Developer of AdBlock Plus Proposes Fair(er) Approach to Ad Blocking
Roughly 5% of Firefox users run a plugin called AdBlock Plus, which effectively blocks all display and text ads on websites. There can be little doubt that the ethics of using a tool like this can get pretty tricky, though a lot of users do opt to block online ads; and given that this is mostly an all-or-nothing approach, once a user decides to block ads on one site that features exceptionally annoying ads, they will also block ads on every other site as well. Now, AdBlock Plus' developers have proposed a new meta tag that would allow site owners to pop up a notification for AdBlock Plus users, asking them if they want to block ads on a site that, according to the webmaster's own judgment, does not contain any "annoying advertising."
Even AdBlock Plus' developers seem somewhat torn by the problems that their product can cause for webmasters; but, according to their reasoning, giving users an easier way to opt in to less annoying ads would encourage publishers to opt for less intrusive ads, which would ultimately give users less reason to use AdBlock Plus in the long run.
The proposed new meta tag would look something like this:
<meta name="advertising" content="ask" />
According to the proposal, a pop-up window would appear at the top of the page when a user navigates to a site that implements this tag.
Ads Are Getting More Intrusive Again
It is no secret, of course, that most readers do not necessarily like ads - and while we have thankfully moved away from pop-up and pop-under ads on every single site (remember those?), the latest crop of new ads is getting increasingly invasive again. Just yesterday, the New York Times front page was taken over by a giant ad from chip maker Intel, which covered the text of the front page completely. And the new ad standards (including ads that remain in the page even when a user scrolls up or down) from the Online Publisher Association also call for bigger and more intrusive ads.
Of course, advertisers and publishers have to walk a fine line, where the ads still pay for the content without annoying readers so much that services like AdBlock Plus become a default tool for everybody.
Taking the AdBlock Plus proposal even further, maybe advertisers and site owners could set different 'noise levels' as well, so that users could automatically block ads that expand, make noise, or feature dancing aliens, but keep static display ads and text ads.
Do Publishers Have an Option?
While content providers have experimented with micropayments in the past, these experiments have generally failed, so at least for the time being, advertising is the most effective way for publishers (including ReadWriteWeb) to monetize their efforts. Content producers and advertisers are obviously aware of products like AdBlock Plus, and as the comments on the AdBlock Plus blog post clearly show, there is a large contingent of users who are adamantly against all forms of advertising on the web. These users will surely continue to block all ads on every site, but the AdBlock Plus proposal would make it easier for other users to control where they see ads.
What do You Think?
Here at ReadWriteWeb, our advertisers obviously don't just keep our servers up and running, but they also keep all of us out of trouble, off the street, and gainfully employed, so we hope that you will decide to unblock ads on RWW and all the other sites that don't feature intrusive ads; but feel free to let us know what you think about the state of online advertising and the AdBlock Plus proposal in the comments.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Content publishers could advocate their fair-advertisement policies by openly publishing what percentage of their readers indeed endorses the site by explicitly allowing the ads to be displayed in their browser. The higher this percentage, the better the publisher meets the expectations of its readers. This presupposes that it's possible for a site publisher to detect whether their reader has activated Adblock Plus or any other browser ad blocker.
Another direction could be that of self-regulated advertiser certification: a publisher could adhere to an advertising policy meeting a certain globally agreed standard. The certification could be accompanied with a logo or a some kind of seal of approval.
Do you think any of these ideas are feasible, desirable even?
"without annoying readers so much that services like AdBlock Plus become a default tool for everybody"
I just assumed everybody did use AdBlock!
And you have an error in the beginning, "Roughly 5% of Firefox users run a plugin called AdBlock Plus," should read 95%.
sorry, eff all ads ..
unless, you pay my bandwidth costs, and give me something for the attention and time you have taken that never comes back ..
Still trying to push ads to the viewer ? Somebody is confusing a communication tool for a broadcast mass media...
