The ad networks that aren't Google aren't going to be happy. They may admit that this could reduce the use of full ad blockers but they're going to loathe that they had no say. Plus, these experiences were shitty for the user but they must have worked.
From a publisher point of view, on the one hand, this is likely to bring reduced revenue from the folks who don't use ad blockers, that will be bad for the publishers. On the other hand, there's the hope that users will stop installing ad blockers and revenue should finally stabilise somewhat. Like the ad networks, I think many publishers will be upset about not having a choice.
And finally, from a user perspective, this doesn't go far enough. Many users will install ad blockers to get rid of the ads on YouTube alone and there are a ton of other unacceptable ad formats that the "Better Ads Standards" don't cover (like animated ads, small sticky ads, ads that look like download buttons).
It seems to me like Google's desperately trying to plug the leak on a sinking boat with a straw. It might mitigate things for a while but it won't do anything to solve the actual problem.
> but they're going to loathe that they had no say.
They had a say. They could have responded to the race to the bottom state of ad display tech. They could have recognized that they were in a tragedy of the commons and formed a coalition for better ads.
They didn't. They continued the race to the bottom.
Each day they continued to push awful ads that harmed the user they were voicing their opinion.
> And finally, from a user perspective, this doesn't go far enough. Many users will install ad blockers to get rid of the ads on YouTube alone and there are a ton of other unacceptable ad formats that the "Better Ads Standards" don't cover (like animated ads, small sticky ads, ads that look like download buttons).
There were many years when adblockers were readily available but not extremely widespread. The typical user has to hit a fairly high irritation threshold before seeking a technical solution to this kind of thing; I think the rise of adblockers is a direct response to ads getting catastrophically worse. If that can be dialed back a bit and stop the race to the bottom, it may help at least a bit.
>Plus, these experiences were shitty for the user but they must have worked
I spent years as a data scientist in the online display advertising space, and I was shocked at how much of a disconnect there was between advertiser ROI and clicks/impressions/whatever metric is being sold to the advertiser. There are very few parties whose best interests involved clearing up that connection. I heard one story of an ad executive getting fired for introducing A/B testing to their advertisers and proving the negative ROI.
Big flashy ads certainly improve clicks, but it's not clear if they make a customer want to buy a product.
>Many users will install ad blockers to get rid of the ads on YouTube alone
This is the interesting part to me. I'm not completely sold that Google's idea of what ads are "the worst" is really true.
Without an ad blocker, I can dismiss irritating popups in a second. But I have to wait for YouTube ads.
I also suspect many people are unaware which things in a Google search result are ads. While the ads Google is calling out are irritating, they are at least obviously ads, and thus...less misleading.
So I don't think that less ad blockers means higher revenue. Do you believe that the people who go through the effort of installing ad blockers would actually click on ads if the ad blockers were disabled?
> The ad networks that aren't Google aren't going to be happy.
Does it matter at all to Google if other ad networks are happy? I don't see any way this could not "go down well" for Google, I don't know about the other folks though, who knows.
IMO, this is begging for an anti-trust lawsuit. Google, the largest advertiser on the web, building web browsers that block other networks ads. I believe they're going through with it now partially because they don't expect an active anti-trust presence from the trump admin.
The biggest ad company in the world gets to decide what is and isn't acceptable for an ad and actively censor it in the most popular browser in the world? It's funny how some things turn out in the long run. I don't see the situation getting better anytime soon. At this point, Chrome is the new IE6: whatever they choose becomes standard because of their huge market share. Ho well, at least it doesn't break all of my sites.
I'd rather someone implement a tipping API where I can allocate money per website per minute (or hour spent). When the money runs out, depending on the configuration, the website can choose to serve me the page or ask me to reload (on money for the website)
They get small amounts of micro transactions (I'm talking less than a cent) and I change my behavior to stop going to useless sites.
everyone wins!
personally, I believe ads are a disease. if your website isn't worth paying a penny to go to for an hour, then just shut down. a penny an hour could be very sustainable for plenty of sites. take some random forum: 15,000 thousand users per month, let's say the average user goes on for an hour a day, or 30 hours a month. 450,000 cents is about 5 thousand a month. not too shabby. if your website is that awesome up the price to 10 cents and increase your money an order of magnitude.
the problem is the culture of "free", unfortunately.
