Recommended reports
Ad Serving Buyer's Guide
Econsultancy's Ad Serving Buyer's Guide is an invaluable source for those investigating the market for ad serving solutions, with profiles of 15 suppliers and detailed information about the trends and issues affecting the online display advertising sector. The 158-page report also contains useful advice for those seeking a suitable supplier and best practice and tips for identifying the right ad serving solution to meet your needs.
Alternatively, see our Marketing Attribution Management Buyer's Guide or SEO Agencies Buyer’s Guide.
Multi Media Developer at SportNetwork.net
16 June 2004 15:00pm
I've been thinking about ad blockers for some time now, and an article on Clickz has inspired me to post. (http://www.clickz.com/experts/media/agency_strat/article.php/3367661)
I'll just clear up any confusion first, I am not talking about pop-up blockers I am talking about blockers that remove all forms of advertising from a website.
The big thing that annoys me is that Norton which comes installed as default on most new Dell machines has advert blocking turned on by default. How many computers are like this i don't know but if you buy norton again its on by default. Why norton have done this I don't know its not like users have asked for it, pop-ups yes but adverts no.
Its not just norton though, most on the pop-up blockers now do it...not google, yahoo etc but the rest do.
I have yet to come up with a workable solution to block users, I would probably need some information sent to a script from say double click or oas saying stop sending this user data but that is a long way off.
Its not a problem yet but in the Clickz article is says that 30% of users have pop-up blockers, if that was advert blockers we would have a serious problem on our hands.
I have had a couple of conversations with users on the message boards on my site who block adverts, going on about them using my bandwidth for free etc. Some have turned them off (or said they have) others have said well your using my ISP bandwidth and it makes the site download quicker so tough.
Once I have advertising on all the pages on my site (I'm about 10% short just now) I will be able to compare my page impressions to the advert impressions to see what if any difference ad blockers are making currently.
has anyone got any other ideas about how to combat this rising threat?
CEO at Econsultancy
16 June 2004 15:43pm
Yes, this is a growing concern for many. In particular the affilate community whose merchants' ads are getting surpressed are concerned as this is the only way they make their money.
Don't know the answer off the top of my head - could you start now to diversify / modify the mix of revenue streams (e.g. more paid for content) to make up for the avdertising shortfall?
Multi Media Developer at SportNetwork.net
16 June 2004 16:06pm
I would doubt that our users would pay for the content we have as its really just a fan blog with content they get else where.
My site is only ever going to make money from advertising I have come to realise that after 2 years of trying different things and getting feedback from users.
I have come to look at it as the free news papers you get thru your door or pick up on the tube.
I wonder if the ad serving companies are looking into this or thinking about it at least? Or are they ignoring it hoping it will go away?
John
Fndr at Majestic12.co.uk
17 June 2004 10:25am
On 15:00:08 16 June 2004 John Wards wrote:
> I have yet to come up with a workable solution to block users
I think you may find that fighting with your own users will not be successful in the long term. People who think about blocking the ad blockers should in my view spend more time thinking about their business model instead. This does not mean dropping ads completely, just making them of use to your users.
Some ads just cry out to be blocked, while blocking some others are actually of benefit to END USERS - AdWords on Google in my view complement nicely natural listing so long as those ads that people ignore will get automatically dropped thus ensuring only relevant stuff stays.
Fundamentally control over how web sites are displayed is in hands of the end user (unless you user Flash or custom Java code that makes it hard to tamper with), and therefore in my view it is technically a lost cause trying to block the ad blockers. Short term relieve at most, definately not solution to problem.
Director of Product Development at Econsultancy
17 June 2004 11:00am
I guess the key is to make more money out of your page estate, not by necessarily selling more ads or selling out by accepting dodgy formats, but by segmenting users to provide improve targeting - and thus improve effectiveness/ROI - for advertisers.
By doing this publishers can host less advertisements, making things better for the user. But be careful about the ones you do accept.
The industry - publishers and advertisers - need to think harder about what happened to the pop-up, ie why there are so many toolbar pop-up blockers. Why are there any blockers at all? It is because of frequency and format abuse, and it continues today, albeit in a juddering, expanding, animated guise...
That's right, the floating overlay format IS the new pop-up.
The merit of these interruptive formats doesn't need to be questioned as we know that they are bad for users, hence blocking software. Eight out of ten people consider pop-ups to be annoying. So how much more annoying is an overlay with a hidden 'close' button?
