Commentary

Ad Blocking Is A Symptom, Not The Disease

Another day, another article on why millennials are using ad blockers. At least that’s how it seems to me.

I have lost track of how many I have read. Figuring out the reasons for ad blocking is not rocket science. Digital advertising is too irrelevant, irritating and intrusive. The “why” is the easy bit. Everyone is clear things need to change.

The problem is what and how. Fixing it is not easy, but it must start with the issue of relevance.

It is a conundrum at the heart of advertising, articulated a century ago by John Wanamaker in his famous aphorism “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.”

Advertising to the uninterested is wasted. Unfortunately, in the digital world, even though wasting advertisers’ money is a concern, wasting the time of the audience is damaging the medium itself.

advertisement

advertisement

Lack of relevance led to the attention arms race — the cause of much of the irritation of today’s ads. Advertisers went from static banners to ever more attention-­grabbing formats: animations, pop­ups, pop­-unders, interstitials etc. Each of these gave a temporary lift, but the underlying irrelevance meant the lift was temporary.

The end result is that consumers have been trained to ignore ads.

As I became aware of this phenomenon, I noticed how Pavlovian my own response has become. Ads are generally so irrelevant that I don’t give them even a cursory glance. As my screen darkens and an ad loads, I’m scanning the edges looking for the “x” that indicates the close button. It doesn’t matter what’s in the popup. I’m not even looking.

Direct marketers, especially digital direct marketers, have been dealing with the issue of relevance for years. When the consumer can easily opt out of your messaging relevance and timeliness become watchwords. Deliver relevant content in a timely manner or lose your audience.

We are seeing the early stages of a transition in advertising.

No doubt there will continue to be mass advertising. As long as the inventory is cheap enough and not too heavily blocked, it will continue. But premium inventory will increasingly be sold to marketers that are targeting effectively. That means direct marketers selecting customers and prospects based on a cross­channel, behaviorally targeted program built around individual customer journeys.

There are many challenges to this model.

Increased targeting means reduced volume. Such reduction must be accompanied by increased pricing which can only be achieved if there is a positive ROI. It also requires addressing consumers’ concerns about tracking and data privacy, no small task.

What history shows though is that if advertising is relevant and respectful consumers will accept it. They recognize that content is not free and a fair value exchange is in everyone’s interests. The million (billion?) dollar question is whether this will happen before the constantly empty food bowl of irrelevant ads has conditioned the audience to tune them out entirely.

The future belongs to direct marketers.

3 comments about "Ad Blocking Is A Symptom, Not The Disease ".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, March 2, 2016 at 9:44 a.m.

    Derek, of the three reasons you cited as causes for ad blocking---ads are "irrelevant", "irritating" and "intrusive"---- the last one, which must include the user's ability to navigate a site and peruse its editorial content, is, by far the root cause of "the problem". It's all well and good to decry the quality and relevance of digital ads in general and speculate about the potential values of better targeting but neither of these is fixable...that's the plain reality. On the other hand, if the ads---however irrelevant and unwanted---were not interferring with the users' ability to navigate or examine content, much of the ad blocking problem might have been resolved. Imagine a parallel situation on TV. The viewer settles down to watch a dectective show. Instead of periodic ---and expected---commercial breaks, which never interfere with scenes in the telecast, as the viewer is watching a crazed killer stalking his prey or the detectives about to shoot it out with the murderer, a barrage of commercials interrupts the action, the picture freezes or begins to jump up and down as each ad is "served". Then there is a brief respite as the scene continues for a few seconds, only to be interrupted, again,  by another barrage of commercials. If that was how comercial TV presented its content to viewers, rest assured that Netflix, Hulu, etc. would soar to 90% coverage of the public while PBS's ratings would probably increase ten-fold.

  2. Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, March 2, 2016 at 12:38 p.m.

    eIrrelenvance and intrusive are not the same. Irrelanvance is not the cause of ad blocking. Intrusive, in every facet, is. Confusing the 2 only creates more costs to justify salaries and decrease profits, i.e., waste.

  3. Derek Harding from Little Bee Consulting, March 18, 2016 at 1:01 p.m.

    Thanks for the comments Ed and Paula.


     


    I agree that irrelevance and intrusion are not the same but I dispute that intrusion is the only and root cause of ad blocking. I do accept that in many (most?) cases it is the proximate cause of ad block installation and certainly needs to be addressed. However the intrusion is exacerbated by the irrelevance. People's acceptance of intrusion is far higher when content is relevant and far lower when it's not. Also irrelevance teaches people to ignore ads which undermines the value of ads entirely.

Next story loading loading..