6 ms·

Wired will be losing ad revenue due to Apple adding ad blocking abilities to mobile Safari. So, Wired moves content to Apple News which has ads that can't be b

Wired will be losing ad revenue due to Apple adding ad blocking abilities to mobile Safari. So, Wired moves content to Apple News which has ads that can't be blocked (and Apple conveniently takes a nice juicy cut of).

fezz 11y ago
This should almost be the title of the thread.
- stock_toaster 11y ago
  I can see it now. "Ad network makes money selling ads". Probably wouldn't have been upvoted as much though.
stevesearer 11y ago
I'm pretty sure they only take a cut of ads sold through their iAd system and take 0% cut for ads sold directly by the publication.
- cmelbye 11y ago
  I'm glad someone pointed this fact out. Source: https://developer.apple.com/news-publisher/ https://developer.apple.com/news-publisher/
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  Yes and no. This is basically a little bit disingenuous. Today, most publications will use something like DoubleClick to manage their ads, sell a bunch directly to specific companies, setup bidding on some others via another provider hooked into the same system, and then use Google AdSense for the remnant inventory. From my reading of it, on Apple News, you're required to use iAd to manage the inventory. iAd allows you to do direct sales through it's own system. And then all the rest are remnant and handled through iAd. Apple locks out all other players from that large part of the ad market, including Google. Knowing Apple... especially Google. It's a brilliant two-pronged strategy to lock content providers and consumers into the Apple ecosystem.
  - daenney 11y ago
    That does not appear to be true: > Earn 100% of the revenue from ads you sell, and 70% when iAd sells ads for you. https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/General/Conceptual/News_Publishing_Guide/MonetizingonNews.html https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documenta...
    - deong 11y ago
      That doesn't contradict his post saying "iAd allows you to do direct sales through it's own system".
      - daenney 11y ago
        It contradicts his implication that Apple will force you to use iAd, at least the way I'm interpreting it.
        deong 11y ago
        This (https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/General/Conceptual/News_Publishing_Guide/FAQ.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40015407-CH15-SW1 https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documenta...) seems clearer to me. Quoting: How can I monetize my content? You can monetize your Apple News Format content with iAd, Apple’s advertising platform. Whether you sell your own ads or have iAd sell on your behalf, you’ll earn revenue from every impression in your articles and channels.
  - exelius 11y ago
    The setup you describe is only true of very small publishers (i.e. a single site). iAd is essentially a supply-side platform (SSP); just like DoubleClick. A large publisher like Wired will use what's called a demand-side platform (DSP) -- something like Auditude or Freewheel. This would allow you to manage ad sales between 3rd party ad networks, data partners, internal sales and remnant inventory in a way that provides the publisher with control over what ads get shown. A common setup is to bid an impression against multiple ad networks (and local inventory) based on the user's data profile (obtained from a data provider). Google consolidates all of this themselves, which makes it easier if you're small, but any major publisher is going to handle ad sales at least partially in house. Ad sales are the revenue stream, and you just don't outsource your revenue generation process -- period. There's just a conflict of interest in doing it any other way. A DSP wants to play multiple SSPs against each other to get the highest priced ads for its content while preserving the user experience (DSPs often include features that allow you restrict the number of times an ad shows to the same user, etc). The SSPs are looking to get the best results for their advertisers at the lowest price. It's not a brilliant move because platform lock-in is too easy to avoid thanks to the myriad of ad tech providers in the space. Apple will get some app developers and small sites with this, but 95% of the market has evolved past a solution like this into something far more "enterprise".
andrewstuart2 11y ago
They'd better be getting an extra cut for the exclusivity period, though. Otherwise that part would be pointless. They could just serve this page for only IOS9 devices based on user agent.
btown 11y ago
It's almost certain that Apple's long game is to make this the norm. If there's one surefire way to get people addicted to ad blockers, it's to make them available on mobile devices. Once enough content creators start moving content behind News-walls, then Apple can roll out desktop versions of News. And as people then start asking each other "how do I get ad blocking in my browser as well," Apple's well positioned to be the only unblockable advertising platform, period. They could even use iTunes as a vector to deliver an Apple News desktop app to Windows machines. It's brilliant and will completely change the balance of power in online advertising. Google will not be happy...
- lantern-manner 11y ago
  I don't think you're taking into account that websites are free to create their own apps, and advertise there. There's little incentive for a content creator to have their content off the net, and into someone else's apps. Im not understanding Wired's motivation here, but I'm not too concerned because Wired isn't the most intelligent publication in the first place.
  - Kankuro 11y ago
    "websites are free to create their own apps" The users may accept to install a few apps (Apple/Google/… News), but not one for each website.
  - qubex 11y ago
    I pine for the WIRED of yesteryear. The current publication is but a pallid, embarrassing shadow of a formerly brilliant publication. It's now on a par with VICE, GQ or some such, and quite frankly, it is heartbreaking. The guiding light of my youth essentially extinguished (particularly as I grew up in nineties Italy, from where it provided a fascinating and prescient window into the social aspects of tech). </rant>
- josteink 11y ago
  You assume everyone and their grandmother has Apple-equipment. Most of the world doesn't. Saying that you will only do business with those who has Apple-equipment is leaving out most of the market, and doing so would be suicide for most businesses.
jad 11y ago
I think there's almost no chance that the percentage of iOS users blocking ads is enough to meaningfully impact Wired's overall revenue from that story. Even given that ad blocking apps have been top sellers, it's still only available on iOS 9, which has been out less than a week. So surely revenue from all web users (without an ad blocker) outweigh the (presumably) tiny amount of ad revenue Wired will earn from Apple News. And even if all that were false, why would Wired alone give in so readily to what's basically bullying? It's just not a credible theory. Way more likely is that Apple is paying them a nice chunk of cash for the exclusivity to help market their News app. Same thing they did with HBO Now for the Apple TV, and with various albums for the iTunes Store and Apple Music.
- deong 11y ago
  My understanding of Apple News is that it has nothing to do with iOS 9 content blocking. Apple News is a dedicated app that functions somewhat like an RSS reader serving up a special Readability-style version of the content. Even if you don't install an ad-blocker in iOS 9, you still don't see banner ads and such in Apple News. That said, I imagine you're right and Apple just paid for the exclusive for marketing purposes.
  - qubex 11y ago
    The point that is being made is that by cutting off a fraction of mobile ad revenue by allowing blockers, Apple might be seen to be cynically herding content providers towards its walled-garden platform wherein iAd is the exclusive provider of adverts, which cannot be blocked. Whether this is the true intention of their strategy or merely a coincidence is a matter of some (understandably contentious) debate.
- simonh 11y ago
  > Even given that ad blocking apps have been top sellers, it's still only available on iOS 9, which has been out less than a week. iOS9 penetration is already past 50%(1). New versions usually get mass adoption very quickly. (1) http://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/21/apple-ios-9-50-percent/ http://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/21/apple-ios-9-50-percent/
smpetrey 11y ago
It should be noted, (although I may be alone here on this) I'm not seeing any ads on the Apple News story. My guess, is the story is to gauge traffic and _ad potential_.

