Google Cries about Ad Blocking Software Ruining Your Relationship With It

Diji1 on 25/02/2016 - 00:18

Looks like Google and some company called Yahoo? - have you heard of them? me either - are having a whine about the "relationship" that you never wanted being "destroyed" by users electing to install ad blocking software and hence having their attention rendered completely unsellable by ol' "don't be evil" Google. Or selling ads if you want to call it that

Must be a delicate business when no one wants your product and 90% of profits are staked on getting the users to take it LEL so they've decided to attack those evil ad blocking software vendors.

Also online advertising is tanking big time thanks to enormous levels of fraud and Apple putting their oar in and actually caring about users having a good experience. See that's where a hell of a lot of paying customers are.

Feeling sorry? Nope, me either.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/23/google-yahoo-clash-with-blunt…

Internet

Related Stores

Google
Google

Comments

    • scotty on 25/02/2016 - 11:02
      +7

      Yeah that's my main problem with some ad blocking companies, where they take money from ad networks to include them into "acceptable ads" list. Their business model is basically showing you ads while their core product is supposed to block them.

      If people want to use ad blocking, go for those that don't compromise like uBlock Origin (Chrome Web Store and Mozilla Add-On).

      • ajwatts on 27/02/2016 - 17:46

        It is like a protection racket. Pay us money or we will lock you out. Terrible.

      • hahaboy on 28/02/2016 - 18:40

        ah guess, you are already aware of the ad-blocker i was talking about in my above comment. I'm currently using that and do find it very light-weight and efficient.

    • chipstss on 27/02/2016 - 07:36

      I find it hilarious that AdBlock Plus has flipped the table on Advertisers. They make advertising companies pay them which is helping fund the improvement of adblocking software :)

    • ajwatts on 27/02/2016 - 17:45

      You mean there is something in it for them?! You are paranoid!

  • [Deactivated] on 25/02/2016 - 11:09

    Everyone hates ads if they become too intrusive or excessive.
    But, not talking about ad phishing websites and scam survey websites, most legitimate websites HAVE TO make money somewhere, unless you're willing to pay them?
    Web hosting and domain names aren't free, admins, editors and mods aren't doing their job for free, stock images aren't usually free either, so what do you expect?
    Perhaps we all need to start paying to browse OZB? What do you think?

    • ajwatts on 27/02/2016 - 17:47

      What is a scam survey website?

      • [Deactivated] on 27/02/2016 - 17:50
        +1

        Sometimes if you're looking to download something (doesn't matter legal or illegal), some websites ask you to complete a "survey" before they redirect the page to the download page.
        Usually there's no download page, they're only trying to get you to do the survey and put your details in, especially your phone no. because you get charged premium sms fees.

        • ajwatts on 27/02/2016 - 18:19

          Ohhhhhh. Thanks. :)

        • eug on 28/02/2016 - 08:39

          they're only trying to get you to do the survey and put your details in, especially your phone no. because you get charged premium sms fees.

          How do you get charged premium SMS fees by giving your number out?

        • [Deactivated] on 28/02/2016 - 09:47

          @eug: You get something like "You've won the newest iPhone 6S!" or you have the chance to win bluh bluh, and then it would ask you to enter your email and phone no., at the bottom there would be a fine print saying you get charged sms fees etc. I haven't tried it, but I'd think they'll send you a message asking whether you want to opt in etc, I haven't done it myself though.
          At the moment I can only find the ones that want you to enter credit card details…..

  • ProjectZero on 25/02/2016 - 12:32

    I personally use ad-blocking at home for all websites and on Ozbargain (that latter more to do with the fact that my PC at work is really crap, seriously… 4GB total RAM With spreadsheets and other stuff opened + ads = you're going to have a very bad time).

    I don't mind the odd non intrusive ads like some of the ones found on OzB, as long as you don't click them they're fine. All too often though, the ads are way too intrusive, they either force you to watch it, have audio and a video (My internet at home is slow enough as it is without streaming a bloody video), or one of those full screen bastards that you can never find the close button to.

    I've recently had issues where torrent shows a freaking video ad with sound… I was just reading minding my own business when the ad comes on and it scared the crap out of me because i didn't know where the sound came from.

    If they can get rid of those types of ads, I'll be willing to stop using ad-blocking.

    • scrimshaw on 25/02/2016 - 14:00

      Yeah my problem with ads is that they use up more memory than is necessary to load. The ads on ebay actually causes my Firefox browser to have a memory leak (sometimes using a gig of ram on ebay itself)

    • ajwatts on 27/02/2016 - 17:50

      My home PC has only 1gb RAM. Right now I have Word open. Microsoft Edge is open with Gmail, the YNAB app, a Google Sheets document. I don't have a speed issue. And if I do and just don't realise it, I can at least say that opening OzBargain or a Google site doesn't worsen it.

      • ProjectZero on 29/02/2016 - 09:42

        Hmm, if that's the case, WIN 10 seems to be really RAM efficient… WIN 7 alone takes up like 1.5GB for me.

        • ajwatts on 01/03/2016 - 19:16

          Oh, it feels waaaaay more efficient than 7, definitely! Do a free upgrade!

        • ProjectZero on 03/03/2016 - 10:36
          +1

          @ajwatts: Unfortunately, work comps dont have free upgrades available and my home PC has 16GB of RAM so I'm fine for now.

