I was young and used torrent sites, but I wouldn't ever see this on any legitimate domain. Again, I really don't know what sites you guys are browsing where you have such awful experiences. I do not use an adblocker, and I do not encounter malware ever when using the internet.

There is a growing trend for sites to autoplay videos which is horrible behaviour.

I've made a point earlier about video previously. How do you feel about pre-roll or mid-roll on YouTube? Are you prepared to accept any video advertising at all?

Tracking significantly slows down web browsing, some sites particularly news sites have over 10 domains used for tracking purposes, each of these will require a dns lookup and at least one tcp session opened.
It wastes bandwidth, depending on the device and isp used can be significant.

I don't personally think data useage is an issue to the majority of people due to unlimited plans. I also think 5G will solve the load time issues.

Its a nuisance when ads are animated, or they move around the screen following your movements.

Would you be prepared to accept advertising if it was non-disruptive? Enough so to completely disable your adblocker?

In the 1990s adverts were a mess, popups, animations etc.
Then after adblockers were made, web publishers started getting the message and were slowly restricting adverts to text non animated adverts, in return the dev of adblocker added an acceptable advert feature to keep these adverts working. People were slowly coming to a happy compromise.
But suddenly in recent years, we slowly going back to the early net with animations, autoplaying videos, large adverts covering big chunk of screen, also boxes that popup when you start to scroll etc. Plus I think tracking has gone completely out of control.

In short its been abused, and as long as its been abused I will filter my internet from it.

Sites I use regularly I do add whitelisting but will only whitelist small non animated adverts and no tracking.

Sites like hardocp/hardforum have funding from patreons I am indeed a patreon on hardocp. FT is funded by subscriptions, some sites survive in other ways.

I'm glad to hear you whitelist content you deem to be worthy of payment, but do you understand why the tracking element is important to businesses?

I don't know what hardocp/hardforum is i'm afraid, but the FT relies heavily on advertising. It has a paid subscription service but it also has a advertising model.

 

[Marmot]

Ads are in your face constantly and for this reason my adblocker will never be turned off. I don't want to see the latest products in the world if I'm honest. If I want something I will find it another way through discussions.

Does this make you nervous?

Not really, do you get nervous when you venture out into the big scary world and see advertisements on buses too?

 

[Marmot]

As I said pre roll is ok if limited to 3 seconds maximum, thats enough time to get brand name out to the viewer.

Also as I said you dont need either pre roll or mid roll, just place a logo or object in the video showing the brand name.

Hmm, on your second points are you recommending that the advertisement should actually be part of the content itself? Like product placement? Or do you mean it should overlap the content temporarily? Surely that's worse than a 3s pre-roll and then uninterrupted video?

 

[Marmot]

I would prefer to see adverts on buses/billboards than online. Personal opinion.

Fine, so what I'm trying to understand is whether your adblocker mentality is so ingrained that you would still refuse to disable it, even if we could reach a digital circumstance akin to that which we experience with outdoor advertising.

 

[Marmot]

yes part of the content, some video creators already do this.

Also when its part of the content adblockers cannot block it as its actually part of the video.

A small logo in the corner or product placement is not worse as its not interrupting the content, a pre roll forces you to wait to start watching the video, its about your precious time as a human being. Not losing a few pixels to a logo.

Yes influencer marketing has been in the news quite a lot recently as the regulator believes it is misleading vulnerable people. It's interesting you seem to prefer the advertising being part of the content when most of the responses in this thread seem to want the opposite - the advertising as far away from the content as possible.

@Haggisman thanks for your perspective, but let me respond specifically to your first point:

I take it you also feel that using Sky+ to fast forward through ads is stealing from the program producers?

This is simply a misunderstanding of how the technology works.

When you're skipping ITV ads on Sky+ you're not punishing ITV, or punishing the X Factor, you're punishing the Brand who bought the ad space.

When you're skipping display ads using an adblocker, the Brand doesn't pay (because the ads don't show) and you're punishing the publisher instead.

 

[Marmot]

That analogy would be accurate it every billboard you walked past had a salesman ready to jump out and start yelling in your face or potentially had someone with a knife behind it waiting to jump out at you and stab you

You're worried about being stabbed online? What? I assume you're referencing malware but, once again, could you give an example of a publisher who fills their ad slots with malware please?

