4 ms·

“Ad blocking is a detriment to the entire advertising ecosystem,” Paul Verna, an analyst at the research firm eMarketer, said in a statement. Yes, and the enti

“Ad blocking is a detriment to the entire advertising ecosystem,” Paul Verna, an analyst at the research firm eMarketer, said in a statement. Yes, and the entire advertising ecosystem is a detriment to the internet. Crafting more "compelling" advertisements won't solve the key problem: online advertisement has become an abuse of our attention spans. We need to stop talking about pragmatism and start considering advertising from an ethical and moral perspective.

marssaxman 10y ago
Yeah, exactly: being a detriment to the entire advertising ecosystem is the whole point of using an adblocker. It makes the web mostly tolerable again. (Disabling javascript by default helps a lot with that, too.)
JohannesH 10y ago
I work at an ad network and I've tried to push morals and ethics for 7 years now. The problem is that the entire field is driven by sales people with very few exceptions. The only objective is to make more money tomorrow, so they only think about how they can squeeze the market just a bit more... Like "Oh there's an empty spot on that page, put an ad there now!", or "Hey did you see those ads that cover the entire page? Advertisers love those... I want you to implement it on all sites asap!". Ethics, morality, user experience, security and privacy concerns are simply not a part of the equation.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  Then it seems pointless for you to preach morals and ethics. I don't blame you, but it sounds like the entire industry is about to find out what happens when you only focus on today and it becomes tomorrow. Make sure you have an exit plan.
  - JohannesH 10y ago
    I'm thinking exit plans all the time. Just registered my first company, although I'm not entirely sure what my focus will be yet.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I'll start this off by sincerely thanking you for trying to push morals and ethics. That being said... Too bad so sad. I actually would have liked advertising to help support good websites, but we gave them a good, long chance, and the industry blew it. Articles like this don't make me shed a single tear. I wish it was different, but that industry brought it on themselves.
  - JohannesH 10y ago
    The only problem is that we're now pushing ad networks into much more murky waters... And believe me, they'll do anything to make their monthly budget. Ever heard of native advertising? Basicly just a catch-all name given to ads that look like content. You might think that advertisers are playing nice and that they stick a "sponsored" tag on ads that look like content (as the law requires most places), but in fact they "forget" quite often.
- mark_edward 10y ago
  It's business. It's all driven by sales and profit. It's never otherwise.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  "I work at an ad network" That's the root of your problem.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    I'll disagree with you. As someone who strongly hates ads, I think they could be useful and done well. They just aren't.
  - JohannesH 10y ago
    I've tried finding other work.
sidlls 10y ago
I haven't much sympathy for either consumers or content providers who use ads. The delivery of the content has to be paid for by someone. Usually the consumer balks at that. People expect things on the internet to simply be free. But they aren't free, and ads are a way of signaling that. That doesn't mean the current situation where ads are intrusive and irritating and a source of malware is good, and that's on the content providers and ad networks to address.
- UweSchmidt 10y ago
  The delivery of the content is paid by all of us, because the cost of advertising is of course priced into every single purchase we make. The idea that "the internet is free because of ads" (not your point, but the idea is brought up all the time) is wrong - we're not just paying by suffering the ads, we are literally paying with our money for that nonsense.
  - sidlls 10y ago
    Yep, which is one reason why I haven't much sympathy for consumers. Another being that I've been on the provider end, and saw consumers pick the "free" ad-driven version of an app over the $1 version. They can't view the ads as being that bad if even $1 is such a steep price they'll tolerate the ads to avoid paying it.

marssaxman 10y ago

Yeah, exactly: being a detriment to the entire advertising ecosystem is the whole point of using an adblocker. It makes the web mostly tolerable again. (Disabling javascript by default helps a lot with that, too.)

JohannesH 10y ago

I work at an ad network and I've tried to push morals and ethics for 7 years now. The problem is that the entire field is driven by sales people with very few exceptions. The only objective is to make more money tomorrow, so they only think about how they can squeeze the market just a bit more... Like "Oh there's an empty spot on that page, put an ad there now!", or "Hey did you see those ads that cover the entire page? Advertisers love those... I want you to implement it on all sites asap!". Ethics, morality, user experience, security and privacy concerns are simply not a part of the equation.

tomjen3 10y ago
Then it seems pointless for you to preach morals and ethics. I don't blame you, but it sounds like the entire industry is about to find out what happens when you only focus on today and it becomes tomorrow. Make sure you have an exit plan.
- JohannesH 10y ago
  I'm thinking exit plans all the time. Just registered my first company, although I'm not entirely sure what my focus will be yet.
CaptSpify 10y ago
I'll start this off by sincerely thanking you for trying to push morals and ethics. That being said... Too bad so sad. I actually would have liked advertising to help support good websites, but we gave them a good, long chance, and the industry blew it. Articles like this don't make me shed a single tear. I wish it was different, but that industry brought it on themselves.
- JohannesH 10y ago
  The only problem is that we're now pushing ad networks into much more murky waters... And believe me, they'll do anything to make their monthly budget. Ever heard of native advertising? Basicly just a catch-all name given to ads that look like content. You might think that advertisers are playing nice and that they stick a "sponsored" tag on ads that look like content (as the law requires most places), but in fact they "forget" quite often.
mark_edward 10y ago
It's business. It's all driven by sales and profit. It's never otherwise.
tonyedgecombe 10y ago
"I work at an ad network" That's the root of your problem.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I'll disagree with you. As someone who strongly hates ads, I think they could be useful and done well. They just aren't.
- JohannesH 10y ago
  I've tried finding other work.

sidlls 10y ago

I haven't much sympathy for either consumers or content providers who use ads. The delivery of the content has to be paid for by someone. Usually the consumer balks at that. People expect things on the internet to simply be free. But they aren't free, and ads are a way of signaling that. That doesn't mean the current situation where ads are intrusive and irritating and a source of malware is good, and that's on the content providers and ad networks to address.

UweSchmidt 10y ago
The delivery of the content is paid by all of us, because the cost of advertising is of course priced into every single purchase we make. The idea that "the internet is free because of ads" (not your point, but the idea is brought up all the time) is wrong - we're not just paying by suffering the ads, we are literally paying with our money for that nonsense.
- sidlls 10y ago
  Yep, which is one reason why I haven't much sympathy for consumers. Another being that I've been on the provider end, and saw consumers pick the "free" ad-driven version of an app over the $1 version. They can't view the ads as being that bad if even $1 is such a steep price they'll tolerate the ads to avoid paying it.