          I've tried using WIN 10 on my laptop and it seems to lack support for some programs that I use so I'll be sticking with WIN 7 for awhile longer.

  • tonyjzx on 25/02/2016 - 13:01
    +4

    A multibillion dollar company crying like a bitch.

    Thing is you can be sure that the vast majority of people do not block. Targeting that 5% that do who will never play your game is always a loosing game.

    • scotty on 25/02/2016 - 16:35
      +8

      5%? 5 years ago — maybe. Desktop page views on OzBargain are around 40-50% blocked these days. Here's our December stats:

      • Desktop: 50.56% blocked
      • Mobile: 7.25% blocked
      • Logged in users: 43.97% blocked
      • Guest users: 27.17% blocked
      • tonyjzx on 25/02/2016 - 16:44
        -3

        I wasnt aware this was a multibillion dollar company.

        I'm being facetious but this sort of thing is like an arms race. Its like the war with virus and anti virus software.

        This isnt a fight I particular feel sympathy for anyone over. I dont block because I these ads do not bother me however its the sort of thing that the more google brings attention to it the more likely I will flip the switch on my pfsense box.

        • p1 ama on 25/02/2016 - 19:30
          -2

          I'm being facetious but this sort of thing is like an arms race. Its like the war with virus and anti virus software.

          How? This has nothing to do with the 'war' between viruses and anti-virus software. Ads are a source of revenue for many companies around the world. Bitch and whine all you want about Google being a multi-million dollar company, but their services are funded for by ads and that's how they're able to provide you with things like a search engine, e-mail, productivity, even a whole OS (Android) for free. Without ads, you would have to be paying for all of these.

          I'm fine with people who don't like ads, there perhaps should be a means where people can pay to have ads removed. I think this would be the best solution.

      • GameChanger on 25/02/2016 - 17:05
        +1

        Wow never would have guessed 50% of people are blocking Ads.

        At what % will Ozbargain look to change the business model?

      • vetopower on 25/02/2016 - 18:31
        +7

        The percentage of people using adblockers on OZB is probably significnatly higher than in the general population because, I would guess, OZB users are far more tech savvy (look at all the upvotes for computer components) and find ads to be less helpful (OZB users shop predominantly according to price and quality).

        Indeed, there is some hint of that in the figures. 44% ad blocking when logged in (i.e. OZB regulars) vs 27% ad blocking when not logged in (i.e. casual visitors).

        • scrimshaw on 25/02/2016 - 18:46

          Ad blocking skews younger, with 18-24 year-olds using ad blockers most often in all regions the study looked at.

          While Millennials are still the biggest users, the demographic trend differed slightly in the US, where usage of ad blockers on desktops is higher among users ages 45-54 and 55-64 than among those ages 35-44. However, in general, the study found, “the incidence of ad blocking has an inverse relationship with age”.

          http://marketingland.com/ad-blocker-usage-highest-among-key-…

          So with the exception of the US, ad blockers are younger people (usually millenials)

        • aussieprepper on 26/02/2016 - 00:39

          not to mention that a lot of browser come with built in ad blockers now.

        • ajwatts on 27/02/2016 - 18:10

          Such as? I just checked two browsers and neither had an ad blocker on my PC, but both had the Do Not Track option.

      • tomsco on 25/02/2016 - 20:46

        Just out of interest, how does it work in knowing that ads aren't shown for logged in users?

        It's rare that I ever see an ad, and I don't use an ad blocker.

        On a different note, to receive income, do people have to click on the ad, or do you get it once they identify that the ad has been displayed in the browser?

      • diddy50 on 26/02/2016 - 20:15

        I thought as a logged in user/member we don't get the ads?

        I thought that was one of the incentives to join up. No?

        I don't see them on my phone.
        And they disappear when I log in on my pc

        • scrimshaw on 26/02/2016 - 21:12

          Ads can be opted out. You probably went into your profile Settings and cleared the Show Advertisement checkbox at some point.

      • hahaboy on 28/02/2016 - 18:47

        hmm, probably not 5 percent still, but i imagine ozbargain has a higher number of ad-blocker users cause of the demographics the website it targeted to, including:

        1) A lot of younger generation people;
        2) enthusiasts about computers / mobiles / tech (given half the deals on the front page)
        3) people with clearly enough time on their hands…ie - heavy internet users who would be over exposed to ads and less willing to deal with them

        I'm surprised by the stats for the mobile users being 7.25% though. It's harder to get that on your phone right + phone would have to be rooted?

  • frondono on 25/02/2016 - 16:41
    +7

    I installed a script the other day called Anti Adblock Killer by reek. It allows you to use sites that don't allow the use of adblockers.

    https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer

    • franco cozzo on 25/02/2016 - 18:12

      +1 great script….works a treat for sbs ;)

    • field1985 on 26/02/2016 - 12:18

      Most ad-blockers have a built-in whitelist feature that you can use to store domains you don't want ad's blocked on.

  • Dogfightz on 25/02/2016 - 17:15
    +2

    I know websites and web services make money from ads to provide us services for free and i appreciate that…but for some who have vision problems and rely on text to speech….this screws everything up. the text to speech dictates all the text in ads as well :(

  • [Deactivated] on 25/02/2016 - 17:20
    +4

    Ad blocking was by-and-large a response to intrusive and malware-laced advertising. Advertisers and the sites profiting from them had no reservations about installing crapware on users'computers without their permission and then when we fought back they got all pissy.

