4 ms·

But it is good for actual companies/people who pay for ads, right? I mean, in the first place I wouldn't want to pay for showing my ad to someone who is not gen

by zerr 10y ago

But it is good for actual companies/people who pay for ads, right? I mean, in the first place I wouldn't want to pay for showing my ad to someone who is not genuinely interested, thus is not a potential client. And it is in my interest that such people use ad-blockers.

lgieron 10y ago
Everyone is a potential client for Coca-Cola or other generic brands. And (the theory is that) even if you hate the ad, it will make you more likely to buy their brand vs competition.
- fwn 10y ago
  Advertisers interest is rather diverse. While I see the brand value coca cola might aim at, I can also understand that advertising to the wrong user at the wrong time can hurt your wallet or your brand. An example would be check24. It's just a random German comparison webservice. However, as they produce unbelievable disturbing video ads I can't block, I passionately hate them.
  - imtringued 10y ago
    I'm wondering if they are as bad as their TV ads...
- welterde 10y ago
  If I come across an particularly annoying ad I will try my best to remember that brand and buy the competitor out of spite (if there is no cheap generic store brand available anyway). Surely I am not the only one that does this.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    I do that too. That's why I e.g. never used Groupon - they've pissed me off with annoying ads, and that was even before they became controversial.
  - rplnt 10y ago
    > If I come across an particularly annoying ad I will try my best to remember that brand This is enough for them in the long run.
    - tremon 10y ago
      Yes, came here to say the same thing. The (unconscious) brand recognition usually outlasts the (conscious) aversion against it. That said, I'm still not buying anything Sony -- almost fifteen years after their rootkit scandal.
      - distances 10y ago
        I'd say there are exceptions, like Nestlé still having a bad name from the scandal that started the boycott in 1977 [1]. I don't think they are overly suffering from that, but it's still common for people to refuse buying anything from Nestlé. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott Edit: I found this part even a bit amusing: "As of 2013, the Nestlé boycott is coordinated by the International Nestlé Boycott Committee"
      - ionised 10y ago
        You underestimate my spite and vindictiveness.
    - welterde 10y ago
      I disagree. In my case my bias towards products I have bought before (and that were good) is much stronger than brand name recognition. Therefore if I didn't already buy products from their brand anyway then I probably won't in future either. But maybe we are talking about different areas of daily life or I am grossly underestimating the power of ads on me. So feel free to present examples or evidence to the contrary. Edit: There is also of course the large fraction of ads that simply cannot influence me in any way, because I simply don't buy products from those categories (lotteries, terrible AAA games, etc.).
- ionised 10y ago
  > And (the theory is that) even if you hate the ad I must be the exception then, because seeing these ads makes me actively avoid these brands in the future simply out of spite.
konschubert 10y ago
You are making the incorrect assumption that people who have ad blockers would be unaffected if they saw the ad instead. The truth is that advertising works on almost everybody.
- voidz 10y ago
  Please back up your claim. I ad block ads like on the street and on the radio by deliberately looking away or turning off the sound. The only effect those that do seem to slip through have on me is that I get annoyed, despise the ad, and the product.
- ajuc 10y ago
  I always thought I'm (and most people) are unaffected. I had eye-opening experience recently. I was going back home after work and went to buy sth to eat in small shop. I bouth spaghetti and vegetables and the shop clerk asked me "what's with everybody buying it recently?". I had no idea, then I went out and noticed the billboard near the shop changed to some readymade spaghetti sauce that day.
- ionised 10y ago
  You're right, they work on me by convincing me never to buy products from that company.
panic 10y ago
Yeah, it's the people selling ad space that lose revenue, not the people buying it to show their ads. The system seems a bit self-destructive at the moment. Ad-space buyers keep making more obnoxious ads, raising click rates at the expense of the people trying to use the site. The users get fed up and install ad blockers, which harms the sites but not the ad networks. The sites themselves are squeezed in the middle, without much leverage to stop either obnoxious ads or people from blocking them.
- camikazeg 10y ago
  It seems that a simple solution would be to cut out the ad networks. If the New York Times or The Economist just serve the ads themselves, rather than using a third party network wouldn't the ad blockers be unable to distinguish them from other content? Sure they lose targeting, but physical media has existed for years based on ad revenue from companies that paid them directly for advertising. Even the tiniest local and university newspapers have gotten by with free distribution and paid ads for as long as I can remember.

