5 ms·

They are still in the denial and fight-back stages. He says: "The study should also confirm that people who are ideologically opposed to advertising are a mino

They are still in the denial and fight-back stages. He says: "The study should also confirm that people who are ideologically opposed to advertising are a minority compared to the ones who have installed an ad blocker simply because digital promotions and tracking have become unbearable". This shows that they still don't see the big picture - that it's not just in digital media that ads have completely crossed the line, it's everywhere, from TV, radio and print, to billboards, jumbo-trons and corporate names on structures and landmarks. They are still clinging to the idea that they can go back to good times if they just reform some of their practices. This is the end result of one group (publishers) relying on a revenue stream (advertisers) that destroys their own service and credibility. They still don't understand this.

yoodenvranx 11y ago
> They still don't understand this. I am pretty sure that they fully understand it but they can not openly admit it because that would completely destroy their ad revenues forever. Instead they try to get back to the good old days somehow because money from ads is the method which requires the lowest effort on their side.
velik_m 11y ago
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
nsns 11y ago
In fact, already in Godard's 1972 film Tout va bien, it is said (quoted from memory): "the Press has signed its own death sentence, when it has decided to rely on ads for its survival."
- lotsoflumens 11y ago
  That's interesting. I haven't seen the film, but that is prescient.
- notahacker 11y ago
  But 43 years later, rumours of the death of the press have been appear to have been greatly exaggerated even whilst entirely new categories of multibillion dollar company also rely on ads for survival...
bambax 11y ago
The main problem with adblocking is you never go back; they can't hope to "win back" anyone, that's absolutely hopeless. There may be a little bit of hope in stopping the hemorrhage: making people that have not yet installed an adblocker to not do it, if they can paint the move as not really worth it. But even that is going to be very hard, so we'll see.
- lotsoflumens 11y ago
  Yes, I think that's true. I certainly won't remove a single ad blocker - I currently browse with 4 blockers installed (LoL). Whatever one of them doesn't block, another one usually will. I've previously advocated for a different kind of reform. I want advertisers to start paying web users directly. Then web users can reward publishers with their traffic. It's not a perfect solution because it probably means that web users will still see advertising, but at least they would be somewhat compensated for it.
  - nicolapede 11y ago
    Which adblockers would you recommend using?
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Not the person you're asking but I'm using ghostery, abp and umatrix and between them they seem to do a pretty good job of improving my web browsing experience. umatrix takes a bit of getting used to but is very powerful.
      - nicolapede 11y ago
        I am also using Ghostery and found it really good. I was curious to know if the web experience it provided could be even improved. Thanks for the tips!
        fumar 11y ago
efaref 11y ago
I was with some friends travelling to central London recently, and we exited the tube system at Tottenham Court Road station. This station is currently undergoing refurbishment as part of the new Crossrail extension, and you now leave through a recently constructed exit. On the way up the escalators, we all commented to each other how the station felt considerably different to other tube stations. It felt better, nicer, more pleasant. This was strange, as the fit and finish is no different to other new tube stations. Eventually one of my friends realised the difference: there was no advertising. I think we underestimate the mental load that advertising clutter causes us, even when it's merely in the background. We're so used to it that it's not until it's gone that we realise how burdensome it actually is.
- corin_ 11y ago
  I actually quite like adverts in the underground... in London I always look at the posters when on an escalator to see if any shows (musicals/plays) look interesting, and I still enjoy looking at adverts on the Paris metro now I live here, again mostly for shows/art exhibitions/music (but also partly to absorbe French culture). I work in marketing / previously worked in more direct advertising, yet most of the time find adverts annoying. But not on the underground.
  - chrismbarr 11y ago
    It probably depends on the types of ads (and each person's personal preferences). For me, I'm like you in that I'd much prefer to see ads of musicals/plays and other local goings-on in my own hometown or as tourist somewhere instead of ads for toothpaste, cars, apps, etc.
  - mattkevan 11y ago
    Agreed. Tube ads are the only ones I'm happy to view as they're mostly for museums, galleries or theatres. Otherwise I actively avoid advertising wherever possible – I haven't watched broadcast TV or commercial radio in years and block all the things online. Interestingly, the other day I was on the tube and every single ad was for web-based services. No physical products or pre-Internet companies at all.
olalonde 11y ago
Playing the devil's advocate here but are ads really worse these days? If anything, I remember them being a lot worse in the early 2000s (e.g remember "you are the 1000000th visitor, claim your price" popups, the flashy gifs and the large header banners). These days, I feel they are more tasteful and better targeted. I personally would be sad to see ads go away completely as they form a system of price discrimination which allows poorer people (and kids) to have free access to content (the rich effectively subsidising their access).
- jacquesm 11y ago
  We must be on different world-wide-webs. I've had the distinct displeasure to use the web without an adblocker for a day or so recently and I couldn't wait to get back to my other browser. It's gotten much worse since the 2000's, the amount of screen real estate given over to ads and the number of animations dwarfed anything I remember from long ago. Ads left, right, above and in the middle of the content, and even in the footer. One page I looked at (the homepage of a popular dutch news site) has no less than six adverts on it, two of them animated and one a 'rotator', taking up a very large fraction of the total available space. Compared to a 1980's newspaper or a 2001 website that's absolutely horrific, all this besides the tracking and other implications. So yes, it's gotten really worse, and not just a little bit. The creatives look better and the 1000000th visitor ads (that were spread through 24x7 mostly) were dumb but there are other metrics than the 'level' at which an ad addresses the audience.
  - olalonde 11y ago
    Back then, the majority of amateur websites used to have ads due to being hosted on one of the ad supported platforms (e.g Geocities [1], Angelfire [2], Tripod.com, etc.). Even major web portals had flashy ads at the very top of their home page [3][4][5][6]. Remember at 800x600 resolutions, those ads took a good chunk of the screen. Download portals (where most people got their software) were routinely serving adware/spyware with little risk of backlash [7]. I could go on and on... (thanks for bringing back memories by the way!) I'm not saying you're completely wrong but you seem to remember the past through rose colored glasses. [1] http://www.cnet.com/news/geocitizens-fume-over-watermark/ http://www.cnet.com/news/geocitizens-fume-over-watermark/ [2] http://web.archive.org/web/19990208003328/http://angelfire.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/19990208003328/http://angelfire.c... [3] http://web.archive.org/web/19990208014605/http://www.lycos.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/19990208014605/http://www.lycos.c... [4] http://web.archive.org/web/20000229043301/http://www.altavista.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20000229043301/http://www.altavis... [5] http://web.archive.org/web/20031012062202/http://yahoo.com http://web.archive.org/web/20031012062202/http://yahoo.com [6] http://web.archive.org/web/20010402054709/http://www.msn.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20010402054709/http://www.msn.com... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claria_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claria_Corporation
hrvbr 11y ago
Yes, as an example of excessive advertising, the biggest concert hall in Paris, which people just call Bercy because it's the landmark building of this neighbourhood, has been renovated and is now named Accorhotel Arena. Stupid marketing people believe they can be perceived as the benevolent pygmalions of arts and sports but they so obiously want free advertising whenever journalists will refer to this place. It only makes me want to boycott their hotels.
sfk 11y ago
For me the quoted part is true: I've just ignored online ads until Google went malicious with their doodles: I refuse to have every famous person of the past and the present to be subconsciously linked to six letters of a brand name. So I installed adblock. This is quite ironic, since Google depends on people looking at ads.