    Also, consider data costs on mobile. Are these companies going to compensate me the cost of downloading all of their ads? No? Blocked.

    If you like a site or service and they use reasonable, non-website-breaking ads then I whitelist them in uBlock. If they start putting "find a local (profanity) in your area now" style adverts or animated/noisy ads into the mix, back on the block list they go.

  • Hotpotcorn on 25/02/2016 - 20:36

    ok lets me honest here…. who uses adblock even for ozbargain? I do… im sorry scotty

    • scotty on 25/02/2016 - 20:41
      +6

      No worries mate. I would expect OzBargainers to use adblockers — they are tech savvy, and always want to maximise value (get something for less, or for free!)

      • nahi11 on 25/02/2016 - 21:34
        +6

        Once I was feeling so generous, I clicked on an ad on Ozbargain.

        • ChillBro on 26/02/2016 - 19:07

          Our lord and saviour has returned.

        • diddy50 on 26/02/2016 - 20:17

          All my ads are about pool cleaners and sexy locals in my area…

      • EnALup on 25/02/2016 - 22:28

        But isn't adblocker programs also have your data on what you browse or use? Unless I am missing anything is it though the addd-ins in the browser or there is some other way to do it?

  • thepigs on 25/02/2016 - 21:19
    +11

    Everybody click on an Ad for scotty!

  • Katie2014 on 25/02/2016 - 21:37

    I actually find a lot of the ads here useful. Because I'm a bit of a comp addict, the targeting means that I see a lot of ads on OzBargain promoting competitions (which I then post back here). Quite a few times I've found a competition through an ad before it's been listed on a search engine.

    ProjectZero 8 hours 33 min ago
    I don't mind the odd non intrusive ads like some of the ones found on OzB, as long as you don't click them they're fine. All too often though, the ads are way too intrusive, they either force you to watch it, have audio and a video (My internet at home is slow enough as it is without streaming a bloody video), or one of those full screen bastards that you can never find the close button to.

    Agh, yes. Those ones I don't like. One of the news sites (Ninemsn, I think?) used to run those types of ads a lot.

  • 2ndeffort on 25/02/2016 - 21:51
    +1

    I dont use Ad Blocking, I probably should…but I actively avoid anyone or anything advertised. Generally following an ad on a website is never going to get you a great deal no matter what you are buying. I hate the whole idea that somebody somewhere is collecting stats on me and intentionally targeting content towards me to try and sell me stuff. I know it is an irreversible reality of life online but my personal silent protest is refusing to ever follow a link or buy anything from this system I despise. IF I was ever tempted to buy something from a targeted ad (highly unlikely) I would open a separate browser and search independently thereby making sure that I have done nothing to encourage or support the spread of this insidious practice.

    The ads that get my goat up right away are the full size popup pages that demand something from you in order to proceed. I have actually been going to an online shop to buy something…their fullsize popup advert has launched asking me for some kind of input (email address, join their club, watch their latest streaming ad etc) so I have closed the site and bought from their competitor instead, even if it cost me a little extra $$.

    • BartholemewH on 26/02/2016 - 00:34

      This is how I approach things. Never click the ad on purpose, always close the window and search for the site independently, thereby not encouraging the proliferation of ads.

      • eug on 26/02/2016 - 19:54

        So who will pay for the costs of running that site?
        I deliberately click on ads in search results if it's what I'm looking for. Put yourself in a content provider's shoes and look at it from their perspective.

        • ajwatts on 27/02/2016 - 18:13

          I agree. Not clicking the ad gives them a free ad.

  • GOFYS on 25/02/2016 - 22:20

    Oops! I didn't know Ozbargain had ads.
    Ebay wastes my days and advertiser budgets by filling my pages with unblockable ads for the same stuff I am selling.
    Facebook presumably charges just for displaying ads. God know how much the charge for an actual click. I always click on gambling ads. at least Facebook is ripping off someone who deserves it.
    Long long time ago, Google charged $0.20 per click. I went back to it about 2 years ago and it was $2.30.
    Targetted advertising? Yes, he's breathing……

  • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2016 - 01:29

    I use blocking because as said by someone else in this thread, targeted ads are usually for products I've been researching and looking for anyway, and generally by the time they show up I've already bought the product I was looking for.

    I started using blockers after getting sick of "waiting for ad.doubleclick" etc.when a page was trying to load.

  • SydStrand on 26/02/2016 - 07:23
    +3

    Apple putting their oar in and actually caring about users having a good experience.

    Yes… because Apple's motives are entirely magnanimous. You're naive if you think online advertising is dead, or doesn't have a place in 2016. How do you think all your favourite websites (including this) get paid? How do you think news publications can afford to send people around the world? Because print isn't what butters their bread anymore, it's online ads. Don't like ads? Then stop using YouTube, or start paying for it. No one likes obtrusive ads but how exactly do you think these services are monetised?

    • ninetyNineCents on 27/02/2016 - 22:39

      I thought ni Internet advertising is overrated. I think sellers believe they are getting sales from ads but users would have bought from them and are found in other ways and not the ads they run.

      Take yt, many people tell me it's running car ads for them, but how many people do you know actually bought a car because of a yt ad ?

