 |
Will Adblock Plus kill Google’s AdSense?
Quality online content is freely available, today.
Thanks to revenue generation services like Google’s AdSense, web publishers can concentrate on creating and managing that content while advertisers bid to be seen alongside it. In the process, countless web publishers get monthly checks, from Google, which help pay for it all.
Again, placing ads alongside quality content provides the following advantages…
- context-specific advertising space for millions of advertisers, from all over the world;
- a relatively stable monthly money stream, for participating web publishers; and
- tons of quality free content for all web visitors.
Furthermore, with Google’s AdSense service, visitors are presented with highly targeted ads which closely match their tracked preferences. In other words, a majority of ads presented are relevant.
So while that seems like a logical and straightforward online ecosystem, the people at Adblock Plus don’t see it as such.
In their view, such ads are a bad thing.
So bad, that they give away a plugin for the Firefox browser which basically eliminates all Google AdSense ads from web publisher pages, without Google’s consent or the web publisher even knowing about it.
Because Adblock Plus is a Firefox extension, the ads are basically stripped away from the rendered web pages.
If web publishers don’t read articles such as this one, they may never even know that their economic lifeblood (their ads) are secretly being trashed, by the Adblock Plus extension.
So Google AdSense publishers take thousands of blogs and forums by storm to discuss the recent freefall in the revenue they derive from their ads. And we’re talking about a more than 50% drop, roughly between September 2008 and March of 2009, according to many publishers who have been quite vocal about this spectacular drop in their earnings.
While it was historically possible to pay the rent by adding AdSense ads to content, it’s a lot more difficult now because Adblock Plus, among other things, is the single most downloaded extension for Firefox and on the Internet Explorer front, it’s no better because other similar extensions also attack the ads.
So where is this taking us?
If web publishers can’t make any more money with their Google AdSense ads, the quality and universal accessibility of content is probably going to be suffer, a lot.
Because of Adblock Plus and similar extensions to popular web browsers, expect…
- a lot less variety of content;
- a lot less free content;
- more membership-based content, available for a monthly fee or per-access fee;
- alternative ad methods that’ll need to be even more intrusive and less targeted, to make up for the lost revenue.
In other words, what sounded like a good deal for the typical web visitor tired of seeing clueless ads popping up everywhere might pave the way to a somewhat nightmarish web where a limited set of content is available for free and everything else has been forced to migrate to membership-based access rules, to keep up with the bills.
People who install Adblock Plus most likely don’t realize they’re being converted into digital freeloaders, of sorts.
You see, contextual ads —especially those from Google AdSense— add value to the original content by providing lots of links providing more information or commercial offerings, about any given theme. Visitors who prefer not to click on such ads don’t have to while those who find interesting leads can follow them through. It’s that simple.
By having Adblock Plus and similar extensions installed on so many browsers, at home, at school and at work, the entire revenue model falls apart and risks bringing the beautiful web we know down with it.
As such, any responsible web user should never install such extensions in their browsers.
Case in point, this is what the people behind Adblock Plus say about their creation:
“While nobody profits directly from it, widespread adoption of ad blocking software will make intrusive ads economically inefficient until they become as rare as pop-up windows already are today. And aside of making the internet a better place it is simply good to know that this work is used.”
If “nobody profits directly from it”, it should also be noted that that billions of dollars are likely lost each year by web publishers and that means Adblock Plus is an obstacle to the rightful redistribution of money, in society.
Concerned web publishers are absolutely right when they refer to Adblock Plus as a digital calamity which is causing enormous harm to the web, in general.
More people are coming to realize that the web can’t continue to be free is people keep using Adblock Plus and similar extensions because freeloading destroys most revenue-generating models, especially the one based on Google AdSense.
Adblock Plus is so efficient that it blocks regular Google AdSense ads but that’s not all, even the customized AdSense feeds, like those displayed in the Los Angeles Times, get deleted. In short, anything related to Google’s ads gets pulled from the web pages shown to users. It’s very sad, indeed.
Since the Adblock Plus developers and fans don’t seem too keen on the idea that web publishers need money to operate, a series of retaliation might be needed to save the web as we know it.
