Ad-blockers ‘must face consequences’ from publishers, insists UK media executive
Publishers should take a harder line with ad-blockers and warn readers that their refusal to watch or see adverts risks damaging businesses, a global media gathering has been told.
Piers North, strategy director at UK firm Trinity Mirror, insisted there should be “consequences” for those who activate ad-blocking technology.
He urged publishers to take a more forthright approach and to value the content their journalists produce.
In many cases, the “value exchange” – readers being exposed to adverts in exchange for having access to a quality journalistic product – will be understood by ad-blockers, he said.
But North, speaking at the International News Media Association (INMA) congress in London, also warned the industry not to “panic” about ad-blocking, arguing that while it is an important issue that needs addressing, there are more pressing challenges.
“The idea that we are facing a catastrophe is overblown,” he said after claiming less than 2% of Trinity Mirror’s inventory is affected.
“It’s a good warning shot for our businesses but we should not over-panic. There are lots of challenges that we face and if we could get rid of them all ad-blocking would not be at the top.”
The remarks support those made earlier this year by Australian media agency executives who warned the impact of ad-blocking was being overstated in the local market.
The first thing media firms should do is “tough it out” and take the battle to ad-blockers, North said.
Consumers must understand there are consequences for their actions – just as there is for stealing a car.
“If consumers are not willing to pay then there has to be a way of funding content and ads have to be part of it,” he told delegates. “Users need to understand that fact. Ad-blockers block because they can, and there is no consequence for a user to ad-block right now.
“If there are no consequences to stealing a car we’d probably do it. But there is a moral and legal framework that prevents us from doing so.
“The reality is that you have to create some consequences for users. We have to explain to them that there needs to be a value exchange. We do need to tough it out and be confident.”
In the UK, Trinity Mirror, which publishes the Daily Mirror, Daily Record and a host of regional dailies, still attracts millions of visits even though consumers can visit the BBC for “an ad-free experience”, he said.
“You can visit the BBC and never see an ad in your life but people still choose to come to us,” North explained. “We need to understand that the stuff we do is valued by users rather than constantly thinking the world is against us.
“If you tell people about that value exchange, if you remind them they have an ad-blocker and that there is a transferable value, you will get rewarded. We need to be confident and take steps to remind users that what they doing has a detrimental effect on business.”
North’s comments followed those of Johnny Ryan, head of ecosystem at technology firm PageFair, who also stressed the problem was not as acute as often portrayed.
He likened the increasing numbers of ad-blockers to climate change – slow and steady.
“You can get some scary figures about the growth of ad-blocking and it can look terrifying. But when you plot the trend line, it’s not growing exponentially,” he said.
“This is not the apocalypse. I don’t want to minimise how important it is, but it’s been over dramatised.”
He laid the blame for ad-blocking squarely at the door of publishers who, because of their “desperate need” for revenue, allowed advertisers to “run utterly and rampantly amok”.
The result was a “shouting match” between advertisers which created a poor experience for consumers who also felt brands were “snooping” on them.
“The goodwill from the audience declined,” he said.
North admitted publishers must be critical of themselves as many, the Trinity Mirror included, “pushed the boundaries quite far”.
It was up to the industry to “get its house in order” even if that meant turning away some revenue “which I know is very hard to do”, he said.
Pre-digital ads were benign. Online ads pose a significant security and privacy risk.
Ad-blockers are essential online survival tools.
User ID not verified.
Also, ad blockers are the technology that block ads, not the people who use them.
User ID not verified.
im a wifi phone user as i have no broadband it cost $10 a gig
for me to use advert are stealing from me
User ID not verified.
Using an ad blocker is the moral equivalent of stealing a car!!!!…?????
Sheesh!
Bit OTT.
User ID not verified.
Advertisers and Publishers act like they own the internet. There should be consequences for tracking people. I suggest it be a felony with prison time. Advertisers don’t have the right to track me as I traverse the web. They don’t have the right to plant scripts on my computer to do so. Advertisers don’t have the right to use my bandwidth to shove their product in my face. Secondly, advertisers are careless and reckless in pushing ads which risk my exposure to malware. I use a blocker, several actually, to block tracking and to minimize risk from malvertising, and to prevent my bandwidth from being used without my permission.
Please please please put up paywalls for the sites that you advertise on where you demand we view your ads. My blockers won’t be coming down. No site is worth visiting that demands I view ads. I think the web, i.e., internet would be a much better and interesting place if they got rid of all advertising. I have not once since the internet became “live” where I have clicked on an ad. I don’t trust where those ads really go. When I go shopping I never go via an ad, but directly to sites I know, trust, and usually to whom I’ve done business with before.
So quit with the threats and the whining advertisers. Put up the paywalls and treat your websites like magazines where you subscribe FIRST to see content (and ads). If I were to subscribe to a site, I would hope my subscription alone would give me an ad-free experience. With that said, I probably wouldn’t pay more than .99 cents for a year subscription to any site on the internet. The nickel and diming on each site subscribed to would eventually bleed one to death. So you better keeps subscription prices low and plan to get “rich” on volume.
User ID not verified.
I turned off my adblocker for mumbrella a few weeks ago. I did it because it provides useful content to me for free and that deserves paying for. I’d actually much rather subscribe and not have to view the distracting ads. Take this page for example. At the time of writing this comment there are two very irritating flashing in-my-face ads for realestate.com.au and MCN realestate.com.au and MCN. I am not interested in either and they make the content difficult to read. So, as an experiment, I switched the ad blocker back in and reloaded the page: made a huge difference to readability. There is real temptation to keep the ad blocker switched on. Bit of a dilemma that don’t you think? And not one for me as a consumer to solve. But the industry should solve it if it is to prosper. Generally I turn off my the ad blocker if I am reading quality content and if the advertising isn’t distracting and irritating. I clicked on a LinkedIn content link the other day that took me to the Forbes sit. It very politely asked me to turn off my adblocker in return for access for a month. It then thanked me for doing so. That’s the way to do it. Not to threaten the consumer or wring our hands about adblockers. Provide real value and don’t treat people like idiots.
User ID not verified.
I know when a contract can be enforced and cannot be enforced. In reference to ad-blockers, the end user has the determining right if they want ads or not, it is their system. Additionally, Eyeo who makes Ad Block Plus was in court again and won as expected . Excerpt “ The judge said it is perfectly legal for people to install ad-blockers in their browsers as publishers have no contracts with their readers that insist they have to look at the ads.” And this is 100% accurate – if a contract does not exist between the site and the user the no ads can be enforced or pushed without consent. Full article here: http://fortune.com/2016/03/30/.....eddeutsche
Additionally, The ‘implied contract’ theory that we’ve agreed to view ads in exchange for free content is void because we can’t review the terms first — as soon as we follow a link, our browsers load, execute, transfer, and track everything embedded by the publisher. Our data, battery life, time, and privacy are taken by a blank check with no recourse.” Every time you visit a website with an ad, it’s an implied contract, but since you cannot view all the terms it’s void and cannot be enforced. However under contract law, the only valid contracts are those signed in ink and both parties. Something you cannot do online, and these “bluff statements” like “by continuing to use this site you agree or our terms and conditions” are not legal either.
User ID not verified.
lost all credibility at mention of the pseudo scientific fraud that is climate change
User ID not verified.