      • eug on 28/02/2016 - 09:15

        I've never bought a car based on a youtube ad, but I do learn about new car models through youtube ads. So while I won't end up buying that car, brand awareness increases. That could possibly translate into a purchase in the future.

        • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2016 - 11:16

          You could say the same for many other things. Many people buy cars NOT advertised with yt , as the models they present are a very limited snapshot of all models.

          I think you are being too generous about the effectiveness of yt ads.

        • eug on 28/02/2016 - 12:04

          @ninetyNineCents: So are you saying YouTube advertising doesn't help spread awareness of the brand being advertised?

          Advertising doesn't have to translate into an immediate sale.

        • ninetyNineCents on 29/02/2016 - 11:25

          @eug:

          I'm just saying I don't think Google is all that successful for advertisers and that equates to poor value.

        • eug on 29/02/2016 - 11:32

          @ninetyNineCents: Hmm ok. But if Google ads aren't very successful, surely Google wouldn't be able to make so much money off them for the past 15 years?

          edit - did you mean google advertising or youtube advertising specifically?

        • ninetyNineCents on 29/02/2016 - 20:04

          @eug:

          I think Google and other online advertising is overhyped, companies aren't sure what or how to grab attention and they experiment with many things including yt fa etc.

          G hasn't been advertising for 15, lots has changed when they first started compared too now. I'm thinking companies might change their strategies, who and where they advertise because I can't see the value, but hey that's just my small world,

        • eug on 29/02/2016 - 20:43

          @ninetyNineCents:

          I think Google and other online advertising is overhyped, companies aren't sure what or how to grab attention and they experiment with many things including yt fa etc.

          They do seem to be very successful!

          G hasn't been advertising for 15,

          The AdWords program was launched in 2000.

          I can't see the value, but hey that's just my small world,

          Well… they're still making lots of money after 15 years, so business owners and advertising departments must see some value in it.

        • ninetyNineCents on 01/03/2016 - 00:17

          @eug:

          I think Google and other online advertising is overhyped, companies aren't sure what or how to grab attention and they experiment with many things including yt fa etc.

          They do seem to be very successful!

          Successful for G, but what proof have you got they are successful for their customers…

          Well… they're still making lots of money after 15 years, so business owners and advertising departments must see some value in it.

          Or are those business owners just taking a safe bet assuming it works ?

          How do you know or measure ? Like I said and others here as well. Who ever has ever bought anything via Internet ads ? That's my basic proof for my argument…like others have said here these ads are either wrong, for something I, not interested in, bombing me after I've already viewed or searched a shop or two, and so on, which is already too late. Adv is about the, being first not telling me after etc.

        • eug on 01/03/2016 - 00:40

          @ninetyNineCents: Surely they wouldn't be getting so many customers for the past 15 years if they weren't providing results.

          Businesses used to spend money on advertising in the Yellow Pages. Looking at how they're doing now, clearly business owners don't think it's effective any more, so they're now spending their money on online advertising instead. Who here has used a Yellow Pages recently, other than to raise your monitor or as a footrest?

          Who ever has ever bought anything via Internet ads ? That's my basic proof for my argument…

          That isn't a very strong argument. You're on an internet forum filled with tech-savvy users who don't like advertising.

        • ninetyNineCents on 02/03/2016 - 05:21

          @eug:

          Yp is similar to what I'm claiming. Businesses aren't sure and buy anyway in the same way I'm on about online ads.

        • eug on 02/03/2016 - 11:22

          @ninetyNineCents: If they were blindly buying, they would still be buying YP ads. But they're not that dumb - they realize people have moved on to services like Google, so they've moved their ad budget online.

        • ninetyNineCents on 02/03/2016 - 15:49

          @eug:
          You have understood my point. With the internet now everywhere, businesses
          Think
          That's the lace to capture eyeballs. We both agree on that, however that doesn't mean the ads
          Work.

        • eug on 02/03/2016 - 16:31

          @ninetyNineCents:
          You're assuming all business owners and marketing departments are dumb and are blindly spending money on online ads which do not work.

          If the ads did not work, businesses would not be spending money on them - just like how many businesses realize YP isn't working for them anymore.

          Obviously online ads will not work for every type of business out there, but they clearly do work. If you're spending thousands of dollars a year on advertising and it isn't bringing in any returns, you will not do it any more.

        • ninetyNineCents on 03/03/2016 - 07:23

          @eug:

          Many advertisers have ads in many mediums as well as being established brands with visible products, eg apple or Toyota. They don't really know which is doing the big sell in the end, after all how does T tell you bought that car because you saw it on G or YT ?

          I think YP died because businesses found somewhere else to try, they just know paper is dead and think internet is the answer. It's not that they know Internet works,, they just assume phone books don't.

          It's just strange in my little world everybody always says they never click or block ads. Your right not everyone blocks because they aren't tech Saavy, but they can still not click.

        • eug on 03/03/2016 - 11:03

          @ninetyNineCents:

          They don't really know which is doing the big sell in the end,

          A marketing exec or student will be able to tell you. Advertising has been around for a very long time, measuring success isn't a new thing.

          after all how does T tell you bought that car because you saw it on G or YT ?

          That is a big reason why businesses with tighter advertising budgets prefer online advertising - it is much easier to track engagement as opposed to traditional advertising. It's called performance-based advertising and makes measuring campaign success a lot easier.
          I'm sure you've also seen the "Where did you hear about us"? question in forms.

