Google’s ad blocking changes herald a positive new era for publishers and advertisers
Despite Google’s new ad blocker spawning endless think pieces spelling doom for the digital publishing industry, Bonzai’s Rupert Pay argues that the changes are actually a good thing.
We all know bad ads slow down websites, annoy users and drive them to install ad blockers that remove all ads. And on February 15 2018, Google will introduce a new ad blocker to Chrome to cut down on spammy or intrusive advertisements.
But what does it really mean for advertisers and publishers?
How did we get here?
The move was instigated by the Coalition for Better Ads, following an inquiry that identified which consumer ad experiences ranked lowest across a range of user experience factors – and that correlated with an increased propensity for consumers to adopt ad blockers.
The irony is that I couldn’t even finish reading this article because of the aggressive flashing Retail Marketing Summit ad.
Hi Penny,
Thanks for your comment. You’re touching on the flip side of the coin there. I couldn’t see this ad you’re referring to at the time of replying to this, but intrusive and unimaginative creative is clearly the other challenge we face, and not mutually exclusive. Generally speaking, I still feel that creative agencies have a long way to come to reflect current consumer media habits, particularly around mobile. In a way, I’d like to think that what Google and initiatives like betterads.org are doing for formats, are the same as what we’re doing for the canvas where the ads are built. We firmly believe in maximising the creative potential for our users.
Rupert
Neither could I. It was a perfect example of why ad blockers had a huge take-up rate practically overnight. The fact that Google is getting on board with ad blocking only confirms how unwilling people are to see them.
I suspect people will keep going with more rigorous ad-blocker’s than the Chrome one. By the sounds of it, Google’s new ad-blocker is far too permissive – e.g. blocking only auto-play videos only if the sound is on (Just because it doesn’t have audio – doesn’t mean it hasn’t just used all of someone’s mobile data), no mention of blocking the borderline softcore porn on most websites etc.
So basically readers will keep using the undetectable and stronger ad-blockers.
This is looking at the problem from the wrong direction. You need to make the ads something that doesn’t infuriate users. Trying to get the blocking software to suit publishers better is like trying to combat climate change with better air-conditioning.
If the solution doesn’t address the problem…..shockingly the problem doesn’t go away.
Hi line,
Thanks for this, although I don’t agree that it’s too permissive. As I stated about, nobody should unilaterally have the right to say what’s ok or not. Ultimately, the publisher will lose out if they don’t improve their UX, so the primary responsibility does reside with them in our view, assisted by businesses like ours. They also have the ability to ‘quality control’ in-house built ad creative (in reference to the above point), but would they push back on creative agency supplied ads (as Penny has described), which could mean losing out on hard fought revenue. That becomes a difficult choice. What is for sure, is that there isn’t one single problem. There are a few that we are all collectively responsible for fixing.
Rupert
Thanks for getting back. I think the statement that nobody should unilaterally determine acceptability and its a perfectly reasonable position to take – however – in practice the audience decides. Giving just auto-play ads as an example, its clear that the audience decided its not acceptable hence the dramatic jump in ad-blockers on mobile. Maybe the audience shouldn’t have the right to decide in theory, but they do in practice.
Choosing to block some but not all auto-play is something which sounds reasonable/middle of the road, but in reality simply won’t cut it for audiences that don’t want any auto play (i.e. all audiences). There is no reason for web users to stick with just a half-measure ad-blocker when there are better options out there.