SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Wednesday August 12 2015, @08:16PM
Wouldn't you prefer to see [targeted ads]
No. I would not. I would not like to be subconsciously manipulated into wanting and buying a product I currently don't need, want, or even know exists. I am not bored, casting about for something to spend money and time on; and whatever Grant Imahara might convince me to purchase will not result in a life more enriched for myself; and will only divert time and money away from other things I am already interested in doing.
When I do get bored, and have some money to blow I'll look around... and I'm sure I'll find plenty. I certainly don't need to attach leeches onto myself.
And I certainly don't want to hand the amoral sociopaths that are corporations additional information about me to make it even easier for them to present ads to me that are tailored to the sort of person I am, to more effectively manipulate my subconscious than they already do, just to increase the ads effectiveness. To create a desire for a product I don't currently need or want.
If your response is "nobody is making you" and "personal responsibility" and "self control". Shove off. I'm a human being. And all human beings can be manipulated. They wouldn't spend billions on ads if they didn't work. Think you are the lone individual who is immune to advertising, who makes all his purchasing decisions based on rational self-interested motivation? Ingorance and hubris. Or maybe you really are some sort of rain-main but I'm not.