I read recently that a German firm was introducing software that detects whether a user has pop-up blocking software installed, and if so, it automatically converts the pop-up into a Flash overlay. This is madness, for a variety of fairly obvious reasons.
Pop-ups became so reviled that technology snuffed them out, but advertisers have found a way around pop-up blockers with Flash. Not that rich media needs to be intrusive. So why do we see so many overlays, and why so often?
The format is typically obsessed with taking up as much of the page as possible and is generally no more functional than a standard banner. When there is so much scope in rich media - and given the savage decline of the pop-up - it seems crass to keep lumping interruptive punch-in-the-face formats into the ad mix.
Who's to blame? Publishers desperate for revenues? Or the ad industry, which has been looking for an effective format to replace the pop-up? Or users, who should be more tolerant of this sort of advertising?
Who cares - overlays are effective, right? Why yes - DoubleClick's Q1 2004 Ad Serving Trends Report suggests that an astonishing 28.8% of viewers interact with these ads. But how many do so in error, and what is DoubleClick counting as an interaction? Apparently 'Mousing or rolling over a unit" and "Closing the viewing window" count - these terms need to be clarified somewhat.
While more research is undoubtedly needed into the effects of interruptive rich formats on users, it is hard to ignore the dark clouds on the horizon if intrusion continues to play a big part in generating response.
If users end up loathing floating formats as much as they do pop-ups then more comprehensive blocking software will be developed (to tackle Flash et al), potentially taking out rich media and everything else, and giving advertisers and publishers a large headache in the process...
c.
On 16:06:15 16 June 2004 John Wards wrote:
>I would doubt that our users would pay for the content we
>have as its really just a fan blog with content they get
>else where.
>
>My site is only ever going to make money from advertising
>I have come to realise that after 2 years of trying
>different things and getting feedback from users.
>
>I have come to look at it as the free news papers you get
>thru your door or pick up on the tube.
>
>I wonder if the ad serving companies are looking into this
>or thinking about it at least? Or are they ignoring it
>hoping it will go away?
>
>John
Multi Media Developer at SportNetwork.net
17 June 2004 11:01am
I lay the blame for ad blockers at the door of overlays to behonest.
They annoy the hell out of users and that is the root cause of blocking.
Ad blockers like Norton block adwords (I think) as well as other types.
Generally I would say that people who block adverts will not part with cash, give email addresses out or be in anyway marketed to.
Things like site wide sponsorship may get through but if the company graphic for the sponsorship is served through say doubleclick it won't.
I pay for the the bandwidth the site uses with advertising revenue and i feel if a user uses my bandwidth they should at least look at adverts.
How about this then, give publishers the ability to identify users who are blocking adverts then the publishers can decide what to do next.
I would probably redirect them to an area where they can donate or subscribe.
John
Multi Media Developer at SportNetwork.net
17 June 2004 11:10am
My user do hate overlays I know this for a fact.
I am not despearte for revenue but I find it hard to turn down £20-30 CPM.
I set guidlines before I accept overlays.
1) One overlay per session.
2) Only on content and not on message boards.
The not on message board rule is the same for pop-ups. Pop-ups annoy users and my loyal users use the message boards and complain on them and they all jump on the bandwagon and have force me to take this action.
The recent campain by AOL was quite good to be honest. It was mouse over banners and skys which then did an overlay type advert. OK you got the odd mistake in roll over but I never got one complaint about that advert and I think users quite liked it.
John
Fndr at Majestic12.co.uk
17 June 2004 11:13am
On 11:01:43 17 June 2004 John Wards wrote:
>They annoy the hell out of users and that is the root cause of blocking.
I agree.
>Ad blockers like Norton block adwords (I think) as well as
>other types.
I have not tried Norton (stopped using them after they produced
the last good software - Norton Utilities 6.0 and Norton Commander 3.0),
but I wonder if they really block Google's adwords - now this is naughty in my view
and not in the interest of end users.
>Generally I would say that people who block adverts will
>not part with cash, give email addresses out or be in
>anyway marketed to.
Well I like to think that I pay money when its justified (like on this site),
but I also I block popups and I have got a list of most common banner
domains that are automatically blocked using DNS exceptions list.
I think that there is a direct correlation between content not really worth
paying money for and level of annoying ads. Why? Because if content was
worhy of paying money directly for (like FT,com or this site), then there would
be no need to go for more and more annoying versions of popups.