I find the concept of voluntarily unblocking ads hysterically funny. Ad blocking tools came as soon as ads appeared - I remember all the pre-adblock hacks that we used to keep our screens clean. Thinking that anyone who has acquired the knowledge of ad blocking will voluntarily go back to a cluttered screen is pure wishful thinking.
Meanwhile I'm making sure that everyone around me uses Adblock...
This may be an attempt to de-escalate the arms race, but I doubt that the users will play along.
Hopefully adblock plus gets forked if this solution is too intrusive. I very much like the ability to apply rules to all sites I visit
Posted by: Ryan Singer
|
May 12, 2009 10:56 AM
I love journalism and trying to bring better and better content to readers. Just thought i'd say that.
The trouble is that advertisers can't be trusted. They would take your entire screen for a minute if they could. The only site that has done ads right is google, and untill the rest follows everybody should block.
Re: gregorylent
True, publishers don't pay your bandwidth, but you don't pay theirs either if you block their ads.
Other than that:
Speak with your wallet. If you find a site's ads annoying, stop visiting, subscribing, and talking about it.
"we hope that you will decide to unblock ads on RWW and all the other sites that don't feature intrusive ads"
While RWW doesn't use some of the more obnoxious forms of ads that some sites use, I would disagree that your ads aren't intrusive at all - by my rough estimate, 1/4 of your page is ads, which by my standard is pretty intrusive.
Er, right. Let's modify a plugin part of whose function is to block obtrusive pop-up ads by ... enabling obtrusive pop-ups to tell us there aren't any such and would we please allow that site so it can show its less-annoying ads? I have a feeling this solution won't go over very well with AdBlock fans.
Why would I block ads on a site that I like? Why would I deprive someone I like, the ability to earn a living and continue to provide me with the content I like?
Makes no sense to me...
Sorry, adblock will remain on and running for all websites. Until we can have responsible behavior in ad placement and not make it so annoying, it will be blocked. I do have some favorite sites that I view in Chrome and the ads do appear, but that really accounts for 95% of the sites I visit will be blocked.
Sorry, adblock will remain on and running for all websites. Until we can have responsible behavior in ad placement and not make it so annoying, it will be blocked. I do have some favorite sites that I view in Chrome and the ads do appear, but that really accounts for less than 5% of the sites I visit. So, 95% of the sites I visit will be blocked.
I understand that advertising is necessary to pay for the websites I enjoy. So, I don't mind some low-key, unobtrusive ads. I've even bought stuff from them occasionally.
But, I do mind in your face ads that won't let me read the site until I've been subjected to a message I'm not interested in. If this starts happening too much, I will install ad block.
I'm willing to be reasonable if website owners are. But, if they think they're going to shove their ads down my throat, they're not.
I like the idea of websites being able to offer this sort of option. It still gives adblock users control over their use of the add-on. A site I visit, DailyKos, has a custom script which does essentially the same thing, though not as easily. And I've disabled it for sites I value.
There's just so much click-through to absolute garbage and so many advertisements blocking content that I'd NEVER give up the capabilities of Ad-Block. Advertisers don't like it? Too f*cking bad. Don't waste your time developing sites which hawk your spam. Don't insist on using techniques which raise viewer hackles as part of a package deal for advertising on a website.
And I'd say the same to websites. If you're all about being an advertising delivery portal, too bad. If you care about developing a customer base, pay attention to your viewers and work with them, not just the advertiser.
Out of curiosity I flipped over to another OS and Chrome to look at your page with ads. Agree its less unobtrusive than most, but its still obtrusive.
However lets look at at those ads and consider the user. I am average in the sense that there is no average. The readers of this blog are all kinds of people I have no doubt. The chance that those ads will address a need of mine, and more importantly, that I will recognise that need being addressed is low at best.
