7 ms·
Why People Block Ads, and What It Means for Marketers and Advertisers
- jkot 10y agoPeople block malware, ads are often hosted on the same domains or networks.
- JTon 10y agoOne of 4 top responses. Here's the actual breakdown from the article: > 1. Ads are annoying and intrusive (64%) 2. Ads are disruptive (54%) 3. Ads create security concerns (39%) 4. Ads affect load time and bandwidth usage (36%)
- nikki-9696 10y agoThanks for posting that. I didn't read the article, because as soon as I clicked through, I got a notification about notifications and a banner ad. Closed the tab.
- andrenotgiant 10y agoClicked through and got the answer within a second. http://i.imgur.com/4hjX71d.png http://i.imgur.com/4hjX71d.png What a succinct way to demonstrate why people use Ad/Script Blockers. HubSpot is geared towards marketers, so I can understand why they push the limits in terms of seeing what they can get away with. But, when you run a content site and you want to send anonymous users Desktop Notifications, you have to ask yourself: "is this really a sustainable way to use desktop notifications, or am I just ruining it for everyone?" The "fake notification" at the bottom too... How is that any better than those banner ads that pretend to be OS dialog boxes?
- ultramancool 10y agoInteresting, I didn't get that when I went to the site, wonder if it's being A-B tested or something.
- w-ll 10y agoDisable your ad blocker.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cocotino 10y agoThat's not really that bad, if they only do what they say (send notifications of new articles), I don't see what's so horrible.
- em3rgent0rdr 10y agoThe bad part is getting the popup. Especially for first time I've ever visited their site. Maybe if I was a regular visitor, I might want desktop notifications, but please don't bother a new user with that.
- coldpie 10y agoIt's a shame because it's actually a fairly interesting article with lots of data from their survey. But instead they push users away by being overly aggressive. FWIW I didn't see the popup. I use both uBlock Origin and NoScript and there is no way in hell I will ever turn them off.
- rconti 10y agoAaaaand ScamSpot wants to put notifications in my browser.
- FussyZeus 10y agoHonestly I was very fine with just ignoring ads on web pages like I did for a long time, but it's gotten so out of hand in so many ways: - Risk of downloading malware - Having to download an additional several megabytes of content I don't even want, but must pay for - Dark pattern UI to get me to click things I'm not interested in - Reverse, poorly made UI that's difficult to get rid of (stupid subscription things) You can argue the ethics of this all day with me but in the end I just don't care. I'm paying for the data pipeline, I'm paying for and maintaining the device that can be infected, and your business model isn't my problem. If you want me to look at ads, make it happen in such a way where it doesn't degrade the rest of the experience. Several websites have done it just fine.
- vocatus_gate 10y ago> You can argue the ethics of this all day with me but in the end I just don't care. I'm paying for the data pipeline, I'm paying for and maintaining the device that can be infected, and your business model isn't my problem. Very well said.
- danielweber 10y agoWhy not just stay away from those sites completely?
- coldpie 10y agoHow do you do this?
- FussyZeus 10y agoThere are several I don't go to anymore because they lock up their content behind "we noticed you're using adblock" walls. Plus, when using an adblocker it's often difficult to tell what it's blocking. Websites just don't have ads for me.
- c22 10y agoWhy not punish those sites economically by draining their resources while providing no new ad revenue? That might actually incentivise them to come up with a better model going forward rather than letting the web slowly degrade into a malicious cesspool that no one reads.
- aethos 10y agoI would like to take the opportunity to plug for my favorite adblocker, Ublock Origin. It doesn't have a whitelist like ABP, and has a very good picker to remove ads in case some sneak through.
- oconnore 10y agoYes, ads are annoying, a security risk, and obstruct content, but: they also are a deliberate attempt to subconsciously influence my decision making. Saying, "here is this product you may not have known about, here is what it does" is one thing. Showing me pictures of attractive people to trick me into associating <brand> with <good feels> is malicious. Why would I agree to that?
- vthallam 10y agoIf you watch TV/look at billboards, you are already being tricked everyday. Why advts online are so malicious? Edit: This was a genuine question and I don't understand the down votes :|
- blacksmith_tb 10y agoThey aren't more malicious than billboards (which of course have been banned in some major cities [1]) or other public advertising, but they are equally malicious. [edit] Having said that, the 'security risk' angle does make online ads more malicious, potentially... 1: https://www.newdream.org/resources/sao-paolo-ad-ban https://www.newdream.org/resources/sao-paolo-ad-ban
- oconnore 10y agoI subscribe to Netflix for that reason. Online ads are not uniquely malicious, although they are more pervasive (even reading a magazine, the page I am actively reading will not have an ad in between paragraphs, though the next page might). I do think modern marketing firms (and often therefore web) have developed more effective -- and therefore bad -- techniques to have the effect they are paid for. PS. I upvoted you because I don't think it was a bad question. If I had to guess, it may be misconstrued as a [bad] rhetorical question arguing that "you already have to put up with X, so it's pointless/inconsistent/illogical to reduce your exposure to X".
- vthallam 10y agoTrue! Guess a couple of banner advts on the side of the page wouldn't bother anyone, the intrusive one's definitely are the reason most hate advts.
- jotato 10y agoWhere is the "Because I want to limit what can be shown to my kids " option? Seriously, I run an ad blocker at home strictly because I want to control what advertisers are broadcasting to my children.
- lottin 10y agoAds break several basic rules of social interaction, namely "Don't offer unsolicited advice to random strangers." It's simply very rude. If I haven't asked you for advice, then you shouldn't be giving any to me. End of story.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y agoIt's more like "Don't distract and try to bum money from random strangers without even trying to offer something in return." This is something the online ad industry has never understood. Print ads were embedded in an experience that users considered valuable. Online ads don't even try to offer value. They just want your clicks. Because they're so rarely associated with the content around them, they're more like idiots screaming in your ear than interesting people you might want to have a conversation with. So of course people try to filter them out. Why should this surprise anyone?