          When it comes to cars, the company can simply ask its dealership sales staff to gauge a customer's awareness or simply ask outright.

          they just know paper is dead and think internet is the answer. It's not that they know Internet works,,

          They can tell how successful their online advertising campaigns are much more accurately than they can measure more traditional forms of advertising.

          they just assume phone books don't.

          Do you know many people who still use the Yellow Pages?

          It's just strange in my little world everybody always says they never click or block ads.

          If I only looked at my own little world, the whole would would be using Android and nobody would ever open an unsafe attachment. :)

          Your right not everyone blocks because they aren't tech Saavy, but they can still not click.

          That's nothing new, but with online advertising, advertisers can know exactly how their ads are doing. With TV advertising people could simply make a cuppa when the ads come on, or record the show and fast-forward the ads. Their expensive newspaper ad could simply end up being a toilet for someone's dog. The advertiser will still have to pay for that.

          With some online advertising networks, as mentioned elsewhere in this post, advertisers can even know if their ad is visible on the screen, or scrolled up and hidden, amongst many other things.

        • ninetyNineCents on 03/03/2016 - 23:11

          @eug:

          A marketing exec or student will be able to tell you. Advertising has been around for a very long time, measuring success isn't a new thing

          You give them far too much credit… if they really knew they wouldnt be showing car ads on YT. Im sure you know of other untargetted ads that go no where.

          after all how does T tell you bought that car because you saw it on G or YT ?

          That is a big reason why businesses with tighter advertising budgets prefer online advertising - it is much easier to track engagement as opposed to traditional advertising. It's called performance-based advertising(en.wikipedia.org) and makes measuring campaign success a lot easier.
          I'm sure you've also seen the "Where did you hear about us"? question in forms.

          Most not to say nearly all people dont fill out those forms. Ive asked many people about these types of forms and NOBODY ever fills them in.

          they just assume phone books don't.
          Do you know many people who still use the Yellow Pages?

          Hang on, a few posts ago i could have sworn you said YP was (im paraphrasing) ineffective and advertisers have moved to the net because its more effective. If YP is not worthwhile, then those advertises dont have a clue which is what ive been saying all along.

          That's nothing new, but with online advertising, advertisers can know exactly how their ads are doing

          Except back to our cars on YT example, that simply is UNTRUE. Ive never heard of anyone ever buying a NEW CAR online because they saw a YT ad. You cant have it both ways…

          With some online advertising networks, as mentioned elsewhere in this post, advertisers can even know if their ad is visible on the screen, or scrolled up and hidden, amongst many other things.

          So what - that doesnt tell them if the user actually bought anything.

        • eug on 04/03/2016 - 09:12

          @ninetyNineCents:

          You give them far too much credit…

          I bet a large number of brands that you yourself buy is thanks to advertising.

          Ive asked many people about these types of forms and NOBODY ever fills them in.

          Once again, you're assuming your own "little world" is representative of the whole world. And that was only a small point - you missed my main point.

          If YP is not worthwhile, then those advertises dont have a clue which is what ive been saying all along.

          You seem to have missed my point. If YP isn't giving advertisers returns, they won't keep paying for it. They'll try something else that's give them returns. Nobody likes throwing money away.

          Except back to our cars on YT example, that simply is UNTRUE.

          Based on your own "little world". Don't forget that there's a much larger world out there.

          So what - that doesnt tell them if the user actually bought anything.

          Yes it can. It really looks like you haven't read anything about online advertising metrics, including that Whirlpool thread I linked to above.

        • ninetyNineCents on 04/03/2016 - 19:26

          @eug: \

          You give them far too much credit…
          I bet a large number of brands that you yourself buy is thanks to advertising.

          I was not talking about advertising i was referring to "web advertising".

          Ive asked many people about these types of forms and NOBODY ever fills them in.
          Once again, you're assuming your own "little world" is representative of the whole world. And that was only a small point - you missed my main point.

          My world is small but its real.

          So what - that doesnt tell them if the user actually bought anything.
          Yes it can. It really looks like you haven't read anything about online advertising metrics, including that Whirlpool thread I linked to above.

          So my world is too small and you use a post with a few people as your proof.

          Come on…

          Your entire last line hasnt got a single fact, its just bullshit jingo.

        • eug on 04/03/2016 - 21:42

          @ninetyNineCents:

          Here's a summary.

          This is what you've been saying:

          • You say all online advertising is ineffective, be it Google ads on webpages, or ads on YouTube. Advertisers are wasting their money as it is poor value.

          • You say advertisers are not able to tell how their ads are doing. In other words you are denying the existence of the biggest feature of Google's AdWords platform.

          • You do not agree that creating brand awareness (as opposed to an immediate sale) via online advertising is an effective marketing strategy.

          • Your evidence for all the above is that you don't know anyone who buys things based on online ads.

          This is what I think:

          • Online advertising is effective, otherwise the most valuable company in the world would not be very valuable.

          • Business owners do not like throwing money away. If an advertising medium isn't bringing in returns, they will not keep throwing money at it. Case in point - the rapid decline of the Yellow Pages. Meanwhile, Google has been raking in cash from advertising for the past 15 years.

          • The detailed data provided by Google's AdWords platform allows business owners to gauge how their ads are doing, enabling them to fine-tune their ads or marketing strategies. That was not possible with traditional forms of advertising.

