How would you fix digital advertising?

[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?

 

[Deleted member 77746]

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

You're right that 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?

There we have it, your own personal benefit. Advertisements ruin the internet experience. This should have never happened IMO but due to the 'explosion' of the web this was a mistake over night.

 

[ScoTTyBEEE]

If I want to buy something I generally go on reviews, places like amazon and hotukdeals are best with lots of normal real world experience reviews.

Ads, influencers and anyone online that thinks I’m paying for their time, no chance. Making money online should be a hobby/bonus.

Ads work on far less people that you think they do. When I go shopping I generally buy on the quality of the product (example I’ve never seen an advert for Mitchum deodorant) or the price (probably only bought it because it was on offer one time, now I’m a customer, unless something else has a good offer on)

Brand loyalty is diminishing, people shop at Lidl, it has no brands other than itself.

Buzzfeed failed because they got woke. I’m glad they failed, and I remove all got woke brands from my life. Gillette’s advert is probably one they’d have preferred blocked.

If a website says turn off your ad blocker then I don’t go there. Your content just isn’t that valuable to me. I can tolerate the 5 second YouTube vids but that’s it.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

If I want to buy something I generally go on reviews, places like amazon and hotukdeals are best with lots of normal real world experience reviews.

I don't want to derail the thread but there has been an explosion of fake reviews as well. This is another issue that the web 'trust' is having.

 

[Kenai]

'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?

The ad, which was created to mimic the site content, served up another page, as adverts have a habit of doing. This page then served up its own set of adverts, scripts, pop ups etc. which at some point in the 'adception' chain resulted in malware ending up on the pc that was generating pop ups, fake warning messages etc. even with all browsers closed.

I used malwarebytes anti malware to remove it. I don't remember the version number.

I'm 100% confident that's where it came from as I got panicked phonecall about all hell breaking loose when he clicked on one of the stories. When looking at it with my dad later, he showed me the 'story' but it was a disguised advert. The pc only gets used for news and the BBC sport websites, something I'm confident of because of checking the history, which they don't know how to erase.

 

[Devrij]

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.

Actually they do. They only thing they offer is content, and people don't want to pay for that content, so the compromise is to sell those people's eyeballs to companies that want to show them their products. As someone who spent 7 years in a "news company", I can confirm that advertising revenue is the only thing paying all those wages, printing costs, rent, distribution etc. There is massive infrastructure to support, and if you think paid subscriptions would support that, you are absolutely wrong. Without advertising you'd see less diversity in reporting sources, and THAT is a bad thing for impartial journalism.

I think there is a serious level of naivete in this thread. Considering how much bashing of "entitled youth" there is on this forum, I don't see many comments saying "I quite happily pay for Youtube Red because I don't like the ads" or "I'd rather pay a subscription fee than see ads". Ads suck, and intrusive ads are absolutely unforgivable. They are, however, necessary to support content you consume on a daily basis without paying for it.

I'm in favour of adblocks that support unobtrusive advertising while blocking the really annoying stuff. I think that's a good consumer-driven way to encourage responsible advertising practices. It's essentially voting with your wallet. Despite the vehement opinions here, I'd wager that most people here don't object to ALL forms of advertising, so the solution here is more creative and enjoyable advertising that doesn't obstruct the user from accessing the content they came for. Make ads interesting in and of themselves and the annoyance should reduce.

 

[Marmot]

@Devrij great post, thanks

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Actually they do. They only thing they offer is content, and people don't want to pay for that content, so the compromise is to sell those people's eyeballs to companies that want to show them their products. As someone who spent 7 years in a "news company", I can confirm that advertising revenue is the only thing paying all those wages, printing costs, rent, distribution etc. There is massive infrastructure to support, and if you think paid subscriptions would support that, you are absolutely wrong. Without advertising you'd see less diversity in reporting sources, and THAT is a bad thing for impartial journalism.

In that case a personal opinion is that if it's not funded some other way other than advertisements this news outlet shouldn't exist. For me it's either free news (funded by government) OR subscription model but not tom dick or harry using advertisements to source their revenue to stay afloat.

