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: 3, Insightful) by e_armadillo on Thursday August 13 2015, @06:33AM
Merely trying to continue the debate, but because I don't agree with the crowd modded Troll, bullshit.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:55PM
That's why they should never have gotten rid of the "over rated" mod. It wasn't a troll, but how else could anyone mod it down?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Thursday August 13 2015, @03:48PM
Just because you disagree with a post isn't a reason to mod it down. From the moderator's guide :
Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down. Likewise, agreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it up. The goal here is to share ideas. To sift through the haystack and find golden, shiny needles. And to keep the children who like to spam in check.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday August 14 2015, @07:07PM
That's true, and disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a troll. Overrated should be for statements that are completely anti-factual, or comments that have a +5 when they deserve a +3.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org