IAB's Rothenberg Blasts Adblock-Plus

An extended excerpt from a speech by IAB CEO Randall Rothenberg at the Annual Leadership Meeting on Jan. 25:

Freedom of speech, diversity of thought, access to the means of universal communication, the opportunity to speak truth to power – these are the way societies grow. They are the underpinnings of economic competition, for reaching people with and attracting them to new commercial ideas is the stimulus to all innovation.

In turn, that competition – competition among economic actors, and competition in the marketplace of ideas – assures that neither a single dominant economic power nor the state itself can control all the levers of society.

In all advanced societies around the world, advertising has been a central contributor to assuring such freedom and diversity of expression and economic action.

This fact has been well documented in every major history of media in the United States. As Princeton Professor Paul Starr wrote in his Pulitzer Prize-winning history, The Creation of the Media, “American journalism became more of an independent and innovative source of information just as it became more of a means of advertising and publicity.”


It is for this very reason – the virtuous circle that links freedom to advertise to freedom of the press to freedom of expression to economic freedom – that Article 19, the influential NGO, says: “The right to freedom of expression covers any kind of information or ideas, not only contributions to political, cultural or artistic debate but also mundane and commercially motivated expressions.”

And this is why I hate the ad-block profiteers.

Now, you may be aware of a kerfuffle that began about 10 days ago, when an an unethical, immoral, mendacious coven of techie wannabes at a for-profit German company called AdBlock-Plus took to the digisphere to complain over and over that IAB had “disinvited” them to this convention. That, of course, is as much a lie as the others they routinely try to tell the world. We had never invited them in the first place. They registered for this event online. When we found out, we cancelled the registration and reversed their credit card billing. Why? For the simple reason that they are stealing from publishers, subverting freedom of the press, operating a business model predicated on censorship of content, and ultimately forcing consumers to pay more money for less – and less diverse – information.

AdBlock-Plus claims it wants to engage in dialogue. But its form of dialogue is an incessant monologue. Don’t take my word for it. During Advertising Week in New York last fall, the company convened a dinner it fatuously billed as “Camp David,”  “a round table discussion…to hear from publishers and others about what we can do to improve advertising and the Internet for all.”

Scores of publishing executives were invited. Two showed up. They could get none of their questions answered about how the company intends to administer its so-called “Acceptable Ads” program, who would serve on that program’s allegedly independent board, what powers that board would have, or how its payment plans would work.  Each used the same word to describe the AdBlock-Plus executives: “disingenuous.”

Perhaps most notably, neither of these publishers has received a single follow-up call in the four months since “Camp David” took place. So much for dialogue.

Of course, none of this surprises me. This is what happens when your only motivation, your only metric, is money. For that is what AdBlock-Plus is: an old-fashioned extortion racket, gussied up in the flowery but false language of contemporary consumerism.


I’m far from the first person to notice this. Writing up an interview with AdBlock-Plus’s leaders more than two years ago in Salon, Andrew Leonard said: “It still sounds to me like something that bears more than a passing resemblance to a protection racket. Pay up, or we’ll break your windows! Pay up, or millions of Adblock Plus users will never see any of your ads.”

Taiwanese reporter and blogger Sascha Pallenberg said similarly, calling AdBlock-Plus “a mafia-like advertising network.”

The bad news is, AdBlock-Plus is not alone. For-profit ad-blockers have been one of the more recent darlings of the venture capital industry and angel investors – including firms with investments in advertising technology and ad-supported publishing companies.

Shine, an Israeli startup trying to sell ad-blocking software to mobile phone networks, is backed prominently by Horizons Ventures, the VC arm of Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing, and run by his girlfriend. His other investments include Spotify and Facebook.

The latest ad-blocking company is a Web browser startup called “Brave.” It was launched by former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, whose last major investment was in banning gay marriage in California. His business model not only strips advertisements from publishers’ pages – it replaces them with his own for-profit ads.


THIS is the true face of ad blocking. It is the rich and self-righteous, who want to tell everyone else what they can and cannot read and watch and hear – self-proclaimed libertarians whose liberty involves denying freedom to everyone else.

The ad-block profiteers are building for-profit companies whose business models are premised on impeding the movement of commercial, political, and public-service communication between and among producers and consumers. They offer to lift their toll gates for those wealthy enough to pay them off, or who submit to their demands that they constrict their freedom of speech to fit the shackles of their revenue schemes.