Among the measures that are obviously becoming more necessary, Google and web publishers should sue Adblock Plus for, directly or indirectly, stealing them of their revenue stream by empowering users with a tool that blocks all ads by default, instead of letting the user only block the ads he feels are too intrusive, on a case by case basis.
By banning all ads altogether, without any kind of prior notice to the web publishers or advertisers, Adblock Plus might be exposing itself —and those who code and distribute it— to costly civil and criminal suits. Similar extension coders expose themselves as well. By attacking the web’s revenue model and the web publishers, these “ad blockers” paint themselves as targets for the moment when the legal actions start flying around.
Do you think the Los Angeles Times, for instance, will tolerate that over half of their online viewers refuse to even view their ads? Of course not. It’s just a matter of time before another way to generate money is decided upon. Since it will likely be a sort of membership, all readers will pay dearly for those who were too foolish to support the current “all free” content access model.
And in all fairness, the Google AdSense ad zones are usually well located, alongside the content and pose no problem for the visitors. Only a minority of spam-like sites stuff the ads in such a way that it become intrusive. Should all web publishers have to pay for the lack of judgement of a minority of spam-spinners? Of course not. That’s why the very principle of “blocking everything, everywhere”, with Adblock Plus, is so twisted, unfair and unethical, if not downright illegal, in some circumstances.
For the time being, Google has been careful not to talk about extensions like Adblock Plus. However, it’s unlikely that they’ll stay silent much longer as they too must be suffering from the spread of this extension and others like it.
While the power to view ads or not now lies in the hands of visitors, web publishers could choose to show blank pages to them. The pages could also display short messages asking the visitors to turn off their “ad blocking extension” if they wish to view the content. Some visitors might find it supremely frustrating but by activating such an extension, they definitely had it coming.
When enough web publishers refuse access to freeloading visitors, the popularity of such extensions might start to go down. For the time being, the economic nightmare stemming from Adblock plus continues, for countless Google AdSense publishers who can’t make sense of their stats, anymore.
Adblock Plus might sell itself as a “plus” but in the end, it’s a huge “minus”, for everybody. The end of free content online would change our world, for the worse.
Tags: adblock plus, google adsense, adsense, abblock, ad block, ad blockers, ad blocking, advertising, online ads, deleted ads, ads ripped out, ads not rendered, web publishers, ad revenue, sponsored links, free content, quality content, ad zones, visitors, adsense stats, ecpm, number of visitors, number of clicks, ad conversion, firefox, internet explorer, ie8, extensions, plugins, membership-based access, paid content
16 Responses to “Will Adblock Plus kill Google’s AdSense?”
Leave a Reply
 |
[...] AdBlock Plus extension, however, has prevented publishers from collecting untold amounts of advertising revenue, since it’s been released to [...]
Most of us that use ad blockers do not do so because we do not want to see any ads at all.
We do so because they are placed in the middle of the content, they are flashing or animated, in bad taste, or almost porn.
We would be happy to let the ads come through if they were placed in an intrusive spot and didn’t send persons into epileptic seizures.
Before ad blockers, I never clicked on anything on any website to buy anything let along even to go look at it. If I want a certain product, I do an internet search and go direct.
Could it be the majority of lack of revenue is because no one wants what is being peddled? Or maybe even because we all have better things to do than click on ads all day? Just saying.
To the person above,
Well, now you just wouldn’t even know if the ads were intrusive or not, you simply stereotype all ads to be intrusive and choose to ignore them all, even when the ads paid for the content your viewing?
I block ads and most javascript because I don’t have the time or patience to look at irrelevant “contextual” drivel. (In the case of javascript, I hate being being bothered by websites trying to circumvent my browser preferences or trying to get me to do something I don’t want to. Scripting should only be necessary for web *applications*, like mail or calendars.)
Some bloggers, like yourself, make the dubious argument that the same people who block ads would occasionally visit whatever site or product is being promoted if they didn’t have their ad blockers enabled.
