Ad blocking as an ethical problem?

Apple's new mobile OS (I forget it's name, she said with a straight face) offers a readier capability for most apps to block ads, particularly in the built-in Safari browser. This has caused a great deal of anguish, anger and wailing from content publishers (she said that with a straight face, too), afraid they'll lose ad revenue, which means almost all their revenue. Also from online ad agencies.

Some people are claiming ads are the price of "free" content. After all, for decades we got free TV over the air in exchange for watching ads. Newspapers made their money from ads rather than selling copies (though the rates they could charge were tied to the level of circulation). I could cite other examples, but the point is clear. Online publications, blogs, magazines, and other content providers subsist on ads. Blocking them means trying to get at that content without "paying" for it.

Well, there are some differences. In old media, the TV and radio stations, newspapers, magazines, etc. controlled which ads ran when and how. They could, and did, reject ads or even entire companies if they wanted to. Online publishers control very little (except a few sites like this one and many small blogs, which don't exactly exist in order to generate revenue anyway).

And online ads are out of control. Often websites will take inordinately long times to load and/or display. Often when that's done you get ambushed by adds appearing suddenly as you scroll down, accidentally mouse over something, or simply just because. Adding enticements to subscribe to site updates and/or newsletters doesn't help.

This is very reminiscent of the pop-up ads of the late 90s and early XXI Century. At the time you could get pop-up blocker add-ons, and latter browsers were released with built-in pop-up blockers. The end result was ad companies stopped using them.

What they should do now is devise less intrusive ads, which don't suck bandwidth and resources so much. Imagine if your TV consumed twice as much electricity when an ad come on (glossing over an obvious flaw here). Wouldn't you turn it off when the ads started? Many people, especially on mobile devices, pay for data on a metered connection.

I cope with ads by mostly ignoring them. If one irritates me by popping up mid-read, playing a video, or something other obnoxious like that, you can bet I won't click on it. Curiously I sometimes click on ads on FB, which are unobtrusively on the side and at least 30% of the time show something I'm interested in.

I'd hate to see certain sites vanish due to lack of revenue, and/or others move to a subscription model entirely.

Then, too, Apple is also releasing a news reader app which will allow ads. Some ad blocking companies are offering to let ads through for a fee. This is, at the least, unseemly.

Thoughts?

I think sites that offer free content with advertising should block the Apple OS. If enough of them do that, Apple will have to reconsider that feature.

Quote: Wizard

I think sites that offer free content with advertising should block the Apple OS. If enough of them do that, Apple will have to reconsider that feature.

Will Apple sell fewer iphones if sites do this? If not, then Apple won't lift a finger on their behalf, not even to give them the finger.

Quote: Wizard

I think sites that offer free content with advertising should block the Apple OS. If enough of them do that, Apple will have to reconsider that feature.

There is a somewhat lengthy discussion of the legal actions over a similar commercial skipping device.

Quote: Wikipedia

AutoHop lawsuits

The AutoHop functionality of the Hopper was met with considerable legal controversy from the owners of the four major U.S. networks. Leslie Moonves, CBS chief executive, asked rhetorically how he is to produce CSI without the revenue stream of commercials. News Corporation refused to accept Dish advertising for the device. A Forrester Research analyst said the move demonstrated Dish's desperation to keep customers at a time when alternative programming is readily available via the Internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopper_(DVR)#AutoHop_lawsuits

Forbes article from 2012 said that The Big Bang Theory was getting $2.57 million in advertising revenue per half hour. Let's presume the current revenue is a little higher. Actors salaries are now well over $4.5m per episode, and there is production costs plus money going to showrunners (who is wealthier than the actors).

If too many people use technology to skip commercials, I would think the bubble is going to burst pretty soon on current distribution methods.

Quote: Pacomartin

There is a somewhat lengthy discussion of the legal actions over a similar commercial skipping device.

How about that old commercial skipping device known as the remote control? Or going to the kitchen during the break? Or simply ignoring the barrage of loud commercials? I often browse the web or even read while the ads are on.

Quote: Nareed

How about that old commercial skipping device known as the remote control?