The entire advertising market worldwide is $600 billion, which works out to roughly $600 per man, woman, and child among the 1 billion inhabitants of the US, EU, Japan, CA, AU, and NZ. (Or OECD states, if you prefer, or G-7.)
Total media spend (print) is on the order of $200/year. Cable + broadband on the order of $1500 - $3000 per year (content and connectivity).
Seems to me there's some streamlining potential possible.
Charging money isn't a great solution as it's too complicated and fee-ridden to be of value to low income users.
P2P CDNs are one solution, but they aren't perfect either. They may be a lot easier to adopt than monetary roadblocks though.
In the future, a combination of mandatory P2P CDN participation and a monetary P2P CDN opt-out fee may be the best compromise. No ads, and everyone is actually helping host the website (be it through their own personal bandwidth and storage or through monetary means).
Assume that one person works full time on it. $5,000 a month is $60,000 a year. Subtract hosting costs and it's a relatively low income for one person who has the skills necessary to build and administer such a web site.
> I change my behavior to stop going to useless sites.
But how would you know if a site is useless or not unless you visit it and read its content? So you will be paying to view a site that you have never seen before, this will limit discoverability of new sites imo
If you pay a small amount for each page load, then you start censoring many of your clicks. Also, websites would do any shady thing to keep you longer. Money are a large influence on everyone's behavior.
This is sad. When you follow the link they provide for the Better Ads Standard there is a link to the coalition's privacy policy at the bottom of the page which says clear as day that third parties such as social networks are monitoring your use of the site to facilitate "interest based advertising". That says it all, they want ads to be more palatable so them and their accomplices can track your every digital move. This will make Creepy Google tons of money by selling out their most precious resource while they continue to build skynet.
Am I so very cynical, that I assume that Google Ads will be assumed by default to comply with these standards? And that therefore, those using Google Ads to advertise will have their ads shown 100% of the time, while the exact same ad served on the same page, but via a different ad network, might not be shown?
A few years ago, Chrome decided not to add a "mute tab" option, explaining, "After much debate, we decided not to proceed with a tab mute control, as this crosses a very important line: If we provide Chrome controls for content, we’re implying that Chrome should take on a responsibility to police content."[1]
It appears their opinion has changed. Of course, it's likely due to financial reasons[2].
That said, Chrome has blocked pop-ups forever... and I think I agree with this decision, as it will help both Google and content owners. I don't think most people won't install ad blockers if ads aren't obnoxious.
None of this solves the fundamental problem with ad-centered revenue models, which is that advertising has driven down the quality of content by forcing sites to optimize for cheap clicks. Even if you're blocking ads, you're still being affected by them, because they're driving the strategies of the sites you visit and defining the metrics by which they judge their own success.
Don't get me wrong; this is an improvement, and a welcome one in my opinion. Pre-stitials in particular were never anything more than a slimy way to get around pop-up blockers. But ultimately the internet needs a new way to make money. I don't claim to know what that is, unfortunately, but I think the problem is clear.
My parents don't realise that when they click on the top link of a google search result, they are clicking on an ad. I'd guess that many many other people don't realise this either.
That would seem to categorise these adverts as deceptive, right? So, when will Google be blocking these adverts?
Eh, I'm using adblockers forever. There is zero content that I absolutely can't live without. I miss the "old" days when folks were publishing sites for the love of what they were doing.
> But the reality is, it’s far too common that people encounter annoying, intrusive ads on the web--like the kind that blare music unexpectedly, or force you to wait 10 seconds before you can see the content on the page.
I can't help but point out the irony that sound-playing, (mostly) unskippable ads precisely describes Youtube, before you can see the (video) content.
"The new Ad Experience Report helps publishers understand how the Better Ads Standards apply to their own websites."
Only Google could put something that forces all websites to A) use this tool and B) comply with this tool, or else, as a "helpful tool for publishers".