- cortesoft 10y agoOk, so no ads at all. Are you ok with no free news websites, only premium TV channels, etc?
- coldpie 10y agoYes. The BBC seems to be doing quite well in the UK with no ads.
- ourmandave 10y agoAh, but those BBC guys collect a licensing tax on everyone in the UK. They're like a state sponsored premium channel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...
- coldpie 10y agoYep. Just one of many business models that don't involve hocking malware to your users.
- infodroid 10y agoThe survey confirms that the number one reason people block adverts is because they are annoying. There's also genuine privacy and security concerns. Surely advertisers don't need surveys to point this out to them. And if this is common knowledge then why is nobody doing anything about it? Why are ads still slowing down loading the actual content or taking over control of the web page? How hard is it to get this right?
- mdaniel 10y agoI thought this was going to go in a different direction based on HubSpot's ads they run in the "Embedded" podcast: in those, they say they want to get back to the story, too, and that's the extent of the messaging. I appreciate it, and it obviously worked fine for brand recognition, even if I couldn't have told you what they do for a living.
- lotsoflumens 10y agoHere's the important part: "The effect ad blockers have had on publishers has been tremendous, with advertising organizations estimating that by 2020, $35 billion dollars per year will be lost as a result of blocked ads" I prefer to consider the amazing things that will be done in 2020 instead of pissing away $35 billion on nothing.
- Animats 10y ago$35 billion! We're winning. For every site that has an ad-blocker, there's usually another one with comparable content that doesn't.
- lotsoflumens 10y agoYes - we're definitely winning :-) Did you mean "ad-blocker-blocker", or maybe "ad-blocker-blocker-blocker-blocker" ?
- seanp2k2 10y agoAs long as you have more blocking tech than the non-tech-savvy public, you should be fine. Those people now know about ad blocking (they're a little late to the party), so things like ad block killer lists and extra extensions to block blockers should work for another 15 years or so before it becomes enough of a problem that it's worth it for ad companies to respond.
- matrix 10y agoNow, if only Hubspot took their own advice... They say the reason people block ads is because they are annoying, and yet Hubspot has one of the most annoying marketing teams I've encountered. They probably think deluging my inbox with emails is effective, but the truth is, it's annoying to the point that I'm actively turned off.
- charonn0 10y agoI think they should have spent more time discussing the privacy and security issues.
- a_small_island 10y ago>"A majority of our respondents also agree that most online ads today don’t look professional and are insulting to their intelligence (63% and 56%, respectively). Ouch. This is practical and addressable feedback: ads should look like some thought was put behind them." What a lazy conclusion. Can't take this article seriously.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cortesoft 10y agoMy problem with online ads are that they are too cheap. The company behind the ad I am seeing may have only spent a couple of bucks to get it viewed by a few thousand people. With ads so cheap, there is no way to distinguish between legit companies and scams/crappy products. With TV ads on popular programs, I know the company at least is good enough to afford the ad.
- majewsky 10y ago> good enough to afford the ad "Wealthy" or "big" neither equals nor implies "good". The only thing that's certain is that when you buy an advertised product, you're paying a premium to fund their marketing.
- cortesoft 10y agoI think it is kinda like the handicap principle in biology. The fact that they can afford to waste money on advertising shows that they are 'fit'. I am not saying it is a perfect mechanism, but it does show SOMETHING.
- seanp2k2 10y agoSince it's so cheap, the thing they're good at may very well just be making an ad to get clicks to sell a junk product or service. This also scales very well. Consider Coke; bad for your teeth and causes diabetes. Expensive for what it is and made with junk ingredients. Huge hit with consumers. Advertises like crazy.
- majewsky 10y agoI'm positively surprised by the rather large mindshare for security concerns among adblock users. I've seen some anti-adblocking campaigns in the past (most recently the ridiculous BlockXIT bullshit from stern.de) and when they try to explain away the reasons for adblocking, they always omit the security concerns. Probably because they are the hardest to invalidate.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoI thought this was an excellent discussion (and yes I told the page that it could not send me notifications :-)) I particularly liked that they asked some proactive questions about whether or not people would pay for content. I'm on record as saying that I think this Ad/Adblock war ends with the destruction of free content on the web. Basically the only "free/ad supported" stuff will be stuff that was cribbed by a wage slave in a mechanical turk like situation from other (nominally "pirated" sources). And there will be the 'pay' web which will have some way of distributing money to the decent journalism. I like the Blendle approach so far I hope it can hold up. I also think the ads the survive are going to be product placement (for brand awareness) that will be ads intermingled with the content, whether it is a billboard being photoshopped into a music video or all the characters in the content using microsoft products, but basically blended into the story. And the other ads will switch to pay per action (CPA) rather than simply clicking. Could be totally wrong too, we could just end up in click-counter-click hell but I just can't see that as sustainable.
- seanp2k2 10y agoRe: sustainable, it certainly was before everyone was trying to get rich from the Internet, and IMO the content was typically much better back then, since it was published not to make money but to further humanity and spread knowledge. That's the Internet I wish we could go back to, not some free-market micropayment dystopia.
- ariwilson 10y agoIt's funny how different the reaction is on HN from the users they surveyed. Most of the ad blocker users they cited seemed like they would be happy if websites would clean up their ads and make them less prominent or annoying, while a minority would be willing to pay for the content on the site instead. Very few of the ads-are-murder zealots that we usually get around here :).