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.
Filed Under: ad blockers, ad blocking, competition, quality
Companies: google
Comments on “Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem”
Same as I've always said
I don’t hate ads – I only hate annoying ads.
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.
Re: Same as I've always said
“I don’t hate ads – I only hate annoying ads.”
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.)
Re: Same as I've always said
I totally agree (except I tend to prefer graphical ads over text ads). In fact, there are times at which I like ads. I just started using Tweetie, for instance, which offers the option to pay for a no-ads version. After using it for just about a day or so, I actually like occasionally seeing an ad for something that I didn’t know about.
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.
Re: Re: Same as I've always said
“In fact, there are times at which I like ads.”
Good, post your email address here and I’ll make sure you get plenty. You can then peruse them at those times.
Re: Same as I've always said
Yep. The things that made me get around to installing AdBlock Plus in Firefox were those idiotic ads that cover half the page after it loads (with an often hidden close button). Animated ads can be annoying but I didn’t mind them for the most part. I started blocking ads when they started thinking they were more important than the content I was trying to read.
“…that doesn’t immediately rush to the “simple” answer..”.
But that is the simple answer !, it’s the oter answer that takes more thought and contrivance.
Huzzah!
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.
I run ad block plus on firefox 100% of the time. It isn’t out of any “destroy the man” kinda thing, i just don’t like ads and find them distracting and annoying. I would block other ads the same way as web ads if an automatic way of doing so came to TV, radio and life in general. As it is, i just try my best to ignore all other ads as much as possible, including not buying anything i see an ad for.
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.
Re: Re:
I use the two top Add blocking extensions for chrome, they have already improved drastically, not %100 the level of firefox but getting there.
I just wrote about this a couple of days ago. After watching a college football bowl game where one of the cameras was “brought to you buy DirecTV”… I realize one of the reasons ad revenues are down is because we live in a world with too many ads.
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.
Flash Ads
I’d like to see something about ad blockers are partially a response to advertising practices that border on fraud.
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.
if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising should get less annoying.
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.
Re: Re:
“This is a pretty interesting opinion for a guy working in a company that is entirely dependent on advertising (specifically click rate advertising).”
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.
Re: Re:
Mike has stated repeatedly that Ads are a minor supplemental income for him and his company.
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.
Re: Re: Re:
Mike has stated repeatedly that Ads are a minor supplemental income for him and his company.
There’s ads on this site?
Re: Re: Re:
Mike has stated repeatedly that Ads are a minor supplemental income for him and his company.
Enough income that he’s willing to annoy potential readers rather than get rid of them.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But not enough where if all his readers installed ad-blockers that Techdirt would go dark.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
If all his users left because of them I bet it would.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Probably not. The comments section would be a lot emptier, though.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“Probably not. The comments section would be a lot emptier, though.”
I seriously doubt that Mike would keep it going with no traffic. Of course, you’re free to think otherwise.
Re: Re:
“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.”
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.
Re: Re: Re:
Richard, legally, it’s ALWAYS the user who blocks it. Microsoft just sets up the tools and allows the user to install it. It’s the user’s computer doing the blocking, not Microsoft. Heck, they could offer a checkbox hidden 9 menus down that can turn it off on a per session basis or something like that.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
good god, you are on a roll. another logical and frank discussion.
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?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“good god, you are on a roll. another logical and frank discussion. “
Dunno ’bout you, but I preferredhim as a troll…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to have contradicted yourself here:
“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.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Paul, picture it like this:
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.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The only way I could see a legal battle over this going in Microsoft’s favor is if it also blocked all of their ads.
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.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“It would be entirely up to the user, but by default, it would be on.”
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.
Re: Re:
I believe Mike has stated in the past that this site does not rely on add dollars.
Re: Re:
“a rather large manure / fan interaction” I’m gonna have to start saying that, thanks AM! Also Google is awesome.
Re: Re:
“if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising should get less annoying.
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.
Re: Re:
“This is a pretty interesting opinion for a guy working in a company that is entirely dependent on advertising (specifically click rate advertising).”
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.
*.doubleclick.*
I only block animated ads because they make it hard to read.
However, if I see one animated ad, I usually adblock the entire domain, because I figure they’re going to have more.
Ad disabled when warranted
I run AdBlockPlus in Firefox, but I’m careful to unblock it on the sites that give me real value, like TechDirt.com.
Seriously.
Re: Ad disabled when warranted
the problem i have with that is this:
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.)
Re: Ad disabled when warranted
wirtes:
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.
Funny related ad issue. I was browsing a local news site, and came across a homicide story. The ridiculous part is that suddenly red, blood-like splotches were flung across the display, followed by an ad for McDonald’s McRib (it was supposed to be barbeque sauce).
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.
Re: Re:
Well now I feel like a McDonald’s McRib.
And committing homicide.
Re: The definition of irony
If you would turn of Ad Blocker for one moment (I did inspired by this conversation) you would see McDonalds on the top right hand corner advertising a new tortilla wrap.
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.
Re: The definition of irony
If you would turn of Ad Blocker for one moment (I did inspired by this conversation) you would see McDonalds on the top right hand corner advertising a new tortilla wrap.
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.
I had regular site I went to until they start some stupid ads that periodically appeared and took over the whole screen… always a chore to find the very small X box to close it.
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.
ads?
ads? there are ads on web pages? (a very statisfied firefox user!)
So?
Engineers often have views that are out of line with the top management’s and lawyer’s. Let me know when Google’s CEO says ad blockers are OK and they remove the part of their terms of service that lets them go into your computer to delete them.
Re: So?
The fact that I’m using Chrome with an ad-blocker lets me think that Google’s CEO, top management, and lawyers are ok with it.
Re: Re: So?
The fact that I’m using Chrome with an ad-blocker lets me think that Google’s CEO, top management, and lawyers are ok with it.
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”?
Re: Re: Re: So?
Is disabling ads against the law!?!
Re: Re: Re:2 So?
Is disabling ads against the law!?!
Whatever gave you that idea?
Re: Re: Re:3 So?
Disabling ads is like accessing kiddy porn.
Re: Re: Re:4 So?
Disabling ads is like accessing kiddy porn.
Only in that by Alan’s reasoning “Google’s CEO, top management, and lawyers are ok with it” because they haven’t stopped it.
Re: Re: Re:5 So?
Not really.
Re: Re: Re:6 So?
Not really.
Yes, really, which highlights the defectiveness of the reasoning. Sorry.
Chrome adblocker
Hi,
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
The problem is annoying ads
I generally dont use ad blockers, but I have used a Flash blocker on Firefox for a long time. Flash ads are annoying and memory intensive and I usually have a ton of open tabs.
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!
Re: The problem is annoying ads
“I generally dont use ad blockers, but I have used a Flash blocker on Firefox for a long time.”
Then you are indeed generally blocking many ads, despite your claim to the contrary.
I don’t go out of my way to block ads, however I do block obnoxiousness. I’ve used pop-up blockers since before all browsers started including them by default. Whoever invented pop-ups should be set on fire.
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.
Love it
That’s the best response I’ve heard in a while, if only other large companies could take the ‘adapt’ attitude instead of blaming innovation.
lolz...
This, on a site where the ads take up more than 2 times the screen space of the article…
To block or not to block
I used to always use adblocker, but I no longer have a problem with most ads. However, some ads are very intrusive: anything with sound; ads that expand when you so much as brush them with your mouse pointer; and, most annoyingly of all, ads that are mis-sized for their allocated space on the page – which then block actual page content.
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.
The ads themselves don’t bother me as much as the performance cut that comes from having flash animations on half of all my tabs