When you have a 70%+ market share (Chrome Desktop and Android browsers) you leave websites with ads no choice but to do what you want, how you want, and hope for the best.
If you've looked at the tool, you realize it's going to work just like Mobility reporting and Safe Browsing. Google will tell you there's a problem and take action. In this case, the action is to cut your revenue. I'm sure there will be a hotline to call if it makes a mistake though.... (that's a joke)
Way ahead of you: "With Funding Choices, now in beta, publishers can show a customized message to visitors using an ad blocker, inviting them to either enable ads on their site, or pay for a pass that removes all ads on that site through the new Google Contributor."
It's buried a bit, but the most noticeable change is arguably that Google is productizing blocking ad blockers. From the release:
"As part of our efforts to maintain a sustainable web for everyone, we want to help publishers with good ad experiences get paid for their work. With Funding Choices, now in beta, publishers can show a customized message to visitors using an ad blocker, inviting them to either enable ads on their site, or pay for a pass that removes all ads on that site through the new Google Contributor."
Compromise: an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
If any one side were perfectly happy with this solution, it would probably mean it's not a very good solution. Of course the ad networks don't want to have to follow any standards. Of course the content producers that are making good money with ads that may fall foul of this don't want anything to change that might reduce their revenue. Of course users would rather get rid of all ads. None of that is realistic or sustainable. If advertising doesn't get its act together, ad blocking will increase even more over the large year-over-year increases it's already seeing[1], and at some point content producers will find they aren't making enough money anymore to sustain that advertising model because nobody is seeing their ads, and it will all come crashing down.
Would another model rise up in its place? Sure. Would that be any comfort to the people that ended up having to get a different job because what they were doing was no longer sustainable and no new model can take over instantaneously? Doubtful.
Whatever you want the eventual model to be, the only way forward that doesn't strangle the market while it's happening includes everyone involved taking responsibility for their part. And this definitely includes the consumers. Your "I can do whatever I want to bits delivered to me / I have no responsibility to watch the advertising expected to fund the content I'm consuming" arguments never really held up anyway, and they definitely don't if the other side gets its act together.
Privacy concerns are still valid, but ad blockers never actually fixed that, they just added an extra level of complexity to the equation. Use facebook? Guess what facebook probably knows about every site you've visited that has a like button while your facebook session is still active. Your only hope is legislation, and you'll be lucky not to get a raw deal out of that, and your only hope of a good outcome there is awareness and activism. Acting like your ad-blocker actually helps all that much is just sticking your head in the sand when that's the next real fight for online rights.
[+] [-] Veratyr|8 years ago|reply
The ad networks that aren't Google aren't going to be happy. They may admit that this could reduce the use of full ad blockers but they're going to loathe that they had no say. Plus, these experiences were shitty for the user but they must have worked.
From a publisher point of view, on the one hand, this is likely to bring reduced revenue from the folks who don't use ad blockers, that will be bad for the publishers. On the other hand, there's the hope that users will stop installing ad blockers and revenue should finally stabilise somewhat. Like the ad networks, I think many publishers will be upset about not having a choice.
And finally, from a user perspective, this doesn't go far enough. Many users will install ad blockers to get rid of the ads on YouTube alone and there are a ton of other unacceptable ad formats that the "Better Ads Standards" don't cover (like animated ads, small sticky ads, ads that look like download buttons).
It seems to me like Google's desperately trying to plug the leak on a sinking boat with a straw. It might mitigate things for a while but it won't do anything to solve the actual problem.
[+] [-] ncallaway|8 years ago|reply
They had a say. They could have responded to the race to the bottom state of ad display tech. They could have recognized that they were in a tragedy of the commons and formed a coalition for better ads.
They didn't. They continued the race to the bottom.
Each day they continued to push awful ads that harmed the user they were voicing their opinion.
I agree with the rest of your comments, though...
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|8 years ago|reply
There were many years when adblockers were readily available but not extremely widespread. The typical user has to hit a fairly high irritation threshold before seeking a technical solution to this kind of thing; I think the rise of adblockers is a direct response to ads getting catastrophically worse. If that can be dialed back a bit and stop the race to the bottom, it may help at least a bit.