Let me make this clear: I am not going to buy *anything* from an ad. I never have, and I never will. Before ad blockers, I never clicked on ads. I’ve also never called in after seeing any “as seen on TV” commercials, either. I suspect that most people using ad blockers share the same view. Forgive the (possibly incorrect) generalization, but from my experience the people who click on ads seem to be easily parted with their money, or perhaps they just aren’t computer savvy. I’m not one of these people.
If I genuinely want to buy something, I already have what I want to buy in mind. Then it’s a matter of just using Amazon, ebay, or another retailer. You and your like are not going to make any money off of me, so stop complaining that I’m blocking your pathetic ads. Go ahead and charge for your content if you want. If it’s good enough–and I suspect that in most cases that it’s not–people will pay for it.
And don’t give me the argument that all of this is expensive or time consuming. I’m the owner of a million+ uniques/month website. I know that servers are expensive, but get over it. So is your cellphone, internet connection, and cable/satellite. If you don’t like the expenses of controlling your own domain and server, use blogger. If maintaining your blog too time consuming for you, perhaps you should get off the internet and enjoy other things.
I apologize for sounding hostile, but this over-commercialization of the internet has turned our academic, high-signal low-noise network into mostly crap. My research work is 100% aimed at reversing that trend and making it impossible to commercialize/spam/control digital content. I think that in five to ten years you’ll find that centralized “websites” are toast.
Dear Brandon,
Your comment is disturbing on several levels.
Economic activity is normal, online and off.
Justifying your own refusal to be “exposed” to advertising (most of which is entirely legitimate and targeted) is one thing but setting out to destroy the internet as we know it to replace it with some bland, overly academic version of your “ideal online experience” is nothing short of a denial of the essence of our world, today.
Some ads are plain dumb and nobody clicks them and I’ll agree with the fact that some web publishers merely rip off content to which they add no value and while that’s not wrong, per se, it’s not exactly going to do anything to advance the state of consciousness of the human race. There’s a difference between dislinking spammy stuff and declaring a sort of war against those who love publishing content so much that they choose to make a living off of it.
Charging for content is contrary to my beliefs because, in my opinion “content wants to be”. However, pay-per-click ads bring in the necessary revenue to power a blog like this one when readers understand the “moral contract” between me, the publisher who gets paid for ad clicks and the visitor, who is merely invited to “tolerate” these ads.
Our opinions are very far apart and for some reason, I feel that makes you utterly happy.
Your disdain for content publishers is disdain, nonetheless.
While you think it’s “the intelligent thing to do” NOT to view or click ads, if everybody were like you, most online content would not exist.
Compensation for effort is universal.
May it be financial or otherwise, even YOU don’t work for nothing.
Everybody has a reason to do what they do.
You’re no different from anybody else but you obviously think you’re superior because you’re against the natural “give and take” approach that has made the internet a nice place to expand anyone’s horizons.
The internet is a wonderful thing because everybody’s welcome.
Your version of a kind of “digital blue blood world” is an insult to those who feel the inclusiveness principal is of paramount importance to the “online experience”.
If you were to create your own private network with your friends, perhaps that would both shield you from the “outside world” and bring you closer to those who think like you do.
We’d surely miss you “wise words” but obviously, you wouldn’t miss us.
One thing interesting about Brandon’s post is that in one breathe he says that we will basically only use big corporate websites for purchases (which he learned abou through advertising)
And in the next breath talks about reversing the “commercialization” trend. But what he is really doing is pushing out the little guy and making the internet a monopoly by only supporting clarge companies like Amazon, eBay, etc.
With that aside, I really don’t know what side I am on. I think we all can agree that the flashy, obtrusive ones are counterproductive and need to go; the the ones like adsense at least respect the user. People who use AdBlock are the same people who woul dhave never clicked on the ad in the first place and as such, the website would not have received any money from their visit adblocker/no ad blocker.
But then, looking at people like Brandon (and myself, another person who NEVER clicks ads), if it weren’t for the influence of advertisments and people clicking on them, amazon may have not grown to be as known or as big as it is today.. big enough for Brandon to have it as his “go to” place.
Too bad other start-ups and smaller companies aren’t being given the same chance.
