Support ePz In 2021 - Buy 'Plus' Membership For Just £15/year

Adblocker to Start Displaying Ads


davidburleson 14 3.0k 3 United Kingdom
14 Sep 2016 8:43AM
This may potentially open a can of worms....

As many may already know, a percentage of web users have adblockers installed on their browsers which block ads from displaying on websites. Obviously, this affects the website's ability to make revenue through traditional online banner advertising.

A twist to this situation was announced yesterday. A very well known (and possibly the most popular) ad blocking software has announced that they are launching an advertising platform/network which will deliver banner ads to adblocker users in place of the blocked ads. The claim is that their ad network will only deliver 'acceptable' ads based on criteria they see acceptable. Websites simply need to ad additional code to their website to allow the adblocker to replace the ads with the 'acceptable' ad network.

For those who don't understand how ad networks work, a website joins an ad network to generate revenue from delivering ads the ad network displays. The ad network then sells advertising space (in bulk) to advertisers through the ad network. The ad network takes a large cut of the advertising sales and then gives the websites a smaller percentage of the revenue.

From my perspective, this setup allows the adblocker to almost become advertising hijack software, software which is usually maliciously installed on a users computer to hijack an ad slot and display their own ads thus generating revenue for the software. However, the adblocker ad network isn't malicious because a) the adblocker software has been given consent by the user to be installed on their computer (and the user has agreed to T&Cs) and b) websites have to give the software consent to display ads on their site.

Because they can 100% guarantee their ads will deliver, the adblocker's ad network will be in high demand to advertisers, other ad networks as well as website owners to generate revenue from users using ad blockers. Therefore, it sounds like to me that adblock users are about to get a whole lot of ads on a whole lot of sites.

How do you feel about adblocking software now deciding to deliver ads in place of the blocked ads?

What would you consider 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' when it comes to banner advertising?
alfpics Plus
18 374 4 England
14 Sep 2016 9:22AM
Sounds like one might as well stop using the ad-blocker in the first place!
Rev2 11 302 2 England
14 Sep 2016 9:56AM
An interesting turn of events. I was using my iPad on another forum yesterday and the adds virtually covered the screen. I found it almost impossible to scroll without inadvertently touching one of the adds for some I.T. analytics website, something I have no interest in whatsoever. Needless to say I wasn't on there long.

Google & Twitter ads seem to get it woefully wrong most of the time e.g. ads for pest control for 'nuisance' birds on nature websites so we'll see how intelligent the Ad-blocker ads are.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing relevant ads as there are on the homepage but I find it infuriating when Amazon follow me to every website I visit after visiting there site for something specific, whether I bought it or not.

oldblokeh 9 1.2k United Kingdom
14 Sep 2016 10:13AM
I think the situation with ad-blockers is not straightforward. While I have sympathy with sites that derive their income from advertising, on many sites the advertising has become so intrusive and resource hungry that the use of an ad-blocker becomes almost essential. The advertising industry does not have a good track record of preventing malware from being delivered in ad slots, so an ad-blocker then becomes another layer of essential malware defences. The situation is even more problematic on mobile devices, where you have to not only see the ads, but also pay for them in terms of you network allowance. Add to all this the tracking behaviour that many find objectionable and you can see why ad-blockers are so popular, even though they deprive site hosts of income.

With respect to the ad-blocker referred to by David, I think there are different perspectives on this. You could see it as a way of allowing site hosts to derive some income from users with this brand of blocker installed, while delivering a level of advertising that is not too intrusive and (hopefully) relevant to the site in question. Most reasonable users would not object to some advertising in moderation, in my opinion.

Sadly, the rhetoric on the issue from the advertising industry gives no indication that they have any intention of moderating the behaviour that has led to the spread of ad-blocker usage.



ikett 10 545 England
14 Sep 2016 10:18AM
I've tried several over the years and have found most of them have issues, not least speed problems, I now leave ads alone if they're really bad I blacklist the site.

I also (on advice) clear cookies and browsing history every day, that alone stops many so called targeted ads.
Snapper 16 4.5k 3 United States Outlying Islands
14 Sep 2016 10:29AM
Some websites make the ads disappear when you pay a subscription such as Plus, and that's how it should be. Others continue to push ads and then you need an ad-blocker or stop using the site. I use adblocker, but I've seen the new ads coming though as "promoted" by Taboola(?) or something like that, but the main thing is that they don't flash or try to take over the screen and demand you find the X to close them.
davidburleson 14 3.0k 3 United Kingdom
14 Sep 2016 10:46AM
From my experience, I've seen alot of ads come and go on ePHOTOzine.I would say probably 4-5 years ago, animations/flashy advertising was the norm. IMO, I think there was a point in which design agencies who design these ads started designing for clarity and usability realising that users were developing 'ad blindness'.

