Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem
from the refreshing dept
Reader jorshw was the first of a few who sent in this recent NY Times article questioning how Google would deal with the fact that people are now creating ad blocking extensions for Google's Chrome browser. What's really telling is the comment from a Google engineering director, Linus Upson, about why this is no big deal:"It's unlikely ad blockers are going to get to the level where they imperil the advertising market, because if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising should get less annoying. So I think the market will sort this out."This is the exact right response to this kind of question. It's a user-centric response that doesn't immediately rush to the "simple" answer that ad blocking somehow "takes money" away, but realizes that if people are so intent on blocking ads -- then the problem isn't with the people blocking the ads, but with the advertising itself.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ad blockers, ad blocking, competition, quality
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Same as I've always said
That includes almost anything graphical, and anything that gets in the way of what I'm trying to read/do.
Ads that are carefully placed out of the main interface area, and are generally relevant (even if only tangentially) are okay in my books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same as I've always said
Yeah, me too. Trick is, the annoying ones are often the most effective ones.
"Apply directly to the forehead!"
In advertising there's a distinction in the awards. The Clios are the best known, because they're the most entertaining (by definition.) However, sharper clients look at the Effies, because they're the most effective (again by definition.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same as I've always said
And for the most part, I block out ads mentally, anyway. It's the obtrusive ads that really bother me. There are some sites that are barely readable due to all the hypertext ads on arbitrary words. The second you try rolling your cursor across the page or try highlighting something, the article suddenly becomes unreadable. It amazes me that publishers can think such advertising methods are a good idea.
It's good to see a company get this right and not freak out over ads. As Mike said, if ads are so annoying and irrelevant that people want to totally do away with them, you're doing something wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Same as I've always said
Good, post your email address here and I'll make sure you get plenty. You can then peruse them at those times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same as I've always said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But that is the simple answer !, it's the oter answer that takes more thought and contrivance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have TV shows (and a Superbowl) to highlight the best TV commercials each year. People will send YouTube links to people for all sorts of stuff. Heck, the "Will It Blend?" campaign became a bona fide internet meme ... and it's entirely a company's advertising. I still send people the Terry Tate: Office Linebacker ads (and I'm not even a fan of US football).
Do advertising right, and people will *want* to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i haven't switched to chrome because their ad blocking extensions are not up to Ad block plus on firefox yet. I will probably switch once a good, high quality ad blocking extension gets added.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course Google is making great money with advertising, because they're smart about it. As the above quote shows. They don't throw up a ton of ads. They give users a limited number of ads which are usually related to what the user wants, which actually makes them helpful.
It probably doesn't need to be said, but sticking an ad on a camera does not help me in anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flash Ads
So much of advertising is about maximizing the number of impressions and clicks. That's why you see ads that are super flashy or expand to cover up content. An accidental click is still a click.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a pretty interesting opinion for a guy working in a company that is entirely dependent on advertising (specifically click rate advertising).
Google ads are remarkably easy to block, they are all called in a similar manner, so it is pretty easy to make Google no longer be part of your online life.
I suspect the story would be different if Microsoft launches IE9 with an ad blocker built it that filters out all Google ads, both on websites and in the Google SERPs. There would be a rather large manure / fan interaction at that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're dependent upon serving ads, so obviously they'd prefer them to be less annoying. And, I would contend, they've largely succeeded.
Your IE example is odd, considering how annoyed most people are by OEM distributions of Windows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, he has never disclosed actual numbers, but for anyone who's dealt with website ad-revenue before this statement is very much the norm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's ads on this site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Enough income that he's willing to annoy potential readers rather than get rid of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I seriously doubt that Mike would keep it going with no traffic. Of course, you're free to think otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This issue here is who is blocking the ads - if it's the user that's blocking (or controlling the blocking) then that's entirely different from another company doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Tucker: I used IE as an example because it still had the vast majority of users, and would significantly impact Google in a very short amount of time. Imagine Google losing 50% of their ad revenues overnight. That would be pretty scary for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But you are wrong.
you are taking ie traffic including all versions. the latest, ie 8, is barely at 25%. ie# is at 60%, but not the majority are the latest version.
but yea, other than that, great argument. see, its awesome being not hated isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dunno 'bout you, but I preferredhim as a troll...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"if Microsoft launches IE9 with an ad blocker built it that filters out all Google ads"
"Microsoft just sets up the tools and allows the user to install it. It's the user's computer doing the blocking, not Microsoft."
So, which is it? An ad blocker specifically set up to block Google's ads and turned on by default, or an optional tool that the user may install and configure as they wish?
If the former, Microsoft would be successfully sued for that lost revenue. If the latter, the vast majority of people would not use it, as even the generally more tech-savvy Firefox users mostly don't use ad blocking tools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Microsoft sets up a system that blocks ALL major ad networks, removing pretty much all of the big end ads that you might see. That would include all google ads, advertising.com, etc. It would come standard on the browser, and be able to be disabled, perhaps a whitelist of companies you accept advertising from.
It would be entirely up to the user, but by default, it would be on. Part of the claim would be to disable flash ads, which are often infected with viruses, which would give them a valid reason to do. Heck, they could even offer an updating system that goes out and gets an up to date list, including known spyware sites (surf safe style).
Suddenly, it's not just an ad blocker, it's part of the move to surf safely on the net.