(Final comment/question for Brandon… who is paying for your million + unique/visitor site? Out of your own pocket? Through membership fees? Government/school grant? Selling products? How did your million + unique viewers come across your site initially?)
[...] I put Adsense alongside other ads to supplement my income). A little search into Google and I dug this article up which will explain the whole issue a lot better than I [...]
Retaliating? Save the web as we know it? Show blank pages? Freeloading? Your post is truly pathetic. It took some minutes for me to realize that you were not making jokes or a parody, you wrote that seriously! O my…
The web as I knew it was ad-free and you and all other “Marketing Savvies” were not forced to publish your contents in it, you did it voluntarily. If you do not like that then go and print your content in paper and try distributing it by other means.
A simple example of your short sighted opinion:
“When enough web publishers refuse access to freeloading visitors, the popularity of such extensions might start to go down”
The corrected version:
“When enough web publishers refuse access to freeloading visitors, the popularity of such PUBLISHERS might start to go down”
Many companies are earning money in Internet by providing real *services*. That’s the model we want to see and use. And if no one is willing to pay a cent for the services provided by you, then yo and do another thing.
No one. I repeat: *NO ONE* what to see ads in internet.
Got it?
I must say that I find statments like:
“Before ad blockers, I never clicked on anything on any website”
and
“Before ad blockers, I never clicked on ads.”
To be not only empty but plain rediculous. The fact is that site revenues have dropped by about 50% since AdBlockers came around. That math isn’t too hard is it?
I have been attempting to implement AdSense on a site. I could not get to the sign on screen using Firefox. I could using Opera or Safari. I then turned off ABP in Firefox and I could sign in to AsSense. So ABP is treating the sign in box to manage AdSense as an add and not allowing me to sign in. So obviously will use a different browser or turn off ABP during development.
This stuff gets harder and harder…
I just discovered that ADP is now blocking the Weather Channels interactive radar map. I had been able to see it fine but it disappeared awhile ago and I did not investigate. Due to the above I got wondering and sure enough, if I turn off ADP I can see the radar, turn in back on and no radar !!!!
Sigh… you remind me of those copyright conglomarates that refuse to accept new technology. Your rant is just like that of RIAA whining about music downloads.
If the model becomes broken, adapt to the new circumstances. Are you surprised that the world is changing all the time?
lol your kidding right nick?
I must say that I find statments like:
Before ad blockers, I never clicked on anything on any website
and
Before ad blockers, I never clicked on ads.
To be not only empty but plain rediculous. The fact is that site revenues have dropped by about 50% since AdBlockers came around. That math isn’t too hard is it?
i never click ads there only full of crap that i dont need or dont want. im just like this other guy. so just becuase it droped that mean i and this other guy clicked ads? haha your joking right? i dont and will never click ads. not worth the spam or adaware. ABP For the epic win.
I don’t block ads. I guess in my view, if a web site allows ads that are overly intrusive or annoying, I simply won’t visit that site. If I care enough, I may e-mail them and tell them WHY I’m not visiting too.
I also rarely click ads. But I do occasionally learn of a product I may be interested in in an ad, and check up on it later. That’s why some ads are pay per impression rather than click.
And to those who actually want a subscription model on the web – you’re crazy. Most web users like to check a large number of sites regularly. Subscriptions all but guarantee you will be limited to a few sites. I’d rather live with ads than go down that path.
Tonio’s and some others’ statements r really curious. Plz don t take my arguments as a way to disrespect or cause any antipathy.
But the music piracy issue is a great example of how things r.
Yea, the reality changed (is changing) about music, but it doesn t mean the means thru which the current situation was brought were legal, or fair, or whatever it can be called.
If the composer, singer, recording label, whatever chooses not to give their work for free, it s UP TO THEM. It s their work. People don t have the right to dictate how they should manage and distribute their works. But the matter here is a matter of human nature, and there s no weapon against it.
I m not into the merit about how mercenary the recording labels were. No matter. It s how the world is ruled.
There s no justification to FORCE artists or whatever to give their work for free. But ok, it s reality, nothing they can do. They must find a way out.
But so I was thinking about how curious things r. A new model for music distribution is on test. Ok, people download everything illegally cuz it s easy. They don t wanna pay for it. So let s give them a way not to pay.