          • The pay-per-click model along with the interactive nature of an online ad makes it more affordable and more attractive to many advertisers, as opposed to traditional passive forms of advertising like newspapers, magazines, and extremely expensive TV ads. That too was not possible with traditional forms of advertising.

          • My evidence for all the above are simply well-known facts. Google is the most valuable company in the world thanks to their ad business, Yellow Pages has gone down the drain, AdWords gives you plenty of data to fine-tune your ad campaign, and pay-per-click makes advertising more affordable.

          We can just leave that there so others can more easily decide which viewpoint is more accurate. It really doesn't bother me if you don't agree. :)

        • ninetyNineCents on 04/03/2016 - 22:08

          @eug:

          You say all online advertising is ineffective, be it Google ads on webpages, or ads on YouTube. Advertisers are wasting their money as it is poor value.

          yes

          You say advertisers are not able to tell how their ads are doing. In other words you are denying the existence of the biggest feature of Google's AdWords platform.

          Not in ALL cases but in many like stuff you dont buy online like cars - yes, which logically cant be tracked. Its just guesses at best.

          The detailed data provided by Google's AdWords platform allows business owners to gauge how their ads are doing, enabling them to fine-tune their ads or marketing strategies. That was not possible with traditional forms of advertising.

          Im not discussing if G is tracking or not, im just pointing out that MOST people (ill be greedy and say that) never CLICK G ads.

          Of course they are tracking, but that hardly matters if i find my way to whatever shop by myself without using their "suggestions". Half the time in my case G is already late, and as you know they only get paid if users click their links, not if they follow you.

          The pay-per-click model along with the interactive nature of an online ad makes it more affordable and more attractive to many advertisers, as opposed to traditional passive forms of advertising like newspapers, magazines, and extremely expensive TV ads. That too was not possible with traditional forms of advertising.

          Is this a lame copy paste from G ?

          Users dont (profanity) care how "smart" of "tracking" G is doing with regards to ads, because they are too late.

          My evidence for all the above are simply well-known facts. Google is the most valuable company in the world thanks to their ad business, Yellow Pages has gone down the drain, AdWords gives you plenty of data to fine-tune your ad campaign, and pay-per-click makes advertising more affordable.

          So what if htey are… it wasnt long ago Yahoo was worth 100+B as well, and that bullshit is ending.

          Your doing everything but actually presenting facts from real peop[le that internet advertising works.

          Look at clever Dick Smiths, ads everywhere including the internet - what good did it do them ?

        • eug on 04/03/2016 - 22:23

          @ninetyNineCents:

          So what if htey are… it wasnt long ago Yahoo was worth 100+B as well, and that bullshit is ending.

          It matters because we're talking about the advertising landscape now. Sure, in the future things can change and Google's profits can fall. But that's irrelevant as we're talking about advertising now.

          Users dont (profanity) care how "smart" of "tracking" G is doing with regards to ads, because they are too late.

          Is this purely your opinion, or did a number of business owners tell you that they're not concerned about the performance of their ads?

          Your doing everything but actually presenting facts from real peop[le that internet advertising works.

          I presented clear, irrefutable facts. Your entire argument is based on you not personally knowing anyone who clicks on ads.

          Look at clever Dick Smiths, ads everywhere including the internet - what good did it do them ?

          I'm sure a fantastic non-online advertising campaign would have solved Dick Smith's problems. It had absolutely nothing to do with how the management ran the company, right? I guess businesses who stick with traditional advertising have never failed the way DSE did.

      • SydStrand on 28/02/2016 - 12:41
        +1

        I doubt anyone buys a car because of a yt ad anymore than a TV commercial, but they've been running for decades so they must work. They not only provide promotional info (not everyone researches themselves), but they provide exposure and cultivate brand identity. No one will buy a car solely because of a commercial but they might tip someone over the fence or sway them from a competing brand.

        • ninetyNineCents on 29/02/2016 - 11:26
          +1

          Most of that I agree, but yt for example hardly shows a variety, that repeatedly show the same car until your sick of it. If anything it's a negative advertisement.

      • antzz on 29/02/2016 - 14:32

        I think in the world of advertising you tube advert represent a very good value. You do realize how much it cost to have TV ad or full blown newspaper print. For one campaign it will easily cosy hundreds of thousands of dollars per city and you have no ways to see if your advertising is successful or not except from the sales number

        Online advertising cost a fractions of that and in theory you will only pay for those interested with it. As a marketing department you get instant results of your campaign and direct feedback from those interested with it

        Youtube advert also provide much more flexibility of interaction compare to 30sec slot of advert in TV or newspaper.

        Many brand owner are still exploring the possibility of online advert and how best use their creativity differently than in traditional media but some successful one make use you tube and Google ads as complementary information instead of repeats of TV advert.

        For small company. You tube ads is a blessing as they are most certainly do not have budget for big tv ads or newspaper but still can reach similar demographic they need at much cheaper marketing investment value

        Regarding your point of impact on each impression of yt ads, it certainly relative to the Ads creativity and not the media it self.