I actually don't want to see diversity in news outlets. I just want news I can trust. Too many tom, dick and harry news sites are click bait and not to be trusted.

 

[Marmot]

The ad, which was created to mimic the site content, served up another page, as adverts have a habit of doing. This page then served up its own set of adverts, scripts, pop ups etc. which at some point in the 'adception' chain resulted in malware ending up on the pc that was generating pop ups, fake warning messages etc. even with all browsers closed.

I used malwarebytes anti malware to remove it. I don't remember the version number.

I'm 100% confident that's where it came from as I got panicked phonecall about all hell breaking loose when he clicked on one of the stories. When looking at it with my dad later, he showed me the 'story' but it was a disguised advert. The pc only gets used for news and the BBC sport websites, something I'm confident of because of checking the history, which they don't know how to erase.

Thanks for explaining, I think you've confirmed however that it wasn't the regional news site and that particular ad slot which was responsible for the malware, although it was the start of the process. The same could be said for any website and link though, if you just keep clicking on links you will inevitably land on something bad if that is your intention, it doesn't matter where you begin.

 

[Kenai]

Thanks for explaining, I think you've confirmed however that it wasn't the regional news site and that particular ad slot which was responsible for the malware, although it was the start of the process. The same could be said for any website and link though, if you just keep clicking on links you will inevitably land on something bad if that is your intention, it doesn't matter where you begin.

There was no 'keep clicking on links'. Once the ad was clicked, everything else that transpired was from scripts running. I don't think I ever made the assertion the news site itself served up the malware.

One thing I will agree with though, which is a big part of why people run adblockers - The same could be said for any website. Because so many adverts are served up by third parties that the content provider has limited or no control over, those adverts could send you anywhere, absolutely anywhere. As soon as you click on it, knowingly or otherwise, you're in the wild. You could get presented with anything. The original content provider has no idea where you've just been sent and whether it's good or bad.

 

[Marmot]

There was no 'keep clicking on links'. Once the ad was clicked, everything else that transpired was from scripts running. I don't think I ever made the assertion the news site itself served up the malware.

One thing I will agree with though, which is a big part of why people run adblockers - The same could be said for any website. Because so many adverts are served up by third parties that the content provider has limited or no control over, those adverts could send you anywhere, absolutely anywhere. As soon as you click on it, knowingly or otherwise, you're in the wild. You could get presented with anything. The original content provider has no idea where you've just been sent and whether it's good or bad.

I guess I misunderstood your "adception chain" comment as your parents clicking on further 'relevant articles' once they arrived at their click-through destination. This circumstance can be avoided on regional news sites or other publishers by simply implementing a whitelist of verified advertisers. It obviously depends on the ethics of the publisher in question.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

I guess I misunderstood your "adception chain" comment as your parents clicking on further 'relevant articles' once they arrived at their click-through destination. This circumstance can be avoided on regional news sites or elsewhere, by simply implementing a whitelist of verified advertisers. It obviously depends on the ethics of the publisher in question.

Yep, and most 'ethics' of tom dick and harry is bad! Hence the need for full scale ad blockers!

Don't forget to send me donations as my opinions are not free.

 

[Marmot]

For me it's either free news (funded by government) OR subscription model

Do you not think there is a risk of bias with state funded media? If something is privately owned then typically their only loyalty is to their shareholders. Furthermore there's no such thing as free, it will just be incorporated into tax or from something else being cut. You have to pay somehow.

 

[Randomface74]

Well atm the BBC is basically state funded and its content is 90% clickbait garbage. It's a different set of motivations, but produces the same outcome as the ad business model.

 

[Kenai]

I guess I misunderstood your "adception chain" comment as your parents clicking on further 'relevant articles' once they arrived at their click-through destination. This circumstance can be avoided on regional news sites or other publishers by simply implementing a whitelist of verified advertisers. It obviously depends on the ethics of the publisher in question.