[+] [-] rm999|8 years ago|reply
I spent years as a data scientist in the online display advertising space, and I was shocked at how much of a disconnect there was between advertiser ROI and clicks/impressions/whatever metric is being sold to the advertiser. There are very few parties whose best interests involved clearing up that connection. I heard one story of an ad executive getting fired for introducing A/B testing to their advertisers and proving the negative ROI.
Big flashy ads certainly improve clicks, but it's not clear if they make a customer want to buy a product.
[+] [-] wernercd|8 years ago|reply
This. #1 reason for adblocking? Security. Fewer ads does mean fewer chances of malware... but it's still an attack vector.
Obligatory: Forbes proves the need for adblockers by blocking the ad blocker and serving pop under adware.
http://www.networkworld.com/article/3021113/security/forbes-...
[+] [-] tyingq|8 years ago|reply
This is the interesting part to me. I'm not completely sold that Google's idea of what ads are "the worst" is really true.
Without an ad blocker, I can dismiss irritating popups in a second. But I have to wait for YouTube ads.
I also suspect many people are unaware which things in a Google search result are ads. While the ads Google is calling out are irritating, they are at least obviously ads, and thus...less misleading.
[+] [-] IgorPartola|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skybrian|8 years ago|reply
https://www.betterads.org/members/
[+] [-] microcolonel|8 years ago|reply
Does it matter at all to Google if other ad networks are happy? I don't see any way this could not "go down well" for Google, I don't know about the other folks though, who knows.
[+] [-] tmh79|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swyman|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hamstercat|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _m8fo|8 years ago|reply
They get small amounts of micro transactions (I'm talking less than a cent) and I change my behavior to stop going to useless sites.
everyone wins!
personally, I believe ads are a disease. if your website isn't worth paying a penny to go to for an hour, then just shut down. a penny an hour could be very sustainable for plenty of sites. take some random forum: 15,000 thousand users per month, let's say the average user goes on for an hour a day, or 30 hours a month. 450,000 cents is about 5 thousand a month. not too shabby. if your website is that awesome up the price to 10 cents and increase your money an order of magnitude.
the problem is the culture of "free", unfortunately.
[+] [-] yohui|8 years ago|reply
https://contributor.google.com
Discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14467702
[+] [-] dredmorbius|8 years ago|reply
Pay those who create it.
Allow free access to public information.
The entire advertising market worldwide is $600 billion, which works out to roughly $600 per man, woman, and child among the 1 billion inhabitants of the US, EU, Japan, CA, AU, and NZ. (Or OECD states, if you prefer, or G-7.)
Total media spend (print) is on the order of $200/year. Cable + broadband on the order of $1500 - $3000 per year (content and connectivity).
Seems to me there's some streamlining potential possible.
Piecework is actually a tremendous distraction.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modes...
[+] [-] Sephr|8 years ago|reply
P2P CDNs are one solution, but they aren't perfect either. They may be a lot easier to adopt than monetary roadblocks though.
In the future, a combination of mandatory P2P CDN participation and a monetary P2P CDN opt-out fee may be the best compromise. No ads, and everyone is actually helping host the website (be it through their own personal bandwidth and storage or through monetary means).
[+] [-] bastawhiz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ShannonAlther|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Safety1stClyde|8 years ago|reply
Assume that one person works full time on it. $5,000 a month is $60,000 a year. Subtract hosting costs and it's a relatively low income for one person who has the skills necessary to build and administer such a web site.
> not too shabby
It is actually a little shabby.
[+] [-] usaphp|8 years ago|reply
But how would you know if a site is useless or not unless you visit it and read its content? So you will be paying to view a site that you have never seen before, this will limit discoverability of new sites imo
[+] [-] visarga|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] igobyterry|8 years ago|reply
https://brave.com/publishers.html
[+] [-] kakarot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilovetux|8 years ago|reply
Whatever happened to "Don't be evil"?
[+] [-] patrickg_zill|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tuna-piano|8 years ago|reply
It appears their opinion has changed. Of course, it's likely due to financial reasons[2].
