SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The upfront market for broadcast and cable networks has taken an unexpected U-turn from last year's dip, seeing an increase in advertising sales of $800m to $18.6bn in the most recent completion.
According to research firm Media Dynamics, this 4.5 per cent increase in TV ad revenue is a blow to OTT video platforms on PCs and mobile devices, as advertisers grow increasingly wary of the rise of ad blockers and choose to spend their precious ad dollars elsewhere.
Faultline has pointed out on several occasions how companies with vested interests produce reports with wild figures on how much money ad blockers will apparently drain from the industry. While it's true that ad blocking software has become increasingly prevalent, this is still just a drop in the ocean. For example, figures from Adobe and PageFair published at the end of 2015 stated there were 198 million monthly active users for major ad block browser extensions — but this is only around 6 per cent of global internet users.
Media Dynamics adds that other issues plaguing digital media platforms include the limited quality content available for sponsorships, questions about commercial 'visibility', and generally low usage levels. We would argue that the declining pay TV subscriber figures speak for themselves.
21st Century Fox broadcast networks are reportedly reaping the rewards of this year's upfront ad sales increase, a source familiar with the matter told Variety. It notes that Fox Broadcasting, FX Networks, and National Geographic all saw volume gains up around 5 per cent.
Plus, approximately 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the inventory was sold across the unit. Variety also estimates that the five broadcast networks secured $8.02bn and $8.69 billion for their primetime entertainment schedules in 2015, with Fox Broadcasting getting an estimated $1.43bn and $1.56bn last year.
(Score: 2) by migz on Friday July 22 2016, @07:14AM
I'm very confused by this rant.
You have customers that you give ad-blockers to, and as a result you get less call backs for viruses. That means your customers get a better product from you, so you sacrifice the potential revenue from the frequent virus calls, in exchange for providing a superior product, and hopefully a higher volume of customers, greater than the loss of the virus income. Furthermore it could be argued it would be unethical to provide devices without blockers as you are a savvy provider. Sounds like the free-market to me.
Perhaps you are referring to the advertisers noticing that their ads arn't working online because of the blockers, and so are trying another medium that has ads that can't be so easily blocked. That sounds like the free-market to me too.
What are you so angry about?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @02:28PM
Dealing with the crap caused by ads is not worth the money
People are happier
win win
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday July 22 2016, @04:25PM
He gets less call-backs for viruses in the short-term, but he also has happier customers who come back to him over the long term because they recognize the superior service he provides, and who also refer their friends to him, earning him more business.
As for anger, he's obviously angry at the advertisers, and for good reason, with all their obnoxious, malware-infected advertising. He's pointing out how the free market, in the form of ad-blockers, has made their activities on the web unprofitable.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 22 2016, @04:41PM
I'm a woman, actually. My posts parse kind of man-sounding due to a lot of active voice, but...well, my insides are forcefully reminding me of what I am today >
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @05:45PM
The last infection two infections I had to clean up where from the New York Times and Forbes. Having two infections in consecutive months may have finally gotten through to my family to stop disabling the ad blocker. Surely there must be a way to provide ads without being a danger to everyone on the site. Sure there are, but they are expensive, I explained. It's not like NYT and Forbes aren't used to selling ads, the publications are full of them, and they have ads they will reject no matter how green the money; they could do the same online but choose not to. After all, if they are charging you money for views, why nickel and dime with ads? If they care enough to hand enough to cultivate quality ads in print, why not online when they require ads to view the content, like in print?
Once they realized that the companies would rather have the money than provide a good experience, it was like a lightbulb came on. I haven't had to clean up anything since then.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 22 2016, @04:39PM
I'm vindictive and vengeful (and happy, in the "good, you fuckers got what you deserve; get off our land!") way.
But hey, being angry doesn't make you wrong, does it? If you're angry for a good reason, such as "the internet looks like a cross between downtown Shinjuku and the back of a porn magazine and it's dangerous to peoples' computers" then the thing to do is take that anger and let it focus you. As I did, and do.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...