The TV advertiser is typically paying $7 to reach one thousand people. I think they understand that some percentage of those people are distracted or muting the sound or watching another channel.

Product placement is becoming a bigger and bigger part of television. I think that advertising that requires you to answer a question to "earn" the right to watch a show will become more important.

Quote: Nareed

Thoughts?

Ads go to every length possible to get in your face. They're on TV commercials. They're on billboards. Radio. Magazines, books, newpapers. They're on YouTube, and podcasts. They're on WoV. Even my podunk amateur hockey and racing is chock full. Every foot of real estate in the arenas and tracks is plastered with ads for the local restaurant or casino or junk yard. We put ads on our cars and jerseys to obtain sponsor money. My gloves have "CCM" in big block letters. Skates have a big "REEBOK" on them. "BAUER" covers most of my helmet. My shorts have an "ADIDAS" patch and my whole chest is covered with an "American Eagle". All 6' of my tailgate reads "CHEVROLET" with a little sticker that reads "West-Herr Chevy". My kid's bike helmet has no words; just one big sticker that reads "BELL". Ditto for my hockey bag, no design, no pattern, just a big tag that reads "EASTON". My air compressor has a novella's worth of warnings, all in 6pt typeface crammed on a tiny label, leaving room for the huge "HUSKY" logo to fit front and center. Even my race car, which has been stripped of everything, has so many "H"'s on so many parts it's impossible to rid them all, letting everyone know it's still a Honda.

I don't fault them. Especially when I'm streaming free NHL from the UK, I look at the 12 pop ups I have to wade through as price of admission. But while I don't fault them, I surely suffer no guilt when I do my best to get them out of my face.

It's a game. I'll play it. As stuff gets more and more internet based, I see moving towards a YouTube-esque policy, where you MUST view a certain amount of an ad before you're allowed to your content. Even the 5 seconds of forced ad viewing is enough for me to remember several that I've seen, and 5 seconds is little enough where I don't avoid YT because of it. The very few that make you watch the whole thing are ones I insta-skip without a second thought.

Quote: Face

We put ads on our cars and jerseys to obtain sponsor money. My gloves have "CCM" in big block letters. Skates have a big "REEBOK" on them.

Ok. Are you more likely to buy a certain brand because a team you like has it plastered on their uniforms?

I'm not in the market for sports gear. But two years ago I was shopping for workout clothes in Vegas. After experiencing sticker shock looking at Nike, Reebok and Puma, I saw a Champion outlet in the mall and looked around. The quality is not the same, but the prices were not the same, either.

I'm like that when it comes to advertising. I may be more "aware" of certain brands, but I won't buy one particular one simply because it's advertised.

Actually online something really funny happens. I'll be on Pinterest and see a dress or blouse I really like. I'll visit the site and check the price and availability. Then everywhere else I go on the web, I see ads for that online store or brand of clothing, many times with photos of the items I already saw. I really don't see the point.

Quote: Nareed

Ok. Are you more likely to buy a certain brand because a team you like has it plastered on their uniforms?

It's weird. I have an affinity for Miller Genuine Draft. I don't drink it, I think it's gross. But when I see it I smile, for no other reason than my favorite NASCAR racer flew the MGD flag for most of his career. So I suppose ads worked in that I "like" something I otherwise wouldn't, but it doesn't result in more sales for them.



If you consider a team a "brand", which I suppose they are, then yes. I have a few Leafs sweaters that I sport, usually to the games or when I go play hockey myself, precisely because of who wore them. But as far as buying a Sher-Wood stick just because some player I like has that stick, no. I don't do that. I am my own man, and this man is frugal. I've never paid more than $80 for skates, and I've yet to find a single person wearing $400+ Nike's that is faster than me.

Quote: Face

So I suppose ads worked in that I "like" something I otherwise wouldn't, but it doesn't result in more sales for them.

I suppose some people would buy all sorts of things because someone they like uses it. But I don't want to believe that.

Quote:

If you consider a team a "brand", which I suppose they are, then yes.

Not the way I consider Coke a brand.

Still, Coke memorabilia and logo merchandise is rather popular <shrug>.