I think some form of agreement such as being debated here misses the point. Advertising is broken, and I think the use of the word ethics is to do a disservice to that word in this context. Ethics is the fairness and morality in treatment of others. The use of that word here pre-supposes "advertisers" have more rights than me? We are equal ... they can try to advertise to me, and I can resist; this choice is mine and mine alone. Similarly they cannot force me to read billboards.
Advertising is based on the x% rule ... if x% see the ad and react to it then the cost of the ad is recouped. I fundamentally question that the success of purchases resulting from online ads is what advertisers think.
The notion that internet and internet business models are based on advertising is short sighted. I pay for the FT and Economist. I don't pay for your site, even though I do appreciate it. Should I? What standards would you be required to uphold for me to pay?
By all means rely on advertising for now, but in 2020 will you still be advertising based? This blog is the perfect venue to consider alternative business models.
Remember customers are people who pay.
Just saying, and thanks for hosting this debate.
What's needed here is a more nuanced approach, similar to collaborative spam filtering.
What if Adblock periodically asked it's users to rate the annoyance factor of the ads on a page? This could be aggregated into an 'annoyance score' used to selectively turn ads back on for the least annoying sites, with the user in control of how high to set their individual threshold (including the default setting of 'Never show me any ads EVER').
The key here is that it does not require the advertisers or publishers to participate at all.
Too me, blocking ads is theft. Your stealing the publishers time, bandwidth and server power and decide not to give a cent back? Does that sound fair to you? I, as a publisher, would love to have an AdBlockBlock plugin to keep all that bastards off my servers. There shouldn't be a choice between content and ads and content only. There should be choice between content and ads and no content at all. Getting ads with the content is like paying your bills. It's part of the damn game. So to all you smart ads-are-too-obtrusive-folks: unobtrusive ads won't pay my bills, my rent or my food. They pay my server costs at best. So please tell me how the Internet should work with unobtrusive-ads only if 50K pages per day with an average of 3 (admitedly quite obtrusive) ad slots each isn't enough to pay a full time developer? You make me sick with your "it's my bandwith and my time" reasoning. In what kind of world are you living? Mine isn't perfect, is yours?
Ah, and thanks to all those guys - and I'm glad there are still 95% of firefox users - who play according to the rules. I really appreciate that! thanks!
If it's a gif or swf file and its coming from an Ad Server farm, it gets blocked. Sorry. So right now, the only ad I'm seeing here on RWW is the one for SocialText, because its a jpg. I dont mind ads, in fact, i like a well done ad. But annoying ads are exactly why things like the AdBlock plugin and Tivo were created.
@A.Publisher - it's actually not too hard to develop a script to determine whether or not someone is using an ad-blocker and then block access to your site's content until they disable the ad blocker. I've been to several sites that do this. Just be prepared for people to do what I've done with those sites: stop going there.
Is it really THAT hard to come up with relevant, unobtrusive advertising?
Not sure who A. Publisher is but I am more than happy to block his site from my laptop if he identifies himself.
re Colin: I agree with much of what you say, but it leads me in a different direction.
Advertising IS broken, even the advertisers agree. But what exactly is broken about it?
IMHO it's not the technology so much as it is the mindset, the algorithm, if you will. Current-day advertising and marketing techniques rely on the broadcast model, as you said. Part of that model also appears to state that we, as consumers, must be told what is available (what to buy).It's that model which must be changed.
A model should be developed which benefits all parties involved.
The creatives (folks like Marshall and Frederic and maybe even You) produce quality content, and should be paid for it. But they don't necessarily want YOU to pay for it, 'cause you're their readers and they want to take care of you as best they can. So they sell ad space and let the advertisers pay for it.
But users of crap like Adblock+ make that unprofitable, and as that's all the advertisers care about, they don't want to advertise (esp at a tech site, where most of us know how to block them). Presently, there's a conundrum, a point where the whole thing breaks down. Readers get pissed about the ads and the creatives can't afford to keep the site up and the advertisers and the companies they represent make nothing either. Nobody wins.