They may attempt to dignify their practices with such politically correct phrases as “reasonable advertising,” “responsible advertising,” and “acceptable ads”; and they can claim as loudly as they want that they seek “constructive rapport” with other stakeholders. But in fact, they are engaged in the techniques of The Big Lie, declaring themselves the friends of those whose livelihoods they would destroy, and allies to those whose freedoms they would subvert.

There certainly are intelligent, well-meaning critics of advertising, marketing, and media with whom we engage, whose aim is to advance consumers’ interests through dialogue and development. The ad-block profiteers are not among them. They cloak themselves in a Halloween mask of consumerism as they attempt to impose private taxes on consumers and businesses alike. Their technologies indiscriminately obstruct competitive pricing data, information about product features, vital political opinions, site content, user options, public interest communications, and other intelligence necessary for the functioning of democratic capitalist societies.


Surveys repeatedly show that upwards of 75% of consumers prefer ad-supported Internet sites where the content is free over ad-free sites where they would pay fees for content. Fewer than 10% of consumers want to pay for content. By driving digital publishers, including some of the most prestigious news organizations in the world, to impose fees on consumers in order to continue to support their business and content-development objectives, the ad-block profiteers are subverting the will of consumers.

So where is the good news in all of this?

Well, in their race to the bottom and frenzy for investment, the ad-block profiteers seem more intent on killing each other than on killing advertising – which, of course, they require in order to feed their business models.

Many of their business models are undoubtedly illegal. Already, Shine’s model of ISP-level ad-blocking has been cited by regulators as a probable violation of net neutrality principles.

More and more publishers are initiating what IAB calls “detection-notice-choice-and constraint” regimes. They are installing scripts that enable them to see when consumers coming to their sites have ad-blockers installed; they are providing notice to consumers about that and about publishers’ business models, which largely require advertising to support otherwise free content. They are offering consumers choices – to turn off their ad-blockers, to pay a subscription fee, or another alternative. And absent one of those choices, the publishers are constraining consumers’ access to content, reinforcing the immense value of what they deliver.


And it’s working – IAB publishers implementing DNCC are seeing high percentages of consumers making mutually beneficial choices to maintain their access to desired content.

But the best news of all is that the ad-block profiteers have done this industry a favor. They have forced us to look inward – at our own relentless self-involvement – and outward, to the men, women, and children who are our actual customers.

IAB Senior Vice President and Tech Lab General Manager Scott Cunningham put it best and most succinctly in an October IABlog post: “We messed up. As technologists, tasked with delivering content and services to users, we lost track of the user experience.”

IAB research conducted in 2014 found that one-third of U.S. Web users – and 41 percent of millennials – had installed ad-blocking software on one device or another. The no. 1 reason consumers used ad blockers was the fear that advertising could infect their computers or smartphones with viruses. But more than two-thirds of ad-blocking consumers also said they believed advertising slowed their access to the Internet.

“The worst ads load so slowly that they use up data plans and sap battery life,” The New York Times reported recently.


Why did we lose track of user experience? For much of the past decade, the digital ad industry, aided and abetted by venture capitalists with no long-term stake in the viability of media and marketing businesses, have been in a headlong rush to subvert industry standards, hoping they can own the single business model that can lock in proprietary advantage and lock out competitors in the $600 billion global ad industry.

The result has been breathtaking innovation – but also suffocating chaos.  Multitudes of could-be formats and wannabe standards crowd screens, interrupt consumers’ activities while impeding the delivery of desired content, create supply chain vulnerabilities, generate privacy concerns, and drive fears about data security.

Ad-blocking has been a consumer plebiscite; as former Mozilla executive Darren Herman noted at the IAB Ad Operations Summit a few months back, the software offered consumers a vote – and they have voted no on chaos, opacity, and slowness.

Fortunately, there is a real way out of this conundrum. It requires this industry to embrace the founding rationale for the IAB, articulated 20 years ago by our forefathers and foremothers. We must create new operating standards – consumer-friendly rules of the road that regulate how we will operate our sites, our advertising, and our delivery. And we must develop technical standards that will realize these guidelines effectively and efficiently.


This will not be easy. Unlike every other major medium, the Internet is a collectively owned and managed enterprise. Whereas a broadcast television network controls and maintains rigorous standards for everything a consumer sees on its channel, an Internet page is a cobbled-together assembly of parts, managed by perhaps dozens of independent businesses, each contracted individually by the publisher, agencies, and marketers. Some of these entities supervise the content you see; some administer and analyze the invisible data that governs, measures, and optimizes how and to whom the content is delivered.

This decentralized cauldron of innovation requires a new set of guiding principles. That is why the IAB and the IAB Tech Lab developed the LEAN Principles.