yoodenvranx 11y ago

> They still don't understand this. I am pretty sure that they fully understand it but they can not openly admit it because that would completely destroy their ad revenues forever. Instead they try to get back to the good old days somehow because money from ads is the method which requires the lowest effort on their side.

velik_m 11y ago

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair

nsns 11y ago

In fact, already in Godard's 1972 film Tout va bien, it is said (quoted from memory): "the Press has signed its own death sentence, when it has decided to rely on ads for its survival."

lotsoflumens 11y ago
That's interesting. I haven't seen the film, but that is prescient.
notahacker 11y ago
But 43 years later, rumours of the death of the press have been appear to have been greatly exaggerated even whilst entirely new categories of multibillion dollar company also rely on ads for survival...

bambax 11y ago

The main problem with adblocking is you never go back; they can't hope to "win back" anyone, that's absolutely hopeless. There may be a little bit of hope in stopping the hemorrhage: making people that have not yet installed an adblocker to not do it, if they can paint the move as not really worth it. But even that is going to be very hard, so we'll see.

lotsoflumens 11y ago
Yes, I think that's true. I certainly won't remove a single ad blocker - I currently browse with 4 blockers installed (LoL). Whatever one of them doesn't block, another one usually will. I've previously advocated for a different kind of reform. I want advertisers to start paying web users directly. Then web users can reward publishers with their traffic. It's not a perfect solution because it probably means that web users will still see advertising, but at least they would be somewhat compensated for it.
- nicolapede 11y ago
  Which adblockers would you recommend using?
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Not the person you're asking but I'm using ghostery, abp and umatrix and between them they seem to do a pretty good job of improving my web browsing experience. umatrix takes a bit of getting used to but is very powerful.
    - nicolapede 11y ago
      I am also using Ghostery and found it really good. I was curious to know if the web experience it provided could be even improved. Thanks for the tips!
      - fumar 11y ago

efaref 11y ago

I was with some friends travelling to central London recently, and we exited the tube system at Tottenham Court Road station. This station is currently undergoing refurbishment as part of the new Crossrail extension, and you now leave through a recently constructed exit. On the way up the escalators, we all commented to each other how the station felt considerably different to other tube stations. It felt better, nicer, more pleasant. This was strange, as the fit and finish is no different to other new tube stations. Eventually one of my friends realised the difference: there was no advertising. I think we underestimate the mental load that advertising clutter causes us, even when it's merely in the background. We're so used to it that it's not until it's gone that we realise how burdensome it actually is.

