That’s what Google needs to figure out. One person’s “annoying” is another’s “entertaining” is another’s indifference.
Much of this discussion comes with the growing consumer ad-blocker issue -- which has given publishers headaches. Google has told publishers it will be adding an ad blocker to its Chrome browser next year to filter out the most annoying ads.
Google is doing this -- with a long lead time issue -- for publishers hoping they will use less intrusive advertising formats. Users who have ad blockers will be encouraged by publishers to disable them or pay for access through a new program called Google Contributor.
What types of digital media have annoying messages?
For one, Google says they are those you seemingly can’t get rid of on your screen -- say videos ads that immediately start after visiting a site where users need to wait, say 10-seconds, before being able to X out the offending ad content.
Google says is offering publishers -- affected by ad blockers that customers use -- another way to monetize their content.
Google, along with other digital media leaders like Facebook, realize they have make a stand about content -- perhaps all content -- fake news, advertising, and yes, even some straight ahead content.
Now, to be fair, there is a lot of annoying traditional TV commercials that viewers can’t nix, either. Watching live, linear TV means no way to X-out that content (though muting is an option); time-shifted viewing is, of course, a different matter.
But ask yourself this: Does TV do a better job at vetting TV advertising content? At the networks, there has always been a standards and practices units -- especially when it comes to consumer-product messaging. Seems Google and Facebook are looking to step up in this area.
Eliminating annoying digital advertising -- and digital advertising formats -- will hopefully signal to viewers that big digital media players mean business. Consumers should put down their arms — their ad-blocker arms.
What publishers don’t want, ultimately, is to deny potential consumers access to their platforms. That does not curry any favors with anyone -- including advertisers.
Let's see what the FTC has to say about this.
How will google define their ads, the non-annnoyings?
If Google is serious about getting rid of "offensive" advertising, why not put a cap of one "exposure"----using the IAB's definition of a "viewable impression"----for each ad per user. That way consumers who are "reached" via Google won't complain about ad redundency as they will never see that particular ad again. Of course, such a move might have an adverse impact on Google's ad revenues but maybe the Big G can make up for this by charging advertisers 10-20 times its current CPMs by promoting the ads as "must see advertising"---- you either watch this ad now or you will never get another chance---at least not on Google.