>I pay for the the bandwidth the site uses with advertising
>revenue and i feel if a user uses my bandwidth they should
>at least look at adverts.
Indeed you do pay for that, just like stores on High Street pay rent, and I have
not seen them telling customers to look at wares in a specific way (by reading ads),
I have not seen newspapers calling customers thiefs for ignoring full page ads,
and I have not seen TV networks calling foul over customers using ad break
to get a new can of cold beer from fridge (they do whine about TIVO however) - used cars
dealerships might be an exception to this but web publishers certainly are exceptional
in their demands!
>How about this then, give publishers the ability to
>identify users who are blocking adverts then the
>publishers can decide what to do next.
In theory it would have worked if it was not abused by publishers - and it will
certainly be abused by some, then by majority and we will just go to step 1.
You see John I sympathise with your position, but I also know that level of technical
expertise on the visitors side is far superior than anything publishers side can master, with zero cost of distribution of perfectly legitimate blockers I see no chance for publishers in this war.
regards.
Alex
Multi Media Developer at SportNetwork.net
17 June 2004 11:24am
>
>Indeed you do pay for that, just like stores on High
>Street pay rent, and I have
>not seen them telling customers to look at wares in a
>specific way (by reading ads),
>I have not seen newspapers calling customers thiefs for
>ignoring full page ads,
>and I have not seen TV networks calling foul over
>customers using ad break
>to get a new can of cold beer from fridge (they do whine
>about TIVO however) - used cars
>dealerships might be an exception to this but web
>publishers certainly are exceptional
>in their demands!
Ah but you can not really avoid walking down a high street with out looking at a shop window even if your really try as if your eyes pick it up you see it.
If some one invented a machine that cost £10 and was hand held that you were able to put papers through and it removed all the adverts their would be hell on. Unless you close your eyes everytime a full page advert is displayed you see the advert.
If TIVO and the like picks up even more users we will have to put up with more and more product placement type things unless your the BBC. I don't like it when some one says grab me a "pepsi" as who says that in real life.....skiping adverts is detrimental to your future enjoyment of TV programmes.
I provide a free comunity to my publishers and to the users in return I would expect them if they want to use my website to run adverts, I get paid on a per impression basis after all. If they remove adverts then they should not get access to my free service fairs fair no?
John
Fndr at Majestic12.co.uk
17 June 2004 12:05pm
On 11:24:16 17 June 2004 John Wards wrote:
>Ah but you can not really avoid walking down a high street
>with out looking at a shop window even if your really try
>as if your eyes pick it up you see it.
I see what I _WANT_ to see - if ignoring online ads was as
easy as moving your eyes away then its fine by me, but these days flash
>If some one invented a machine that cost £10 and was
>hand held that you were able to put papers through and it
>removed all the adverts their would be hell on. Unless you
>close your eyes everytime a full page advert is displayed
>you see the advert.
I would not bother - newspaper adverts are not annoying,
with the only exception of all that [censored] they like to
put inside newspaper or magazine that falls down on the floor
and force you bend over to pick it up - no doubt intentional to
attrack attemtion. I see direct parallels with annoying in-yer-face
ads online and personally I do the same thing - I bin spam
just like I click close on annoying ads (or block them).
>If TIVO and the like picks up even more users we will have
>to put up with more and more product placement type things
>unless your the BBC.
Or force companies to look at their ridiculous budgets that
were only justified because they were USED to getting more in return.
You see it should go both ways and I say the guy who ultimately pays
money - the consumer - is the person who would have to be accomodated
rather than the seller, particulary so in competitive markets.
>I provide a free comunity to my publishers and to the
>users in return I would expect them if they want to use my
>website to run adverts, I get paid on a per impression
>basis after all. If they remove adverts then they should
>not get access to my free service fairs fair no?
Unfortunately life is not fair - all those ads that advertisers pay
for only exist because they JUST HAPPEN TO WORK. This is now changing
as people adjusted themselves, but instead of changing model publishers
are desperately trying to stick to what they used to.
You see John, you can try as hard as you like but there is no way you will
be able to prevent legitimate desire of end user to choose what they see
from the things that you offer. Even illegitimate activities such as illegal (depending
on local legislation) file sharing can't be stopped after years of litigation, you simply
cant expect to beat people who engage in legit activity such as ad blocking.
Of course you can try, but I say you will only see temporary benefits and more likely than not this temporary restoration of cash flow would make you stick to the dieing model of ads-in-yer-face-regardless-of-relevance.