fezz 11y ago

This should almost be the title of the thread.

stock_toaster 11y ago
I can see it now. "Ad network makes money selling ads". Probably wouldn't have been upvoted as much though.

stevesearer 11y ago

I'm pretty sure they only take a cut of ads sold through their iAd system and take 0% cut for ads sold directly by the publication.

cmelbye 11y ago
I'm glad someone pointed this fact out. Source: https://developer.apple.com/news-publisher/ https://developer.apple.com/news-publisher/
JohnTHaller 11y ago
Yes and no. This is basically a little bit disingenuous. Today, most publications will use something like DoubleClick to manage their ads, sell a bunch directly to specific companies, setup bidding on some others via another provider hooked into the same system, and then use Google AdSense for the remnant inventory. From my reading of it, on Apple News, you're required to use iAd to manage the inventory. iAd allows you to do direct sales through it's own system. And then all the rest are remnant and handled through iAd. Apple locks out all other players from that large part of the ad market, including Google. Knowing Apple... especially Google. It's a brilliant two-pronged strategy to lock content providers and consumers into the Apple ecosystem.
- daenney 11y ago
  That does not appear to be true: > Earn 100% of the revenue from ads you sell, and 70% when iAd sells ads for you. https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/General/Conceptual/News_Publishing_Guide/MonetizingonNews.html https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documenta...
  - deong 11y ago
    That doesn't contradict his post saying "iAd allows you to do direct sales through it's own system".
    - daenney 11y ago
      It contradicts his implication that Apple will force you to use iAd, at least the way I'm interpreting it.
      - deong 11y ago
        This (https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/General/Conceptual/News_Publishing_Guide/FAQ.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40015407-CH15-SW1 https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documenta...) seems clearer to me. Quoting: How can I monetize my content? You can monetize your Apple News Format content with iAd, Apple’s advertising platform. Whether you sell your own ads or have iAd sell on your behalf, you’ll earn revenue from every impression in your articles and channels.
- exelius 11y ago
  The setup you describe is only true of very small publishers (i.e. a single site). iAd is essentially a supply-side platform (SSP); just like DoubleClick. A large publisher like Wired will use what's called a demand-side platform (DSP) -- something like Auditude or Freewheel. This would allow you to manage ad sales between 3rd party ad networks, data partners, internal sales and remnant inventory in a way that provides the publisher with control over what ads get shown. A common setup is to bid an impression against multiple ad networks (and local inventory) based on the user's data profile (obtained from a data provider). Google consolidates all of this themselves, which makes it easier if you're small, but any major publisher is going to handle ad sales at least partially in house. Ad sales are the revenue stream, and you just don't outsource your revenue generation process -- period. There's just a conflict of interest in doing it any other way. A DSP wants to play multiple SSPs against each other to get the highest priced ads for its content while preserving the user experience (DSPs often include features that allow you restrict the number of times an ad shows to the same user, etc). The SSPs are looking to get the best results for their advertisers at the lowest price. It's not a brilliant move because platform lock-in is too easy to avoid thanks to the myriad of ad tech providers in the space. Apple will get some app developers and small sites with this, but 95% of the market has evolved past a solution like this into something far more "enterprise".