That said, Chrome has blocked pop-ups forever... and I think I agree with this decision, as it will help both Google and content owners. I don't think most people won't install ad blockers if ads aren't obnoxious.
[1]https://thenextweb.com/google/2014/02/11/google-explains-won...
[2]http://www.businessinsider.com/pagefair-2017-ad-blocking-rep...
[+] [-] yohui|8 years ago|reply
EDIT: Found an article: https://venturebeat.com/2015/10/20/you-can-now-mute-tabs-in-...
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ams6110|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clock_tower|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danaliv|8 years ago|reply
Don't get me wrong; this is an improvement, and a welcome one in my opinion. Pre-stitials in particular were never anything more than a slimy way to get around pop-up blockers. But ultimately the internet needs a new way to make money. I don't claim to know what that is, unfortunately, but I think the problem is clear.
[+] [-] joosters|8 years ago|reply
That would seem to categorise these adverts as deceptive, right? So, when will Google be blocking these adverts?
[+] [-] watertorock|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GhotiFish|8 years ago|reply
I assume it was also attempting to deliver some kind of payload as well, because the browser crashed on that page.
There is no way an advertising standard in which google was a part of laying the ground rules could be considered a "Better Ad".
[+] [-] RUG3Y|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Method-X|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] git_rancher|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ProfessorLayton|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ipsum2|8 years ago|reply
I can't help but point out the irony that sound-playing, (mostly) unskippable ads precisely describes Youtube, before you can see the (video) content.
[+] [-] kinkrtyavimoodh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redm|8 years ago|reply
Only Google could put something that forces all websites to A) use this tool and B) comply with this tool, or else, as a "helpful tool for publishers".
When you have a 70%+ market share (Chrome Desktop and Android browsers) you leave websites with ads no choice but to do what you want, how you want, and hope for the best.
If you've looked at the tool, you realize it's going to work just like Mobility reporting and Safe Browsing. Google will tell you there's a problem and take action. In this case, the action is to cut your revenue. I'm sure there will be a hotline to call if it makes a mistake though.... (that's a joke)
Shame on you Google.
[+] [-] deprave|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wmf|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobajeff|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] troydavis|8 years ago|reply
"As part of our efforts to maintain a sustainable web for everyone, we want to help publishers with good ad experiences get paid for their work. With Funding Choices, now in beta, publishers can show a customized message to visitors using an ad blocker, inviting them to either enable ads on their site, or pay for a pass that removes all ads on that site through the new Google Contributor."
[+] [-] kbenson|8 years ago|reply
If any one side were perfectly happy with this solution, it would probably mean it's not a very good solution. Of course the ad networks don't want to have to follow any standards. Of course the content producers that are making good money with ads that may fall foul of this don't want anything to change that might reduce their revenue. Of course users would rather get rid of all ads. None of that is realistic or sustainable. If advertising doesn't get its act together, ad blocking will increase even more over the large year-over-year increases it's already seeing[1], and at some point content producers will find they aren't making enough money anymore to sustain that advertising model because nobody is seeing their ads, and it will all come crashing down.
Would another model rise up in its place? Sure. Would that be any comfort to the people that ended up having to get a different job because what they were doing was no longer sustainable and no new model can take over instantaneously? Doubtful.
Whatever you want the eventual model to be, the only way forward that doesn't strangle the market while it's happening includes everyone involved taking responsibility for their part. And this definitely includes the consumers. Your "I can do whatever I want to bits delivered to me / I have no responsibility to watch the advertising expected to fund the content I'm consuming" arguments never really held up anyway, and they definitely don't if the other side gets its act together.
Privacy concerns are still valid, but ad blockers never actually fixed that, they just added an extra level of complexity to the equation. Use facebook? Guess what facebook probably knows about every site you've visited that has a like button while your facebook session is still active. Your only hope is legislation, and you'll be lucky not to get a raw deal out of that, and your only hope of a good outcome there is awareness and activism. Acting like your ad-blocker actually helps all that much is just sticking your head in the sand when that's the next real fight for online rights.
1: http://www.businessinsider.com/pagefair-2017-ad-blocking-rep...
[+] [-] koolba|8 years ago|reply