        One thing is certain, if you are used to watch YouTube free and ads free, ofcourse you will hate looking at ads. Same thing with cable TV where before no or little of ads. Give it some time, and you will realize this ads are here to stay and you will not see it as negative advert anymore

        • ninetyNineCents on 29/02/2016 - 20:06

          everybody knows tv and newsprint costs a lot of money, but at the very least they don't print or show the exact same commercial page after page, ad break after ad break. G and yt are downright boring it's almost like they are trying to tire or beat your brains with a hammer to buy that whatever. Nobody likes someone yelling the same thing over and over again for a long period of time…like they do.

  • mskeggs on 26/02/2016 - 09:21

    Maybe Scotty might look at "on site" advertising in a space like the current announcement box. I'm not against relevant advertising if it isn't animated/audio, and I expect there would be local advertisers that would pay good money to reach the 50% of users with blockers.
    It is work though.

    • scotty on 26/02/2016 - 12:28
      +8

      The reason we use programmatic ad network exclusively is because I don't want to deal with the advertisers. Once there's direct business relationship we might not be unbiased toward paying retailers.

  • Tejas57 on 26/02/2016 - 11:25

    i see both sides of this as a student currently studying a bachelor of IT.
    i know that for most sites advertising is paying the bills. but i also know that as a web user i'm sick of obtrusive advertising that flashes, makes noise and all the other stuff they do to get attention. it also slows down my web surfing.

    i have an ad blocker installed and it has had a drastic effect on how fast pages load.

    in the end though, the advertisers brought this on themselves with the way they advertise to us

  • MementoMori on 26/02/2016 - 14:37
    +2

    If the ads weren't so obnoxious, people wouldn't try to find a way to block them.

  • Mumbles on 26/02/2016 - 15:49
    +2

    I hate ads with a passion. And I hate that the World Wide Web (WWW) has turned into a business and marketing tool.

    I can live with advertisements in free-to-air TV because there is no cost to me. The TV station pays to transmit the content into my home. ie. they pay for news journalists, presenters, producers, technical engineers, radio transmission equipment, etc.

    However, for internet it's totally different. Google and Yahoo do not pay for my broadband internet, mobile phone plan, the telephone line/cable, my ADSL modem, or journalists/presenters/engineers/etc.

    Instead Google and Yahoo make money off of what is created by others and/or Open Source.

    Before Google everything was free:

    • Google search engine = Altavista, Lycos, Webcrawler
    • Chrome web browser = Opera, Firefox, Internet Explorer
    • Android = Linux, Ubuntu

    If Google and Yahoo wish to complain about being a business then why don't they turn into a user pays model (ie. charge user subscription fees). "CompuServe" was huge before the World Wide Web. Guess where CompuServe is now.

    • scrimshaw on 26/02/2016 - 18:33
      +1

      Unlike Free to Air TV channels, Nobody owns the internet though, and to say that nobody should be putting ads on it is something akin to censorship, is it not?

      In any case, advertising is a neccessary evil we have to put up with. If Google didn't get fat and rich off advertising revenue, we wouldn't have a lot of technologies today that we consider 'free to use'.

      Gmail as a prime example is a free service we take for granted, so is the Android Open Source project. We wouldn't have Google Maps, Google Office or Google's social networking tools. That was all possible because Google had the funding to create these game-changing projects.

      • ninetyNineCents on 27/02/2016 - 22:36

        Google docs is paid for by the business accounts. Gmail is also probably paid for in part by business emails as well not a minority but probably a significant minority.

        • scotty on 27/02/2016 - 23:15
          +1

          Google is primarily an advertising company. Here's their 2015 Q4 earning call.

          • Advertising: $19.078 billion
          • Other: $2.1 billion

          "Other revenue" would include their Play Store, cloud service, etc… Oh and the Google Apps for Work customers, which I assume would be minuscule comparing to advertising.

        • ninetyNineCents on 27/02/2016 - 23:24
          -1

          @scotty:

          No argument about those numbers, but that hardly makes my observation about gmail n docs wrong does it ..?

        • eug on 28/02/2016 - 09:13

          @ninetyNineCents: Google would not exist without advertising. If Google didn't exist, gmail and docs would not exist.

          You were replying to scrimshaw's post saying Google Maps, Docs, etc only exists because Google made money from advertising. It doesn't matter how they're funded right now because they wouldn't be there in the first place if it wasn't for advertising.

        • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2016 - 11:18

          @eug:
          Life's not that simple. Google bought docs off a company called writely. I'm just trying to point out that docs and gmail pay for themselves, the
          Numbers from
          Advertising contribute to the profit.

        • eug on 28/02/2016 - 12:05

          @ninetyNineCents:

          Google bought docs off a company called writely.

          Where did they get the money from?

          I'm just trying to point out that docs and gmail pay for themselves

          My point is that Google would not exist without advertising. No Google means no Google Docs and GMail.

        • ninetyNineCents on 29/02/2016 - 11:27

          @eug:

          Maybe Google wouldn't exist but Wrigley (docs) would exist in some per form. We would all be using something other than gmail, mail isn't that complex, many other services existed before Google,

        • eug on 29/02/2016 - 11:52
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents: All these free services will only exist until VC funding runs out, unless they can monetise the service or get sold to a large company.

          "Free" platforms reach critical mass a lot more quickly than paid platforms, raising money for further development. Without ad-sponsored technology, progress would be much slower as people simply don't like paying much for things. That's why we're all here aren't we?