by zerr 10y ago

lgieron 10y ago

Everyone is a potential client for Coca-Cola or other generic brands. And (the theory is that) even if you hate the ad, it will make you more likely to buy their brand vs competition.

fwn 10y ago
Advertisers interest is rather diverse. While I see the brand value coca cola might aim at, I can also understand that advertising to the wrong user at the wrong time can hurt your wallet or your brand. An example would be check24. It's just a random German comparison webservice. However, as they produce unbelievable disturbing video ads I can't block, I passionately hate them.
- imtringued 10y ago
  I'm wondering if they are as bad as their TV ads...
welterde 10y ago
If I come across an particularly annoying ad I will try my best to remember that brand and buy the competitor out of spite (if there is no cheap generic store brand available anyway). Surely I am not the only one that does this.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I do that too. That's why I e.g. never used Groupon - they've pissed me off with annoying ads, and that was even before they became controversial.
- rplnt 10y ago
  > If I come across an particularly annoying ad I will try my best to remember that brand This is enough for them in the long run.
  - tremon 10y ago
    Yes, came here to say the same thing. The (unconscious) brand recognition usually outlasts the (conscious) aversion against it. That said, I'm still not buying anything Sony -- almost fifteen years after their rootkit scandal.
    - distances 10y ago
      I'd say there are exceptions, like Nestlé still having a bad name from the scandal that started the boycott in 1977 [1]. I don't think they are overly suffering from that, but it's still common for people to refuse buying anything from Nestlé. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott Edit: I found this part even a bit amusing: "As of 2013, the Nestlé boycott is coordinated by the International Nestlé Boycott Committee"
    - ionised 10y ago
      You underestimate my spite and vindictiveness.
  - welterde 10y ago
    I disagree. In my case my bias towards products I have bought before (and that were good) is much stronger than brand name recognition. Therefore if I didn't already buy products from their brand anyway then I probably won't in future either. But maybe we are talking about different areas of daily life or I am grossly underestimating the power of ads on me. So feel free to present examples or evidence to the contrary. Edit: There is also of course the large fraction of ads that simply cannot influence me in any way, because I simply don't buy products from those categories (lotteries, terrible AAA games, etc.).
ionised 10y ago
> And (the theory is that) even if you hate the ad I must be the exception then, because seeing these ads makes me actively avoid these brands in the future simply out of spite.

konschubert 10y ago

You are making the incorrect assumption that people who have ad blockers would be unaffected if they saw the ad instead. The truth is that advertising works on almost everybody.

voidz 10y ago
Please back up your claim. I ad block ads like on the street and on the radio by deliberately looking away or turning off the sound. The only effect those that do seem to slip through have on me is that I get annoyed, despise the ad, and the product.
ajuc 10y ago
I always thought I'm (and most people) are unaffected. I had eye-opening experience recently. I was going back home after work and went to buy sth to eat in small shop. I bouth spaghetti and vegetables and the shop clerk asked me "what's with everybody buying it recently?". I had no idea, then I went out and noticed the billboard near the shop changed to some readymade spaghetti sauce that day.
ionised 10y ago
You're right, they work on me by convincing me never to buy products from that company.

panic 10y ago

Yeah, it's the people selling ad space that lose revenue, not the people buying it to show their ads. The system seems a bit self-destructive at the moment. Ad-space buyers keep making more obnoxious ads, raising click rates at the expense of the people trying to use the site. The users get fed up and install ad blockers, which harms the sites but not the ad networks. The sites themselves are squeezed in the middle, without much leverage to stop either obnoxious ads or people from blocking them.

camikazeg 10y ago
It seems that a simple solution would be to cut out the ad networks. If the New York Times or The Economist just serve the ads themselves, rather than using a third party network wouldn't the ad blockers be unable to distinguish them from other content? Sure they lose targeting, but physical media has existed for years based on ad revenue from companies that paid them directly for advertising. Even the tiniest local and university newspapers have gotten by with free distribution and paid ads for as long as I can remember.