Google is entirely dependant on ads. Remove the ads, Google disappears. Microsoft wins, and does it above board.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, if their new browser blocked all of the ads on Bing as well as on all of the other major search engines, they would have a leg to stand on. If it didn't, they would find themselves on the losing end of a huge anti-trust suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be the part that would invite a valid lawsuit. Especially if the new version was installed as a standard Windows update (which other versions often are). It would probably fall afoul of anti-trust laws, especially since that means Microsoft was sabotaging its competitors in other areas. Yeah, Microsoft could block Bing in addition to everybody else, but that wouldn't matter for anti-trust concerns.
It's highly demonstrable that most users will not change default settings, even with IE8's prompts to do so. The anti-trust issues would outweigh any virus/spyware concerns. If the default option is "always block ads", most people would use that and MS would be rightfully attacked, even if their internal reasoning is noble.
You're coming up with an extremely half-assed hypothetical concept to try and attack Google for no good reason. At least come up with logical examples if you want to attack the general "Google=good, MS=bad" opinions. There's very good reasons why MS is generally viewed in this light, and MS making such an ad blocker mandatory and activated by default is a good example of behaviour we might expect from them and not Google. The issue you're attacking is pretty much the opposite - an optional component for an optional browser. Quite different from a pre-activated update for a browser that comes installed as a component of Windows. On is fine, the other is not, and the company making the bad decision would be rightfully criticised, as would Google if they did such a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is a pretty interesting opinion for a guy working in a company that is entirely dependent on advertising (specifically click rate advertising)."
Why? Advertising is useless if it's that annoying. People will avoid the ads, close the page or click the back button and will never consider buying from such an ad. In other words, it's useless.
I consider it a very logical thing for a person dependant on click rates to want ads that encourage people to click on them. A person who wants the ads blocked is never going to this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would say it's particularly intelligent. They are advertising to people ... if people aren't receptive, then their advertising is useless. Getting people to see an ad isn't the main purpose of advertising, it's getting to people to ACT (to get off the sofa or computer chair and do something, either purchasing a product, ordering a service, participating in an event, etc).
If the answer is to stop ad-blocking software, then they may force more people to view their ads, but they aren't doing anything to make people ACT on the ads. The solution they prefer is the right one ... make the ads compelling to people so that they are called into action instead of forcing people to view an ad just to get another pair of eyeballs on it to say you did.
You also have to realize intentions. Someone who actively installs an ad-blocker isn't going to be receptive to ads in general. They've consciously made the decision to not care for ads. Forcing them to view an ad isn't going to force them to act on an ad, and in fact they are more likely to resist and act defiantly to direct advertising.
So, in essence, Google has it right. Don't fight ad-blockers, fight crappy ads. Make ads more compelling and interesting and give users a reason to want to view the ads because they are getting entertainment out of it, or information, or whatever it is that is missing and driving them to not want to be exposed to any more marketing messages at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*.doubleclick.*
However, if I see one animated ad, I usually adblock the entire domain, because I figure they're going to have more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ad disabled when warranted
Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ad disabled when warranted
i will never click an add. And i have never (intentionally) clicked one. Unblocking it for one site just so i can see the ad i won't click is dumb. i prefer supporting a site directly as seen by the fact that i am an insider to techdirt. (or will be if i haven't claimed this comment when you read it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ad disabled when warranted
I'm glad to hear that I am not the only person who follows that practice - block everything by default, and un-block selectively on those sites I enjoy where the ads are their only source of revenue, or where the ads are not obtrusive.
However, I suspect we are in the minority. Once a user installs AdBlock Plus (or AdThwart on Chrome), it probably remains 'enabled' everywhere, all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, not only was the ad irritating, since it covered much of the story, but it was also really distasteful.
This kinda crap is why people make ad-blocking software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And committing homicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The definition of irony
I have to cop to not being up on the ad network programming, so perhaps it's related to our conversation. Just found it a bit ironic.
PS: I'm not a McD's plant, in fact their food makes me ill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The definition of irony
I have to cop to not being up on the ad network programming, so perhaps it's related to our conversation. Just found it a bit ironic.
PS: I'm not a McD's plant, in fact their food makes me ill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got Ad blocker and blocked most of those ads. But still that site seems to come up with new ones all the time. So now I do not even go to that site because of the ads it hosts.
I do click on small Google ads that appeal to me. Not often but it depend what I am searching for. Sometime the site I find will have an ad for exactly what I am looking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So?
Really? For how long? Have you ever read the Chrome TOS? If so, what part of the TOS gives you that idea?
And continuing with your reasoning, if you were to access kiddy porn with Chrome, would you conclude that "Google's CEO, top management, and lawyers are ok with it"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So?
Whatever gave you that idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So?
Only in that by Alan's reasoning "Google's CEO, top management, and lawyers are ok with it" because they haven't stopped it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So?
Yes, really, which highlights the defectiveness of the reasoning. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chrome adblocker
I use Firefox with adblock plus, i will never surf without it. Chrome has an adblocker that works almost as good as adblock plus. It is called adsweep (one word). There are two versions of adsweep, you want the one released under the MIT license. Just occasionally does an ad get through. HTH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is annoying ads
I switched to Google Chrome almost on launch day, and I love it. But a few months ago I REALLY REALLY wanted a adblocker or flashblocker. There was a flash ad with a VERY annoying laughter upon mouse over, that was everywhere here in Portugal. I ended up blocking the server URL with an entry in Roots file.
Annoying ads are the real problem. Get that under control people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is annoying ads
Then you are indeed generally blocking many ads, despite your claim to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've also used NoScript for Firefox for a long time. Every time I turn it off and forget to turn it back on, I'm absolutely shocked and appalled at how obnoxious the web becomes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lolz...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To block or not to block
FYI: Techdirt's sponsors' sidebar has a (I think) Nokia ad which is a nice example of the latter of these which was plaguing me yesterday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]