corin_ 11y ago
I actually quite like adverts in the underground... in London I always look at the posters when on an escalator to see if any shows (musicals/plays) look interesting, and I still enjoy looking at adverts on the Paris metro now I live here, again mostly for shows/art exhibitions/music (but also partly to absorbe French culture). I work in marketing / previously worked in more direct advertising, yet most of the time find adverts annoying. But not on the underground.
- chrismbarr 11y ago
  It probably depends on the types of ads (and each person's personal preferences). For me, I'm like you in that I'd much prefer to see ads of musicals/plays and other local goings-on in my own hometown or as tourist somewhere instead of ads for toothpaste, cars, apps, etc.
- mattkevan 11y ago
  Agreed. Tube ads are the only ones I'm happy to view as they're mostly for museums, galleries or theatres. Otherwise I actively avoid advertising wherever possible – I haven't watched broadcast TV or commercial radio in years and block all the things online. Interestingly, the other day I was on the tube and every single ad was for web-based services. No physical products or pre-Internet companies at all.

olalonde 11y ago

Playing the devil's advocate here but are ads really worse these days? If anything, I remember them being a lot worse in the early 2000s (e.g remember "you are the 1000000th visitor, claim your price" popups, the flashy gifs and the large header banners). These days, I feel they are more tasteful and better targeted. I personally would be sad to see ads go away completely as they form a system of price discrimination which allows poorer people (and kids) to have free access to content (the rich effectively subsidising their access).

jacquesm 11y ago
We must be on different world-wide-webs. I've had the distinct displeasure to use the web without an adblocker for a day or so recently and I couldn't wait to get back to my other browser. It's gotten much worse since the 2000's, the amount of screen real estate given over to ads and the number of animations dwarfed anything I remember from long ago. Ads left, right, above and in the middle of the content, and even in the footer. One page I looked at (the homepage of a popular dutch news site) has no less than six adverts on it, two of them animated and one a 'rotator', taking up a very large fraction of the total available space. Compared to a 1980's newspaper or a 2001 website that's absolutely horrific, all this besides the tracking and other implications. So yes, it's gotten really worse, and not just a little bit. The creatives look better and the 1000000th visitor ads (that were spread through 24x7 mostly) were dumb but there are other metrics than the 'level' at which an ad addresses the audience.
- olalonde 11y ago
  Back then, the majority of amateur websites used to have ads due to being hosted on one of the ad supported platforms (e.g Geocities [1], Angelfire [2], Tripod.com, etc.). Even major web portals had flashy ads at the very top of their home page [3][4][5][6]. Remember at 800x600 resolutions, those ads took a good chunk of the screen. Download portals (where most people got their software) were routinely serving adware/spyware with little risk of backlash [7]. I could go on and on... (thanks for bringing back memories by the way!) I'm not saying you're completely wrong but you seem to remember the past through rose colored glasses. [1] http://www.cnet.com/news/geocitizens-fume-over-watermark/ http://www.cnet.com/news/geocitizens-fume-over-watermark/ [2] http://web.archive.org/web/19990208003328/http://angelfire.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/19990208003328/http://angelfire.c... [3] http://web.archive.org/web/19990208014605/http://www.lycos.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/19990208014605/http://www.lycos.c... [4] http://web.archive.org/web/20000229043301/http://www.altavista.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20000229043301/http://www.altavis... [5] http://web.archive.org/web/20031012062202/http://yahoo.com http://web.archive.org/web/20031012062202/http://yahoo.com [6] http://web.archive.org/web/20010402054709/http://www.msn.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20010402054709/http://www.msn.com... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claria_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claria_Corporation

hrvbr 11y ago

Yes, as an example of excessive advertising, the biggest concert hall in Paris, which people just call Bercy because it's the landmark building of this neighbourhood, has been renovated and is now named Accorhotel Arena. Stupid marketing people believe they can be perceived as the benevolent pygmalions of arts and sports but they so obiously want free advertising whenever journalists will refer to this place. It only makes me want to boycott their hotels.

sfk 11y ago

For me the quoted part is true: I've just ignored online ads until Google went malicious with their doodles: I refuse to have every famous person of the past and the present to be subconsciously linked to six letters of a brand name. So I installed adblock. This is quite ironic, since Google depends on people looking at ads.