Or even more simply and with my control by utilising adblockers and script blockers. Then it doesn't depend on anyone elses ethics (until ublock and no script start installing malware). Sadly something that is necessary these days to simply browse a local news website safely.

This is the root of the trust issue people have - you don't need to be anywhere near a dodgy website to fall foul of 'malvertising'.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Do you not think there is a risk of bias with state funded media? If something is privately owned then typically their only loyalty is to their shareholders. Furthermore there's no such thing as free, it will just be incorporated into tax or from something else being cut. You have to pay somehow.

I do agree with you, but having a model of either "BBC" or 'Tom, Dick, Harry, with adverts" I know which one I would choose. BBC doesn't force it down my throat (or at least I don't get that impression personally). BBC have their own issues going on at the moment too don't get me wrong.

I absolutely despise the ad business model with a passion. It's destroying the web feeling once again just like it did with popups back in the XP days.

 

[Marmot]

I absolutely despise the ad business model with a passion. It's destroying the web feeling once again just like it did with popups back in the XP days.

I get that I'm just trying to understand if there is a way to make you change your mind about digital advertising without completely gutting the industry.

 

[d_brennen]

I'm going to use an example here.

Look at this very site. One ad banner at the top of the page. This is perfect! This is the way sites should be. 1 is enough. Banners can be rolling and made to change per site visit this used to be done and probably still does.

For this reason OcUK is in my whitelist.

Even better, they don't even serve the ad to mobile browsers

 

[Deleted member 77746]

I get that I'm just trying to understand if there is a way to make you change your mind about digital advertising without completely gutting the industry.

Yeh there is, stop forcing adverts in peoples faces. Don't have adverts plastered in videos or all over web pages. Make them visible but not intrusive. Once this happens with every site in the world I will then remove my ad blocker and view ads sensibly. I might even click them once in a while if it's something I'm interested in. Advert companies have lost the trust with consumers, hence the need for ad blockers.

Design a policy that all websites must adhere too (or face a fine) that they all must follow. Limit the amount of adverts per site (not per page!), adverts are not allowed in videos. (This puts me off even watching a video with ads in) and make the policy simple to understand.

Even better, they don't even serve the ad to mobile browsers

Have you seen the state of the site when viewed in a mobile? It's a mess! I can't view the site properly even with no ads! (This isn't a ad issue - it's a design issue!)

 

[FoxEye]

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

I am not nearly everyone and advertising does not work on me.

I do not impulse buy, anything.

I research everything I buy from the smallest item to the most expensive. Advertising may indirectly affect me if it affects the people doing the reviews. However I'm more likely to be affected by shill reviews, or paid reviews.

If using an ad-blocker is "unethical", then so are your industry standard practises of using shills to post favourable review, and paying for good reviews.

Are you going to be leading a campaign against unethical practices that you and your industry benefit from?

5G will solve this.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the advertising will evolve to use the newly available bandwidth. 4k/8k full-video adverts, anyone?

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.

Yes. I didn't always block ads. Ad-blockers were invented to solve a problem - that of increasingly "hostile", "aggressive" advertising practices.

Which you yourself admit arose from a "compeititive, crowded" marketplace for advertisers. So what reasson is there for me to believe that these practises will go away? Even if I remove my ad-blocker? The marketplace will be the same. The genie is out of the bottle.

Advertising will not go back to being modest and unobtrusive any time soon.

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.

Let's not forget that advertising can deliver some pretty nasty things as well. Not just "oh dear I don't want my 12 year old seeing that" but also viruses, etc.

Also I don't feel that the content served by WCCF (etc) is even worth paying for. I visit for a laugh or because someone linked to it. If it went under nothing of value would be lost. You could say that about a lot of internet "content", which is 90% tosh, really. The price we pay for giving everyone a platform.

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

Tell you what, I'll turn ad-blocker off when >70% websites are not serving obnoxious ads (of the kind I mentioned), and the 30% I just won't visit.

I don't expect to ever turn ad-blocker off