2 ms·
All you've done is moved the problem up the value chain. Now instead of publishers losing revenue to AdBlock, it's advertisers. That's not a good solution. Adve
by eli 13y ago
All you've done is moved the problem up the value chain. Now instead of publishers losing revenue to AdBlock, it's advertisers. That's not a good solution. Advertisers will very quickly see that their conversion rates are falling and will adjust how much they pay for an impression accordingly. (Not to mention that many ads are sold per click and not per impression.)
Changing the channel during an ad is already priced in to the cost of the TV ad. The TV people do studies on how many people change the channel or hit mute. But mostly they don't care because they can see that the TV ads work by how many people call the 800 number or how in-store sales jump after an ad runs in a region.
This is especially true of online ads. If you have an online store, you probably don't really care how many impressions your ads have or even how many people click -- your main metric is how much did it cost to get you a paying customer. Ad Block drives that number up whether it loads the ad or not.
- lowmagnet 13y ago> Now instead of publishers losing revenue to AdBlock, it's advertisers. But if one simple trick thinks that I'm going to click on their ad, they're simply making a bad bet on me. The problem is striking a balance between ads that are appropriate to a site (based more on site demographics) versus ads that spy on your browsing habits whilst within their ad network fence. I don't mind an ad for adafruit on a diy electronic site. I do mind a dvor knife ad following me around to every. goddamned. site. I. visit.