LEAN stands for advertising and ad operations that are light, encrypted, AdChoices-supporting, and non-invasive. We believe LEAN will be as important to the future of the digital advertising industry as the first IAB Universal Ad Package was to its creation.

Scott Cunningham will talk much more about LEAN this afternoon, in the Town Halls, and on this stage tomorrow. But please know this now: We intend to make LEAN the foundation of IAB’s activities for the foreseeable future. And among our very first goals is introducing a public LEAN scoring system by which all publishers, all advertisers, and all agencies will be able to measure their activities against rational, reasonable, and consumer-friendly performance benchmarks.

LEAN is the basis for a sustainable advertising ecosystem. We firmly believe that a combination of LEAN advertising and media, and publisher implementation of detection-notice-choice-and-constraint, will limit the impact of ad-blocking.

But more importantly, an embrace of LEAN principles will bring this industry back to the rational center – focused on making money, to be sure, but cognizant that successful businesses require long-term attention to and concern for the users themselves. Remember that those users represent all races and creeds, and that their happiness success means your success and happiness, too.

The full text:

8 comments about "IAB's Rothenberg Blasts Adblock-Plus".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Steve Baldwin from Didit, January 26, 2016 at 3:41 p.m.

    Sorry Randall -- I've got to ask this. If the ad blockers are doing you all a favor, why are you so angry at them?  Something very strange seems to be going on here.

  2. Judy Mowatt from Freelance Media Buyer, January 26, 2016 at 4:28 p.m.

    Sorry, but freedom of choice works both ways. Consumers should also have the right to choose if they want to see their content without annoying ads loading. People who install Ad-blockers on their phones or computers, are not impeding, prohibited or denied's their choice, just like Pandora gives users a choice of ad-free internet streaming music with a monthly subscription, or free streaming music with ads. Pandora's paid subscribers are a small percentage of their total users, something like less than 10 percent. There is still a tremendous amount of internet advertising dollars to be made. Digital ads are becoming increasingly deceptive and annoying (native ads). Deceiving people into believing they're reading published content is iresponsible advertising and should not always be attributable as a true click if a consumer was deceived. There's that grey area involved which is why my clients want more assurances that their CPC dollars, are well spent.

  3. Lee Smith from Persuasive Brands, January 26, 2016 at 6:10 p.m.

    The reality is that consumers are besieged with a high volume of low quality, irrelevant ads in an effort for publishers to maximize revenue. If ad blockers remove or reduce the clutter (even if they serve some ads themselves), then they are adding value for the consumer. There is no need to rail against the ad blockers as they exist for a reason that was created by advertisers and publishers. The ultimate question is whether the industry seeks to preserve revenues or to restore a more equitable relationship with readers--adding LEAN to LEAN. To some, tempers and loud voices might suggest the former.

  4. John Grono from GAP Research, January 26, 2016 at 6:42 p.m.

    Remember when anyone in traditional media was called a 'dinosaur'.   Seems like similar denial behaviour to me.   Just MAYBE the consumer IS taking over.

  5. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, January 27, 2016 at 7:22 a.m.

    Reminds me of the drug peddling "business" run by murderers and all sorts of scum----but if there weren't buyers for the stuff all of them would be out of business. Right?

    Even if the "ad blocker mafia" were to disappear, until the digital landscape is reformatted in an orderly, user-friendly way that reduces the constant interruptions and disjointed user experience caused by herky-jerky ad placement, a more reputable group of suppliers will step in with their own ad blocking services and fill what is an obvious consumer need.

    As for the notion that advertisers should ask the consumers' permission to market to them digitally, that sounds fine---until you try to figure out how you would go about it and the probable result, which is very few sales.

  6. Randall Tinfow from CLICK-VIDEO LLC, January 27, 2016 at 6:20 p.m.

    Rothenberg often refers to tracking pixels or multipe server calls as the issues causing problems.  That's disingenuous.

    The recent study released by Teads ( correctly frames the issues as:

    1.  Interruption of experience
    2.  Control or choice

    This matches our data collected from a much smaller sample.

  7. David Coker from none, January 30, 2016 at 5 p.m.

    Without AdBlock my computer is almost useless.  Screen keeps freezing while another ad is loading up.  Then another.  Then another.  I have an old lap top but it works fine if there aren't 15 ads in cue.

  8. Brian Nakamoto from Tightrope Interactive, Inc., February 10, 2016 at 2:07 p.m.

    Does anyone know when the final specs for LEAN will be available?


Next story loading loading..