andrewstuart2 11y ago

They'd better be getting an extra cut for the exclusivity period, though. Otherwise that part would be pointless. They could just serve this page for only IOS9 devices based on user agent.

btown 11y ago

It's almost certain that Apple's long game is to make this the norm. If there's one surefire way to get people addicted to ad blockers, it's to make them available on mobile devices. Once enough content creators start moving content behind News-walls, then Apple can roll out desktop versions of News. And as people then start asking each other "how do I get ad blocking in my browser as well," Apple's well positioned to be the only unblockable advertising platform, period. They could even use iTunes as a vector to deliver an Apple News desktop app to Windows machines. It's brilliant and will completely change the balance of power in online advertising. Google will not be happy...

lantern-manner 11y ago
I don't think you're taking into account that websites are free to create their own apps, and advertise there. There's little incentive for a content creator to have their content off the net, and into someone else's apps. Im not understanding Wired's motivation here, but I'm not too concerned because Wired isn't the most intelligent publication in the first place.
- Kankuro 11y ago
  "websites are free to create their own apps" The users may accept to install a few apps (Apple/Google/… News), but not one for each website.
- qubex 11y ago
  I pine for the WIRED of yesteryear. The current publication is but a pallid, embarrassing shadow of a formerly brilliant publication. It's now on a par with VICE, GQ or some such, and quite frankly, it is heartbreaking. The guiding light of my youth essentially extinguished (particularly as I grew up in nineties Italy, from where it provided a fascinating and prescient window into the social aspects of tech). </rant>
josteink 11y ago
You assume everyone and their grandmother has Apple-equipment. Most of the world doesn't. Saying that you will only do business with those who has Apple-equipment is leaving out most of the market, and doing so would be suicide for most businesses.

jad 11y ago

I think there's almost no chance that the percentage of iOS users blocking ads is enough to meaningfully impact Wired's overall revenue from that story. Even given that ad blocking apps have been top sellers, it's still only available on iOS 9, which has been out less than a week. So surely revenue from all web users (without an ad blocker) outweigh the (presumably) tiny amount of ad revenue Wired will earn from Apple News. And even if all that were false, why would Wired alone give in so readily to what's basically bullying? It's just not a credible theory. Way more likely is that Apple is paying them a nice chunk of cash for the exclusivity to help market their News app. Same thing they did with HBO Now for the Apple TV, and with various albums for the iTunes Store and Apple Music.

deong 11y ago
My understanding of Apple News is that it has nothing to do with iOS 9 content blocking. Apple News is a dedicated app that functions somewhat like an RSS reader serving up a special Readability-style version of the content. Even if you don't install an ad-blocker in iOS 9, you still don't see banner ads and such in Apple News. That said, I imagine you're right and Apple just paid for the exclusive for marketing purposes.
- qubex 11y ago
  The point that is being made is that by cutting off a fraction of mobile ad revenue by allowing blockers, Apple might be seen to be cynically herding content providers towards its walled-garden platform wherein iAd is the exclusive provider of adverts, which cannot be blocked. Whether this is the true intention of their strategy or merely a coincidence is a matter of some (understandably contentious) debate.
simonh 11y ago
> Even given that ad blocking apps have been top sellers, it's still only available on iOS 9, which has been out less than a week. iOS9 penetration is already past 50%(1). New versions usually get mass adoption very quickly. (1) http://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/21/apple-ios-9-50-percent/ http://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/21/apple-ios-9-50-percent/

smpetrey 11y ago

It should be noted, (although I may be alone here on this) I'm not seeing any ads on the Apple News story. My guess, is the story is to gauge traffic and _ad potential_.