          Mail was crap before gmail. Hotmail and Yahoo was GMail before GMail came along. They both had 2MB mailbox limits. Shortly after GMail and its 1GB mailbox was announced they both raised their limits to a still-paltry 250MB and 100MB respectively. You had to pay a monthly fee to get POP3/IMAP access too.

        • ninetyNineCents on 29/02/2016 - 20:08

          @eug:

          There are many business models, advertising is the only one paying for docs or emails.

          Angel and vc also find a lot of crap, we haven't had alright progr ss in the web. Most of it is utter crap eg Twitter, Facebook, that's not progress that's for boring lonely people wi no life.

    • eug on 26/02/2016 - 20:02

      I can live with advertisements in free-to-air TV because there is no cost to me.
      However, for internet it's totally different. Google and Yahoo do not pay for my broadband internet, mobile phone plan

      Not really. A one hour TV program can have up to 15 minutes of ads at the moment. That means at least one quarter of the electricity used and wear-and-tear on your TV is taken up by ads. If your TV costs $100 a year to run, you're paying $25 a year for ads, and that doesn't count the ads between programs. Channel-flipping doesn't count as you're still paying to view what you don't want to view.

      If Google and Yahoo wish to complain about being a business then why don't they turn into a user pays model

      How much would you be willing to pay? You will have to pay for every single site on the internet that uses Google's AdSense platform. How many unique websites do you use in a month?

      How much would you pay a month to access OzBargain?
      Would OzBargain be where it is toady without ads?

      "CompuServe" was huge before the World Wide Web. Guess where CompuServe is now.

      Gone, probably because they followed a user-pays model.

  • YellowDieselGolf on 26/02/2016 - 16:05
    +3

    I've had an Internet connection for almost 20 years and I doubt I've deliberately clicked on an ad more than 20 times.

    I'm happy enough to see ads but they must take up less time and space than the content I'm there to see.

    I also find the personalised ads creepy. I google the word toaster and then get toaster ads for the next month. Ugh! I can make up my own mind thank you.

  • Associatedelektrobargain @ Google on 26/02/2016 - 17:44
    +1

    As much as everyone (myself included) hate advertising, in reality the vast majority of the internet is funded by advertising. Think about what the internet would be like without:

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Google Search
    • Ozbargain!
    • Non-firewalled news sites
    • Slashdot, Reddit, Lifehacker, Gizmodo etc.. etc..

    These sites exist primarily because of advertising, or because venture capital has invested money in the hope of future returns (most likely from advertising).

    Without a free "payment" model (ie advertising), none of these sites would exist. And as much as we all like to bag out Facebook etc.. it would really suck if 90% of the internet that we know of disappeared in the next few years.

    In the past ad blocking hasn't been a big problem, because only a small percentage of users had ad blockers. But in the last year it has skyrocketed and continues to do so. Most websites will not be viable in a year or two if this continues.

    Having said all of this, I use an ad blocker. Not because of plain image ads, but because of all the popup, pop-over, video, flash, and generally annoying deceptive and dangerous ads out there. I would be perfectly happy to see standard non-intrusive image or text ads.

    At the end of the day rather than a "f… you advertisers" approach, I think we really need a proper middle ground for the advertising networks (and main ad blockers) to agree on. Otherwise this great thing called the free internet will not exist in a few years time.

    That's my 2c anyway!

    Declaration: I have some small websites myself which are free and are supported by Google ads.

    • Mumbles on 26/02/2016 - 18:55

      Unfortunately there will never be any agreement. Internet advertisers are an unregulated industry.

      TV advertising has been a self regulated industry for years. Yet every year there are always complaints. eg. volume too loud, sexually explicit, displays social rewards for alcohol consumption, aired during childrens programming, etc. That's an industry with only 5 TV stations, imagine how many complaints would be received due to 1 billion web channels/sites.

      Internet web browsers are very dumb. There isn't a simple solution for the browsers to distinguish whether a pop up screen is advertising or content related.

      The talent of the programmer is also very variable. I hate internet advertisements that eat lots of computer resources or result in memory leaks.

      My pet peeve is advertisements that automatically start playing audio. When I hear audio I will instantly kill the browser tab and refuse to go back to the website.

      • scotty on 26/02/2016 - 23:52

        Internet advertisement itself is certainly trying to move to be more regulated. Acceptable Ads for example — pushed by the main adblockers. IAB themselves also have LEAN ads. Those appear to be on the right direction.

        However there are always bad actors out there. Publishers can also be lured by dodgy products / advertisement solutions that promise good revenue. They should most definitely be purged from the Internet. However adblockers are blunt tools that kill off both the regulated and the bad.

    • wannagrababargain on 27/02/2016 - 19:54
      +2

      I could live without everything on your list..including Ozbargain =/ I was on the Internet before all of those things and it was useful enough for me to warrant spending time and money using it.

      • eug on 28/02/2016 - 08:46

        I could live without everything on your list..including Ozbargain =/

        Prove it. ;)

  • nanonoise on 26/02/2016 - 19:25
    +1

    Once bitten…..

    The proliferation of malvertising tipped the balance way too far unfortunately. It will take a lot to undo that damage and regain trust.

    • scrimshaw on 26/02/2016 - 21:18
      +2

      Don't you just love the fake download buttons spread all over some legitimate download sites?

      Example CNET. See how many fakes you can spot in the picture that downloads malware to your PC.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join