Commentary

Randy Goes All Sarah Palin On Us

by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, January 28, 2016

Randy Rothenberg, the president and CEO of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, did not mince words when talking to the Wall Street Journal about his remarks at the recent IAB conference. Said he, “These ad blocking companies are little pissants...They are run by a handful of people with silly titles and funny walks who are individually irrelevant…[and are] diminishing freedom of expression.

“They are engaged in an intellectually false and morally corrupt exercise...Advertising is the form of monetization that has freed the media from the dominance of the state. It supports the diversity of the press…and these ad companies make money on trying to shut that down.”

Clearly he is pissed and intends to lead the industry crusade against ad blockers, but "silly titles and funny walks who are individually irrelevant”? Really? Sounds like Randy momentarily wandered into Sarah Palin's oratorical territory. Perhaps with the ongoing presidential campaign ushering in a new era of being blunt and emotional (and often inflammatory) from the podium, Randy thinks he can say such things and still be regarded as the online ad industry's Senior Statesman.

Moreover, I am not certain his argument that "Advertising is the form of monetization that has freed the media from the dominance of the state" will resonate with the nearly 20 million Americans who have downloaded Adblock Plus software (a number that does not include all forms of ad blocking in use today).

Various entities have estimated this is costing publishers north of $22 billion a year. To his credit, Randy (and others at the IAB) admits that the online ad industry itself bears some blame for the growing use of ad blockers, but I suspect that his rants against them is falling largely on deaf ears.

Just as an entire industry sprang up around the various problems connected to online privacy, a development some saw as threatening to interactive advertising, I suspect that we are overreacting to ad blocking.

Look no further than television for some perspective. Ever since the remote control was introduced, audiences have used this device to mute ads or turn to another channel until the interminably long ad pods are over. More recently, DVRs have given viewers the option of fast-forwarding through commercials. Somehow TV has survived.

Look at it this way. Folks who use ad blockers clearly hate ads and probably never clicked on them even when ads still populated these folks' Web pages. While 15 or 20 million sounds like a lot, it is a rounding error to social platforms like Facebook (where ad blockers are totally ineffective anyway).

So just kiss those folks goodbye. Your ads will likely reach them through other media. It's not as if all 20 million are visiting the same four or five Web sites, penalizing these sites disproportionately. I suspect ad-block users are spreading their damage across scores of sites, if not hundreds. Publishers who are concerned have already taken steps, like warning that users will not get content in the future if they keep ad blockers on.

The bigger challenge will be to develop ways to serve audiences ads that don't slow down their page loads, compromise their privacy, or display in a way that pisses them off and sends them willingly into the arms of the guys with "funny walks who are individually irrelevant."

ad blocking, iab

7 comments about "Randy Goes All Sarah Palin On Us".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Douglas Ferguson from College of Charleston, January 29, 2016 at 9:56 a.m.
False premise: Advertising is the sole source of media revenue in a free system. But it's not, because you can sell subscriptions if you want to avoid state-run media. Advertising has grown only because its targets were once captives to a closed, albeit private, system. Freed from forced exposure, consumers vote with their ad-blockers.
Reply

Steve Hall from Adrants, January 29, 2016 at 10:07 a.m.

I was going to write this very same article yesterday and then became distracted by something else. It's a good thing though as you have done a far superior and masterful job than I ever could!

Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, January 29, 2016 at 11:43 a.m.

It is about greed. Advertising aka messaging can be beneficial. Sam has x shoes on sale and wants to tell you about it. You need shoes and see that Sam would be a good place to shop for shoes. OK, that is simplistic, but that is what messaging can do. Sam has x shoes for sale and wants to tell you about it so everywhere, every few seconds you get bombarded with "screamers". Now you can read whatever you are reading without screamers from the grave. In essence, greed (marketers and distributors of every ilk) took it off balance.

Tom Siebert from BENEVOLENT PROPAGANDA, January 29, 2016 at 12:48 p.m.

Not sure attacking the messenger who tells a hard truth that people will avoid ads if they can, espeically in an environment where the advertising slows and impedes the user experience, is the right way to go with this.

Found IAB CEO phrasing more articulate than Palin, but channeling the insulting anger of her endorsee is another questionable communiations strategy.

Steve Baldwin from Didit, January 29, 2016 at 1:14 p.m.

I examined the "Meet the Team" section of Eyeo's site (see: https://eyeo.com/en/team) thoroughly and didn't find evidence of the "silly titles" that Mr. Rothenberg is complaining about (the only slightly weird title was "Acceptable Ads Relations Manager"). Nor was I able to determine from Eyeo.com whether any of the people listed walks in "silly" or other unusual ways.
I did, however, find a recent video on YouTube showing Eyeo's offices in Cologne (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s51QSLXvTbs). What's highly interesting here is that in the opening sequence the camera appears to veer from side to side noticeably -- as if the person holding the device is indeed walking in a "silly" (or perhaps even drunkenly) manner.

This is the ONLY evidence that I've been able to find that people at Eyeo perambulate in a "silly" or perhaps simply unusual way. Perhaps Mr. Rothenberg watched this video shortly before the Wall Street Journal reporter called -- it's not a satisfying explanation, but I can't conceive of any other reason for Mr. Rothenberg choosing to focus on the silly titles/walking issues at this point in time.

Elle Mac from Not Applicable, January 29, 2016 at 7:09 p.m.

So let me get this straight. Over 99% of display ads are never clicked. Consumers, now given the option to block the ads entirely, are electing to do so. And Randy, CEO of IAB is pissed at the producers of ad blocker software for taking away his ability to charge advertisers for a product that nobody was paying attention to anyway (display ads). This entire ongoing debate is crazy. Can someone tell Randy the story of Blockbuster? You see markets evolve. Technology disrupts. Smart, agile businesses learn to adapt. And the rest? Well they dig in their heels trying to protect the old way of doing things while telling themselves lies about the changes happening around them. And the big lie here? That the problem is the developers of the ad blocker software.

Ari Rosenberg from Performance Pricing Holdings, LLC, February 1, 2016 at 7:19 p.m.

Bravo George! I thought I was the only one brave enough to call out Rothenberg.

His anger is indicative of his guilt. Your last statement (in quotes below) are all issues the IAB helped create or at least did nothing to help prevent so RR points his finger at the Adblockers instead of himself.

"The bigger challenge will be to develop ways to serve audiences ads that don't slow down their page loads, compromise their privacy, or display in a way that pisses them off"