What if, and it's a big IF:
Every person in USA (at least) could 'tell the internet' what ads they WOULD allow? What if, for instance, you're moving to San Francisco, and you want to learn more about the place? Wouldn't it be great to tell the web you need ads about SF, and have the various categories of things you want to know simply show up on every page you visit, until you change your preferences?
"Ahh, but I use Search for what I want." And that's why search engine ads are so much more effective than site ads. Which is why the 'implicit' advertising crowd is now enabling behavioral targeting based on recent search queries. The implicit crowd wants to keep using the same old model, to try to tell you what you want.
With the model briefly proposed above, the consumer (and that IS al of us) get's only what is asked for, the creatives buy a beer and pay for hosting and the advertisers profit immensely.
Win - Win - Win
didn't mean to sound so insulting to AdBlock coders or users. I've looked at it and it's very well-written and I'd imagine a constant headache to the developers as old marketing tries to beat them. Kudos to you guys for everything you do.
It's just that I think it's time to move on, past the disconnect.
@Jon .... yeah brother. It is (could be) called project VRM. Incidentally I have no connection but I am a believer.
The concept is exactly as you suggest. You define what you are interested in, and no-one gets through unless they meet the requirements you have set. You define your own requirements and interests, and of course those might evolve over time and lifestyle.
Clearly this is a nirvana but its a good target imho.
Credit where credit is due (or blame, if you prefer). AdBlock Plus got this idea from theGoogleCache Blog. See this post: http://www.thegooglecache.com/uncategorized/adblockplus-considering-new-meta-standard/
Colin, thanks. Yeah, something like those guys @ Harvard are proposing. Not exactly, but similar.
I'm gona block every ad I can no matter what.
Here is my proposition :
let the publisher and advertisers develop AdBlock Moins ...
Ok ok Im not serious but this is definitely not a serious question either.
Whatever system you design you will always have freeloaders (doves vs hawks in game theory) so instead of spending resources on forcing them despite their very low percentage 5% of 50% (FF have 50% of market share? no I guess not even that... it's just here on a nerd website), spend those resources to augment the average size of readers. Yes, that means more freeloaders but ridiculously low compared to the total amount. Do your math.
If the amount of freeloader is higher that what you can handle, change your system of monetization because you don't understand your business, sorry.
An AdBlock Plus user.
"we hope that you will decide to unblock ads on RWW and all the other sites that don't feature intrusive ads;"
To me your ads still are intrusive, because they move (gifs and flash), which makes it hard to read the content. When I read a
I would definitely use a setting that allowed PNG/JPG/Text only adverts through.
What is being proposed is unworkable, you can't trust sites to have the same standards as you.
There is a paradigm shift and the web will be moving to micropayemnts. Adblock+ isn't the only way to block ads, it happens at the firewall, anti-virus and the operating system. No one actually knows how many ads are actually blocked, it could be 60%, could be 10%. After the economic recession, the free ad model is pretty much toast and if you speak with independent publishers they are all looking for some other source of revenue. Now that facebook is rolling out a micropayment system we are all going to be paying pennies per the page/byte.
Some interesting comments here, on a topic the web industry still needs to do some figuring out on.
My thinking on ad block plus is, great if you want to use it, but I think it is totally reasonable for a publisher to say, well if you don't want our adds, you can either pay for the content or go elsewhere.
Are adverts on sites like RWW obtrusive? Well they would want to be reasonably noticeable wouldn't they? I have the same problem with newspapers and magazines: obtrusive adverts all over them!
I think we need to accept that quality content costs money and we can either accept adverts as a cost or find an alternative model.
If I found ads so annoying that I needed ad block plus, I would simply not visit that site again.
Seems as though the option being offered is as much of an intrusion as the ads. And who would decide whether an ad is "annoying?"
may i ask what god given 'right' anyone has to take the free content of a web page with out the advertising that supports it?
