Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday August 12 2015, @05:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the that's-what-I-wanted-to-hear dept.

Ads have long been part of the trade-off for users of the free Web, but the rise of ad blockers is making it increasingly difficult for publishers to sustain that ad-supported model.

That's according to a report published Monday by Adobe Systems and PageFair, a startup focused on assessing the cost of ad blocking and proposing alternatives.

While PageFair clearly has a vested interest in illustrating the negative effects of ad blocking, the findings of its study with Adobe are difficult to ignore. Most notably, ad blocking will cost publishers nearly $22 billion this year, it reported.

Ad blocking has grown by 41% globally in the last 12 months, the report found, amounting now to about 198 million active ad-block users around the world.

There were some interesting geographical differences highlighted in the report, too. For instance, in the U.S., ad blocking grew by 48% over the preceding 12 months to reach 45 million active users by June. In the U.K., ad blocking grew by 82% to reach 12 million active users over that same time frame.

Meanwhile, those numbers will surely be on the rise on the mobile side, Adobe noted in a blog post, given that Apple's iOS 9 will likely include ad-blocking features in Safari by default while Adblock Plus is already available in limited beta for Android.

Ad blocking represents "a major, growing problem for both digital publishers and marketers," said Greg Sterling, vice president for strategy and insights with the Local Search Association.

In many ways, the ad-blocking phenomenon is a response to security and privacy fears that have arisen in the culture at large and a rejection of the state of advertising on the PC internet, Sterling said.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 12 2015, @05:36PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 12 2015, @05:36PM (#221779) Journal

    The adblocker isn't "costing" them anything at all. They aren't making money - true - but that is only a "cost" if they are counting their chickens before their eggs are hatched.

    Or, stated another way, they are failing to meet projected earnings. And, that is none of my concern. They have simply over projected.

    How many ways might I express my contempt for these clowns? If I could actually impose a cost on them, I would do so in a heartbeat. I'd LOVE to see them bleeding money, and going out of business.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday August 12 2015, @05:50PM

    by TheGratefulNet (659) on Wednesday August 12 2015, @05:50PM (#221787)

    that really expensive car sitting on a dealer car lot? I'm not buying it, therefore I'm 'costing them money'.

    this statement and all like it are some of the dumbest things advertisers have ever tried to foist on us. its now just pathetic and borderline silly. you think we should feel sorry for you? and each week we hear more attack vectors from adservers around the world.

    yeah, I'll disable my adblockers. as soon as the web returns to a state of normality and trust (ie, it won't ever happen; horse has left the barn and ain't coming back).

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by acharax on Wednesday August 12 2015, @09:54PM

      by acharax (4264) on Wednesday August 12 2015, @09:54PM (#221948)

      yeah, I'll disable my adblockers. as soon as the web returns to a state of normality and trust (ie, it won't ever happen; horse has left the barn and ain't coming back).

      I can relate to that, I've watched these firms destroy something wonderful (the internet) and turn it into a morass of useless content farms that got more blatant and aggressive with each iteration when they realized not enough revenue was flowing in (just look at what happened to sf if you really still need an example). They should be happy to see everyone block their ads, it means their mission has succeeded and they've effectively turned the whole public internet into a toxic minefield of ad laced sites, each itching to dispatch its (likely malware contaminated) payload on the unsuspecting visitor. Only a true fool would feel pity for these marketers, they've become too greedy and now even your average luser is trying to evade their cruft, well tough luck.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2015, @10:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2015, @10:32PM (#221965)

      That car analogy would work better if you took the car for a test drive then didn't buy it. There is some cost to letting you have a test drive, just like their is some cost to serving up content on a website. And in both cases, without some sort of contract/agreement, you don't owe them anything just because you took a car for a test drive or viewed content on some website.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:20AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:20AM (#222078)

        That car analogy would work better if you took the car for a test drive then didn't buy it.

        No, because then you're taking a physical object. Their logic is literally 'We didn't gain as much as we wanted to; therefore, we actually lost something.' Lack of gain != losing something.

        This is just people controlling what they see and connect to on their own equipment, just like the people who control the website can design their website however they see fit.

        There is some cost to letting you have a test drive, just like their is some cost to serving up content on a website.

        If they're so worried about the cost, I suggest they not host servers on the open web and then act surprised when people connect and use their own private property in a way that they see fit.