Commentary

If You Use An Ad Blocker, You Are A Hypocrite

by Richard Whitman , Columnist, September 20, 2015

Now that with the launch of ios9 ad blocking has come to the iPhone, more and more people now have the ability to block ads on the platform they use most, their mobile device.

And who can blame a person for installing an ad blocker? After all, some mobile sites -- ahem, Forbes -- have become near impossible to read what with all the sliders, popups, interstitials and all the rest of the crap one must endure simply to read a story online.

So even though you might work in the ad industry, it's quite understandable if you've implemented an ad blocker on your phone or Web browser. The ad-free experience is just that much better.

The move, though, if you ask me, is hypocritical. Why? Because you are shielding yourself from the very thing that pays your (and many other's) salary, keeps your agency's door open and the doors of all the media outlets to which you hand money to run your ads so your clients can sell product to make the money they need to pay their employees and you...for creating the ads that helped them make those payments.

Also, if you are shielding yourself from the ads you have created, you are shielding yourself from the annoyance people experience when they try to visit a site and get slapped upside the head with your ad. In my opinion, more so than even the consumers you sell to, you should be required to endure the pain your consumer endures.

Why? Because if you endure the pain, you are far more likely to come up will less painful methods of selling products for your clients then if you are shielded from the ads. It just makes sense. You want a better online experience? Create advertising that doesn't hinder the experience.

Using an ad blocker is like sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem or, simply hoping it will go away. Well, it won't unless you do something about it. Because you are the cause of the problem. Only you can fix it

agency

9 comments about "If You Use An Ad Blocker, You Are A Hypocrite".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

William Cosgrove from Devcode Services, September 21, 2015 at 8:37 a.m.
I think ad blocking it is more of a statement that enough is enough and not hypocritical. The consumer has the control now and companies must listen and change their models if they want to survive.

How much is enough? The bottomliners seek to fatten their coffers at any cost and have neglected their employees in terms of compensation and benefits as well as ingnored the wishes of the cosumer for too long-with few exceptions in the publically owned sector-Enough is enough.

As you suggested new ways of engaging consumers on their terms are the only solution to this problem
Reply

Tom Muench from Clear Channel Outdoor, September 21, 2015 at 8:55 a.m.

Is the idea of an ad blocker on ones mobile device really much different than a DVR where one can fast forward through commercials taking a 30 minute show down to 20 minutes? How many media people have a DVR and use it to skip commercials?

William Cosgrove from Devcode Services, September 21, 2015 at 9:01 a.m.

Great point Tom. That is the ultimate in hypocracy(:

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics, September 21, 2015 at 9:17 a.m.

Guys, "the problem" arises from the number of ads the media now sell and how they present them---all jumbled up, with one intruding on another and, in the case of digital, often interfering with the user's ability to consume content. It is not hypocracy for an ad person to shield himself/herself from this unwannted "barrage", which is detrimental in the extreme to ad effectiveness. The ad person, who makes the ads and the time buyer or programmatic trading desk that buys "targeted impressions" at the lowest cost have nothing to do with the chaotic environment in which the ads are presented to the consumer---even if the ads are "visible" in the first place. Can advertisers, somehow, band together to ""correct" this situation? Indeed, will they?I doubt it----unless they stop buying ads from the offending sellers.

Steve Baldwin from Didit, September 21, 2015 at 9:26 a.m.

>Only you can fix it.

Unfortunately, that horse left the barn awhile ago.

Leonard Zachary from T___n__, September 21, 2015 at 9:56 a.m.

ED
The reason why folks want to block ads on Mobile is Simple: who wants to pay data costs for ads folks do not want or are not relevant on their mobile device?

If you ask folks to manage it via W--FI, well that's an enormous inconvenience and unsecurity.

Simple math of where the average Joe's data will consumed: if FB & Google want to maintain dominance of the ad mobile pie consider that the median consumption will be about 10 rich media ads per person per day. At 3MB each that's 900MB of data consumption monthly or 48% of a 2G plan. Verizon starts at $30 for 1G and then an average of $6/1G additional. So does the average Joe want to spend 48% of their 2G plan or $17 a month on these Ads?

Now would you want Ad Blockers? Hell YES.

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics, September 21, 2015 at 10:21 a.m.

Leonard, again, we agree. All I'm saying is that the ad clutter problem is not caused by any individual ad or its creators; there are just too many of them being sold and "delivered" by greedy digital sellers without regard for the consequences. One solution is an industry-wide---and enforced--- set of standards about the amount of ad clutter and the manner of presentation so consumers know what to expect----like TV's commercial breaks----and can avoid them as they wish, thereby minimizing, to some extent, the annoyance factor.There will still be ad blockers for those with a "I hate all ads" mindset, but these will be a minority---not the majority.

Benny Radjasa from Armonix Digital, Inc., September 21, 2015 at 10:51 a.m.

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel if everyone get their act together. Through better design to remove ad clutter, content clutter and just saying no to bad web site coding. Oh yes, bad coding can have disastrous impact on your website, even when ad clutter is at a minimum. It can create the illusion that ads are slowing down the page, but of course a lot of these slow down are also caused by too much ads in the page also, we are not oblivious to this fact. Here is an example of how WaPo clean up their website, kudos WaPO:

http://adexchanger.com/publishers/washington-post-refresh-brings-home-page-load-times-to-one-second/

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, September 21, 2015 at 1:34 p.m.

Good points, Benny. But who is going to orchestrate the process of getting digital's act together regarding ad clutter, positionning, etc.? When TV began, the two leading networks---CBS and, especially NBC----played a prominent role in setting up standards on such issues, based on their experience with radio. The major advertisers and agencies all participated and, very quickly, TV was "organized" as an ad as well as a program content medium, with just about every player following the "rules".

Unfortunately, digital was never set up as a branding ad medium. Instead, it is a helter skelter swirl of contradictions, which, on the one hand, reaches out for as many ad dollars as possible, while, on the other hand, helps users to avoid ads.The only way for this to be resolved is for the really big digital entities----we all know who they are---to make up their collective minds about what is needed by branding advertisers and find a way to apply some sort of standard rules that, at the same time are fair to content users. Moreover, the latter need to be sold on whatever solutions are decided upon, much like radio and TV when they first got started. And the "sell" must make sense.

I may not have all of the answers, but it seems to me that one way to do this, would be to offer pre-planned----and expected---ad breaks, so users know that interruptions in content perusal are coming every so often----just like TV. The amount of ad clutter should also be controlled. Finally, if a user is adamant about not seeing any ads, this should be provided for----but at an added monthly fee. I know it sounds simple, and enforcement would be a problem----but has anyone got a better idea? If so, whose going to develop and implement it?