If the ad's on any particular page are so annoying the user has the ability to move on doesnt he/she? therefore if the page comes with ad's the page should be displayed with ad's.
Ads are invasive of my privacy. Lately I have been looking for a memory upgrade for my computer, and have had adblock off my system in an attempt to conserve memory. Well I just typed in the address for Ebay, and up popped the page with several auctions they picked for me. Guess what they were for...Computer memory. That isn't such a big deal. What is a big deal though is when sites constantly show ads for dating sites because your brother visited a dating site, and your Girlfriend knows that the computer has been to a dating site because that's what triggers that type of ad to start showing up.
All ads obtrusive or not are banned from my computer because they are intrusive. If adblock plus were to be rendered unusable tomorrow, I would continue to block them using the filters in my router, and might even write my own blocking program.
Forgot to mention I pay a monthly fee to have access to the internet. We can go into the stuff about the money doesn't go to the website, but to my ISP, but that's really between the website and my ISP, not me and the website. I also pay for access to a few sites, and donate to some donation based sites. Why? Because I want them to stay up and running, and they do not clutter my world with ads. I can use them without ad blocking software.
other sites I have paid for access to, and found ads are still there. I never gave them another dime.
When I am reading the news or looking for information I am not shopping and I hate the ads. I can't for example every one in 10 years seeing an ad online that made me think hey I didn't realize that product existed or hey I hadn't thought of buying that but now that I saw the ad I will.
When I am shopping however I just run a search for the item I wan to find, do a little research for big ticket items and then go and buy it.
The ads on MSN are the worst. Honestly how many times do I need to see the Boeing ad and do you think I am going to buy a plane? My husband mark works for Boeing Inda so I have more then enough information. The ads there often run for 30 seconds in order to see a 1 minute piece of news and that is a waste of my time so I stopped watching them.
I use ADblock all the time everywhere (it doesn't block pop 1 pop ups though on msn for a text based ad 360 something so there does seem to be a very irritating way to work around it).
Let's not forget that in some places ads come gift wrapped with viruses and malware. I don't care who gets mad at me or blocks me - I do not have the money to spend fixing a problem that your site has introduced through your malicious ads (your is used generally here, not directed at this particular site).
One site I don't mind the ads for so much is hulu.com. They don't plaster it all over your screen - merely make you watch a commercial once in awhile while viewing tv shows online. Seems like a fair trade to me.
Ad blocking is legal. It always will be. I block ads. People who think it's unethical always make the following arguments:
1. You're stealing from the content owner.
This is absurd. Ad blocking is legal. It isn't stealing in any sense of the word. Imagine appending "your honour" to that accusation; you'd be laughed out of court. Content owners put something up in public, but then they want control over it. This is called 'having your cake and eating it too'. Their business model is not my problem. If they don't like people blocking ads, they can try to find technical ways around it, they can live with it, they can restrict access to it, or they can go broke. I don't care which.
2. Without advertising revenue, sites will go broke.
My answer: "I don't care". Let them. Just because 20 million people adopt a flawed business model, it doesn't mean that business model should succeed. If ad-sponsored content can't succeed, then something else will replace it. I personally feel that ads are insidious and poison everything they touch. Content creators invariably modify their content to satisfy advertisers or maximise ad revenue. It's toxic.
There's also an implicit assumption that most content is worth having. This assumption is false.
3. Content owners deserve reward for their hard work.
My answer: no they don't. No-one does. Furthermore, the only mechanism that could enforce this would be socialistic changes to the law.
I recommend AdBlock Plus to everyone! Webmasters and advertisers also forget that web surfers have costs too (both in time and bandwidth). Using ABP has improved my surfing time incredibly and zapped all distractions that take away from the actual content--the whole reason I visit websites anyway.
If a consumer wants to buy something they will. Being annoyed by an advertisement won't encourage that; either way, if they're not interested, they'll find some means to ignore it.