 

[Marmot]

That's pennies compared to what they are making.

What forums are you a member of please and we'll look at this in more detail.

 

[Marmot]

It's very common, ad networks get poisoned, it's not the publisher's intention, but they're providing an audience to the ad network which becomes a single point of failure / a vulnerability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising

But you haven't provided an example as I asked for? You just linked me to a Wikipedia article which states that 4 years ago McAfee identified that malware was a problem on mobile platforms - well of course it's a problem if you're browsing piratebay, but are you honestly telling me I can get a virus from ad placements on Sky Sports? Come on, think about the lawsuits please.

 

[Marmot]

Then they need a new model simple as that really. You can't plaster adverts everywhere! It's not right. 1 is enough and if businesses can't find another way to make money there is something seriously wrong.

I guess you're very entitled to your hatred of advertising. I just don't think you should take the position that "you're monetizing the wrong way therefore I'm going to take this for free". I think instead you should go elsewhere.

 

[Marmot]

Jump on the local news website links I (and mrbell1984) posted and start clicking on the ads, especially the ones that have been designed to look like the content to get trick clicks. I doubt it'll take long before you've got something unwanted on your PC.

Regional news is a poor experience, I completely agree. The ad slots you are referring to come from AdTech companies such as Outbrain, Taboola, AdYouLike, TrippleLift and Sharethrough - you can Google these if you would like to know more. Yes these 'native' ads are designed to appeal to individuals who typically display 'banner blindness' but I very much doubt you would find anything truly malicious off the back of anything they serve.

Again, tranclucent popups and whatnot on dodgy websites may well contain malware, but this is not the norm. Why are you on those dodgy websites anyway?

 

[Marmot]

Dodgy websites? This is OUR local regions. A disgrace full on to advertisements. News companies don't need to use advertisements for revenue. They do it probably because it's the most easiest way to generate it hence jumping on the bandwagon to do it. This model should not continue.

Apologies if I was unclear, I wouldn't classify regional news as dodgy websites, that is why I separated that point. I mean stuff like streaming sites, software downloads and whatnot.

 

[Marmot]

@Marmot

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/search/35085039/

I just did a quick search on you. Would you like to donate to the people who have answered all of your questions on this forum? The ones that have resolved all of your problems? This information is also FREE and overclockers have not paid any users here who has helped you. They have done this in their own time.

I suggest if you have the very strong stance of marketed advertisements like this you subscribe to everyone who is answering you to your computer problems.

It works both ways here..... You get my point now?

You make an interesting point but I would argue that payment on this forums is based around collaboration and input. I do not feel the same can be said for the wider internet, where the average person contributes very little and is expected to pay through advertising.

 

[Marmot]

I've already explained that I've had to play clean up after the ads served on local news. Trying to pretend it's only a problem on 'dodgy websites' is disingenuous.

Okay, well I obviously can't dispute your personal experiences even if they are rather vague, so I'll just have to accept your pov.

 

[Marmot]

Marmot you are coming across to me as very condescending for getting "free" market research.
You don't have to belittle those that don't fit your agendas.
Im all for pay walls. I pay for, rough count, 7 or 8 subscription services online.
If some two bit site, of which there are 1000s, starts bombarding me with bs I simply ignore it.
The same as what you should do here.

I can only assume you are doing this for payment?
If not sorry.
Anyway, paywall is the way to go.

I actually do sincerely apologise if I've come across as condescending or belittling.

You're right that this is, in effect, market research. It's for my own personal benefit however, not for monetary gain, and do you really care if it's a subject about how to make our lives better?

 

[Marmot]

What's vague about it?

I've linked to the site it happened on, described what happened and the fact I had to run malware removers to get rid of it.

What else would you like to know?

'malware' is a blanket term, 'malware remover' is a blanket term. If you can be bothered I would be very interested to hear exactly what happened. The problem is, as you say, you were relying on someone else's perspective of what happened before attempting to fix.

Was that the only website they had visited? Are you confident the malware came from exactly that ad placement? Was it labelled as such?

 

[Marmot]

@Devrij great post, thanks