Further thoughts on Ad-blocking

part 2

Ad blocking on iOS is a wake-up call to the ad ecosystem and the publishing ecosystem.

Ad blockers are paid, not free.

One point has not been stressed enough in this debate. Unlike desktop browsers, (most) Ad blockers are paid on iOS (and they keep coming).

For the first time *ever* consumers have to pay to get ad blocking service working (on their smartphone). This is a very important paradigm change showing how much users really want this. Maybe this is also what has spiked this debate to a new high because for the first time you could see clearly that ad blockers are not just taking money away from content owners, they are also making money. More than some of them even.

I wonder if Apple will even take a step further and feature some of those apps. After all this is one of the new innovation of iOS9 and they like to feature apps who leverage the OS capacity. Let’s monitor.

Ad-blocker core issue: On by default

The main argument for justifying the necessity of ad blocking is that it allows users to remove abuses from ad network and publishers who overload their site with crapware and crap ads.

The problem is that once an ad blocker is on there is no room for second thoughts. Everything gets blocked. And i don’t expect consumers to whitelist actively content owners once ad blockers are on. Because, you know, it’s easy

I had the problem this morning with an article of 9to5mac where a youtube video was blocked (probably because it had a pre roll ad or something). On the other side it had a crap ad once i whitelisted the site (see above). This made me realize that once an ad blocker is on, everything get swallowed up. You have no second chance. (and save me the part with the whitelisting this, which i suspect no one does)

Ad blockers mechanism is flawed at the core: it’s on at the core and basically says “every ad and tracker” is bad. “Oh, but don t worry you can “control” that. Of course, that rarely happens.

Ad blockers have a systemic/systematic approach to the problem they want to solve. And *that* is what is so wrong about it.

There is nothing wrong in getting rid of crapware. But to use that reason to get rid of everything is just WRONG.

An ad-blocker but for Publishers

I have been working with hundreds of publishers. It’s pretty amazing how most of them have zero idea of what ads are running on their site. For a simple reason: it is not possible to monitor it (except for ads you sell directly, and even in that case only the sales team would know). Publishers are as blind as users on their site. At least the editorial/ UX people part of the publishers.

Can it be fixed? Not with the current tools. Every ad network has an “exclude” option to remove some advertisers or categories. But those tools are cumbersome and rarely useful in addition to be limited

A real game changer though would be to enable key people in a publisher team in charge or editorial and policy to block bad ads. An ad blocker for publishers only: but it would not block the ad right away. What it would do: it would mutualize signals from hundreds of publishers back to the ad network to delist some advertisers. That would be incredibly powerful

Was Peace issue the product or the success?

What if peace was only moderately successful? would that have changed Marco Arment position? Or is the excess of success what triggered the decision? If the real problem what the principle of ad blocking as an “all or nothing at all” approach then it should not have been launched in the first place. Right? Marco could have changed his mind before launching the product because he knew about the lack of “control” and exceptions.

Why did he still decide to launch it? Probably because he hates ads more than he loved his product.