90% of the ads I see these days don't even have any animations on them. Possibly because of the move to more user friendly design and as well as disabling Adobe Flash Player.

As for relevancy, in most cases, ads I see are relevant. Clearing cookies will remove the tracking data which prevents relevancy from working. But I can understand that in some cases, having an advert 'follow you' isn't ideal either.

I don't have a problem at all with advertising, in fact, I think it's essentially. Imagine owning an old camera lens which you love, but something about it just isn't that great. Then lets say the manufacturer has come out with a new version which fixes what was wrong. Without advertising, you may never know the new version has come out and that there is an improved version of the lens you love.

============================

As for the adblockers delivering ads, I feel they are simply showing their master plan. You have ask, how does an adblocker make money? It's by getting paid by ad networks to allow ads to come through. They are simply taking another cut of the revenue and the website which you are visiting is the one which loses out even more.

It sounds like adblockers aren't fit for purpose anymore. If you don't mind ads, but hate flashy/animated ones, Disable flash player, you won't need an adblocker then which does add additional processing time on page loads. I can honestly say that I can't remember the last time an direct advertiser has sent us flash ads to deliver. In most cases they are non-animated jpeg files these days.

As for 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable', personally I think ads should have almost no animation. Animation should only be used if helps assist in understanding the product that is being advertised. Furthermore, colour and design should be considered to avoid being intrusive. Yes, get the users attention, but don't blind them with bright clashing colours. Respect the user.

Fma7 5 1.1k United Kingdom
14 Sep 2016 11:04AM
There will be a short interval before the community brings out another Ad Blocker without the intrusions.

It may also prevent things like Amazon (are there others) being automatically turned into a link
EddieAC Plus
16 2.9k 2 United Kingdom
14 Sep 2016 12:01PM
If I remember then I deliberately misspell Amaz0n to prevent that. Smile
Nick_w Plus
13 4.3k 99 England
14 Sep 2016 12:05PM
I'm guessing the need for ad blocking software has diminished, as internet speeds have increased. The reason why many of us used them was sites were taking an eternity to load, with all the code going this way and that. Now Broadnand speeds are 50MB+ p/s for many (sadly not me, we are sadled with less the 1mb Sad ) means that sites load pretty quickly.

The Adblockers then need to search for a revenue stream. But as has been said it makes their purpose meaningless - because they aren't blocking ads, just replacing them with ones that they make money from.
Fma7 5 1.1k United Kingdom
14 Sep 2016 12:15PM
TBH epz is fine and I don't have it blocked.

My pet hates are:

Psycho-disco ads
Ads that scroll down the page with you.
Popups that appear when you try to navigate away from the page or to another part of the site.
Overlays on the page that stop you accessing the content until you click through.

And I know this isn't ads, and its got some legal requirement, but the bloody cookies thing, does it have to be so big, and some sites pop it up every time.
xvvvz 14 27
14 Sep 2016 4:34PM
It seems you can disable allowing the acceptable ads. I just did the uncheck. It is mentioned in this article:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/adblock-plus-starts-selling-ads-but-only-acceptable-ones/

I didn't even know there was this option.
DaveRyder Plus
6 4.9k 7 United Kingdom
14 Sep 2016 5:30PM
I moderation I don't mind adverting of any form. As long as it is psychedelic flashing spinning shouty stuff.

(i'd rather like to see the BBC commercialised and licence fee dropped).

No different to picking up a newspaper (remember them) or magazine (or them) and flicking past the ads or making a cuppa when on the TV




Rev2 11 302 2 England
14 Sep 2016 5:45PM

Quote:

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing relevant ads as there are on the homepage but I find it infuriating when Amaz0n follow me to every website I visit after visiting their site for something specific, whether I bought it or not.




Typo corrected.

Rev2 11 302 2 England
14 Sep 2016 5:58PM

Quote:I moderation I don't mind adverting of any form. As long as it is psychedelic flashing spinning shouty stuff.

(i'd rather like to see the BBC commercialised and licence fee dropped).

No different to picking up a newspaper (remember them) or magazine (or them) and flicking past the ads or making a cuppa when on the TV




What, like this you mean? A screen shot from my iPad when I was in France recently!

117722_1473872229.jpg

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.