So it started, u see everywhere music now being distributed thru ADVERTISING.
So now ok, I can go to jamendo for ex and download for free a whole album and thru advertisements they can have some return.
Now here is the problem. It s just an example I m giving. But blocking the ads program everything is back to the same drama.
Besides everybody knows many of advertising programs thru the web work by page views and not only clicks.
Again what could be the solution for music to be spread thru internet FREELY, as everybody wanted, right??? Now again it s being threatened, although I m sure there will be a way out (that probably won t please people, again).
So the big question is, when is it enough??? Just to say I hate advertisements doesn t change anything. U buy pepsi or coke for an only reason. U try to flee from advertising, no matter, it goes after u.
Most of guys who say “I m not gonna click on ads anyway…” doesn t understand the advertising spirit.
If ur favorite show on TV went to advertising interval, no matter if u move to other channel using the remote. It doesn t matter for a brand how long u watch their content. They just need one only sec to be sure their brand will LIVE inside ur head and u won t forget, yea, even u who hates ads.
U ll change the TV to another channel, SUDDENLY u find Nike advertisement. So u quickly changed to another u find no advertisement. But u want to be back to the original channel to be sure u won t lose anything of ur favorite show. Oh! Disappointing! U weren t lucky enough and u didn t come in time, u had to watch the last 10 sec of Coca-Cola advertisement, but u know u need to stay there to be sure u won t lose ur favorite show.
The same about newspaper. Advertisements r not there to receive attention. It doesn t matter for them if u ll read or not. But they r sure u will “give a look”, and even looking at the side, too late, u already read the name of the brand there which is ENOUGH for them. They r just there to silently influence ur choices. U all hate ads, but u r all influenced by them. Just now that a plugin was created to give u a proud sense of right u think u have the right??? Things r not exactly that way.
The content on the page is still others’ content. Some people think just cause things r in the internet they r “public”, “free”, whatever.
I m not saying u don t have rights to avoid ads, but if u buy a newspaper, the only way to avoid ads is not buying it. If u like ur favorite show, the only way to avoid it is not watching that.
The same about websites.
I think it has to be the owner’s choice and not the contrary. If the owner doesn t mind about visitors coming to his/her page and blocking all ads, really nice for ads haters, but up to the owner. If the owner wants the visitors to watch all ads with bright flashy images, his/her choice.
Adblock is not democratic. To be democratic it needs to distribute rights to both sides. And I think a fair way it could work is, “This site contains ads which can invade ur privacy and/or disturb ur clean internet browsing, r u sure u want to continue into this page?”
So here is the solution. If u wanna proceed u ll see ads and accept the terms of service of the site. If u don t want ads, u won t enter the site. So that simple. But ok, it s just my view about how adblock could work in a fair way.
But as it s not the case, again we will have to accept that publishers will have to find a way out. The only thing which worries me is that in fact only the “weak side” has losses.
Google will find the way out for them, cuz it s not adblock which will stop a multimillionaire company who just owns 50% of the internet content, which everybody hating ads or not uses at least one service.
But so the weak side will lose and have no way out. The corporations will stand. And worse, the more u think u r fighting them, the more u give them power and ways to monopoly. What was the result of illegal music download??? Just to give more power to big brands to be promoted thru advertising. And when advertising thru internet won t work, they ll be even more intrusive, doing advertising directly thru music clips, or whatever. Well, that s it. I can t call adblock “illegal” cuz it s a complex subject, but I also can t say it s legal, democratic, fair, whatever.
But the war goes on. hahahahaha Sorry for the long tex guys.
Dudes,
I am with the “no-ads” group
Its totally irritating to watch ads on either TV or internet. You see how ads have penetrated actual content (ad time >= actual program time on TV and ad content disguising itself with website theme) I’D BETTER PAY FOR SERVICES AND CONTENT. Google search results page recently got shrunk because of left side bar and ads on the right. Its becoming like yahoo. Is it pleasant to have your content surrounded by 1000 ads???? I think both the article writer and the “I’m with ads” commentators are small time site owners with no actual services except for revenue from ads.