Adblocking Goes Mainstream - 2014 Report

It does make me wonder just how many idiots are working in the online-ad industry, didn´t it basically cause this problem itself? I would never block ads if they were just static images, but no they had to come up with GIF and Flash ads, and not to forget the infamous JavaScript pop-ups.

http://blog.pagefair.com/2014/adblocking-report/

 

I have to agree with you, they really did cause people to fight back harder. If I was not being tracked everywhere I went by invisible scripts and had darned near movies for ads taking over my screen, I wouldn't make the slightest fuss about it all. They decided to get ugly about it, so they get what they get.

 

Note: It appears that when they say "adblock" above, they are referring to "all adblock plugins" where "The most popular adblock plugins are “Adblock Plus” and “Adblock”.".

So... a tiny percentage of users are protecting themselves and protection is almost entirely limited to non-mobile platforms and usage scenarios? Doesn't sound good, for consumers that is. Doesn't sound mainstreamish at all.

 

@ Countryboy15

Yes, just how dumb do you have to be in order to figure this thing out? For example, take tabloid newspapers (real ones) I actually look at those ads, because they are non-intrusive. But how the hell am I supposed to read text when I constantly see something blinking in the corner of my eye?

 

I agree with all of the above comments wholeheartedly. Static ads would not be a problem. Wanna see something scary? Go to Photobucket without an adblocker. It isn't even the worst offender.

 

I just loaded photobucket.com -- what should I look for? I don't see any flashing or animated advertisements, and I don't use an adblocker.

-rich

 

Do you have an account there? Even in Firefox, NoScript and ABP I sometimes get pop-ups come from nowhere on my page there. I tend to only visit Photobucket in X64 Chrome with ABP these days just to be on the safe side. Unfortunately I need to totally disable NoScript in Fx for functionality in Photobucket. Maxthon's built-in adblocker tends to fend better in Photobucket these days, but an awful lot get through still.

 

No account, and no pop-ups because I have pop-ups disabled in Opera.

OK, I understand now..I have Javascript whitelisted, so when I enable it, I see the garbage.

When I used to store photographs on line, (I now have a web site) I used Pbase.com, which doesn't have all of that stuff. Of course, it is not free (about $2/month), but you know the old saying, "You get what you pay for."

-rich

 

I have pop-up blockers enabled in Fx, this site can even defeat that.

I also need to totally disable NS to copy embedding links. I do use the free Photobucket account, so I shouldn't complain really. But I always worry about pop-ups and flash ads. I got stung with a drive-by once.

 

This is an example of an ad that I would never block. It´s a static image, but it still caught my eye. I would dump extensions like Adblock Plus, if all ads were like this. Of course, online tracking is another thing, so I would not dump extensions Ghostery. BTW, this ad was from from yahoo.com.

I also liked this comment from "Jason".

"Advertisers only have themselves to blame. You make annoying, intrusive ads and you give motivation to people to go look for ways to block them. Don’t pop up ads. Don’t flash ads. And definitely don’t auto-play audio/video ads. Don’t intrude on my silence! And stop tracking me as I traverse different websites! Oh wait, never mind, I have AdBlock, I’m all good."

 

Here a couple of more acceptable (static) ads, if all ads were like this we would not even need ad blockers.

 

Since ad servers get compromised and are used to deliver not only ads but also malware, adblockers can be considered as a security tool also.

 

I'll vote too that "I hate the Flashy GIFy videos" too. Do they really think I'm going to a webpage to watch inch-high videos of wind-surfers or tablets dancing around table-tops? I wish they'd be required to give us an "I HATE YOU SPECIFICALLY" button and build a log file of all vendors I refuse to do business with.

 

This is another site with acceptable banners, all sites should be like this! Why would I want to block these type of ads? BTW, some offices are really cool.

http://officesnapshots.com/2015/04/01/kaspersky-lab-london-offices/

 

sorry to say to all these companies i use adblockers and i recc them to EVERY cust, friend, family member and just anyone i know as do most other shops i know of. as someone else said if they would have continued to use CIVILIZED ads and not all this garbage and in many cases very explicit ads on many pages which people do not want to see nor do they want their kids seeing (im sure you know what i mean) people would not have bothered blocking them but greed is greed and they will always want more money from more ads imo.

 

Mobile adblocking doesn't need root. Try NoRoot Firewall, FilterProxy, ba.net DNS, etc.

 

Wasnt aware of FilterProxy, thanks for mentioning.

 

What do you guys think about this? I must say that I see more and more sites asking to stop using an ad-blocker (or to whitelist them), because ad-blockers are preventing them to make money. I sometimes do feel a bit bad for them, especially when it comes to my favorite sites.

http://thenextweb.com/opinion/2015/05/21/ad-blockers-arent-immoral-but-maybe-youre-using-them-wrong/

 

Quite honestly, I think it's one of those situations where one bad apple (or many) ruined it for all advertisers. Ads became more intrusive, flashy, bandwidth intensive, etc. And of course, there's the privacy stuff on top of all that. Tracking cookies, etc. But even if there is a level a trust there, we also have to keep in mind that malvertising has become more prevalent and any advertiser can fall victim to that along with however many users are affected as well. And in those cases, it could be only a few minutes, a few hours, etc.

Like you, I sometimes feel bad as well for my favourite sites that I rely on regularly. But it's really murky waters right now and it's difficult one way or the other. For now, I will continue my ways of blocking at the network level and browser level.

 

One question: do publishers or site owners get paid if their visitors only see and add on their site or do visitors have to click on them? If it's the latter than disabling adblocking makes no sense for users that don't click on adds.

 

There are different rates but yes, site owners are paid for visitor/viewers. It's similar to "Cost per thousand impression" in traditional media.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cpm.asp

 

Isn't ad as ad. The fact unfortunately is that the majority of ads is annoying and distracting. They jump out, flash, move, overlap a webpage etc. Personally I wouldn't have problem to accept ads which would perfectly fit (by their character) to webpages where they're displayed.

 

As much as I agree, don't forget the people who host the ads on their sites share some of the responsibility as they choose the ad networks and can change to ones who exhibit better behaviour.

 

That is a very good point. The more shady web sites seem to use more shady ad networks. I definitely agree with your line of thought on this as well.

 

fully agree, if they kept to common sense ad blocking wouldn't be as popular as it is.

But make no mistake ad's still generate massive revenue even in the current anti ad situation.