The Ad Blocking Wars

I prefer not to have to spend money to be blasted with crap.

    Just look back 50 years, how many ads an average 
    Western person saw a day and how many today...

50 years ago the average western person had access to maybe 1/50th of the information they access to now thanks to the internet and in large part thanks to advertising. Advertising allows businesses to outsource the consideration (and associated decisions) of the value of their users. A business dependent on advertising doesn't need to consider which of their users are most dollar valuable, a business dependent on advertising can focus on creating a product that reaches the most people and that in turn will provide their growing revenues. Advertising provides a subsidy that supports the people who can't afford $20/month to use each website they care about.

Advertising is an equaliser and the experiences of those half a century ago are a meaningless comparison.

    create high-quality products that consumers can 
    tell their friends about

My company provides a product that our users love, tens of millions of loyal users use our products every month, they tell their friends about our products, they send us emails saying how much they appreciate our products... but most of our users aren't in a position to pay $15/month for our products so we use advertising. Yes, we could cut advertising tomorrow and remain profitable if we charged $15/month for access, but we'd cut off 95% of our users access to products they care about because they can't justify $15/month to access it.

That's not fair.

Until it realizes that it wants to be our friends and doesn't feel right about only having befriended us only to sell us a product. Then there's an awkward moment where it confesses its original intent but that it has since realized the error of its ways.

It's like a SciFi Romantic Comedy.

It used to be, that to research a purchase, you would have to buy a book, go to the library, etc. (And, of course, talk to family, friends, neighbors...)

Newspapers and magazines were the "tablets", the "browser" already in front of us.

Ads on those didn't move and shout at us (well, not aurally). And they gave us at least some idea of what was out there. And yes, they did "plant" impressions in our minds.

TV and radio made (from my perspective) the ads more obnoxious. Something they continued to ramp up in an escalating war for attention.

These were still one-way communications: Broadcast. Although, a "primitive" ad-blocking did arise there. Push-button presets on radios. And then, that device dreaded by advertisers: The TV remote control.

And, ads started appearing across channels in the same timeslots. They became harder to escape, en masse if not in the individual. Except for "saturation" scheduling. And, suspected at least per some of my viewing and listening, synchronized slots across channels.

These ads were seemingly more intrusive. LOOK at me! LISTEN to me! I will own your children's will -- and yours, despite your disclaiming, subliminally.

And technology brought the next form of blocking: In addition to time-shifting, home recording devices allowed us to fast-forward, eventually to click past ads. Notice, here, the influence of advertisers. Ad-sensing software in VCR's (remember that?) was challenged and, where possible, crippled. The elusive "skip ahead" button was contested and crippled. I seem to remember that it worked somewhat well on my parents' Tivo. But, Comcast put the kibasch on that, and with their Comcast box they are back to fast-forwarding.

Now, on the Internet, advertising is a two-way communication. Both overt and covert (e.g. analytics). It can also now serve multiple, covert purposes, e.g. malware.

And... people are seeking to escape it.

1) Because they can initiate the communication, search out information, immediately, themselves. 2) Because the ads are actively hindering their attention, focus, and consumption of the information they are seeking. 3) Because the ads can actively screw them over.

Are we going to get measures that "lock down" our devices and web delivery, to serve the roll of advertising? Or, are we going to alter the model in the face of this paradigm shift? Is that two way conversation going to be leveraged to better serve the consumer -- THEIR definition of better served? Or, are entrenched interests going to just keep shouting louder? Creeping more into our personal lives? Putting our data at risk?

Locking down the Internet, for the sake of their money?

Someone's going to find a way to leverage that two-way communication in a fashion that gets adopted.

I reach back to one of my favorite tripes -- an accurate one: Opt-in.

When people start opting in, of their own will, then you'll know you have something.

It's not going to be based on trickery. It's going to have its foundation in being genuinely useful, for both/all sides.

Finally, I'll say that I'm very glad for the open nature of Internet and Web design and protocols, up to this point. Leaving the smarts at the end-points has enabled this challenge to come forth. It's left "the small guy" with a good measure of control and choice. Up to this point. It is my client, and it will do what I want.

So, I actually have the choice to opt-in. Now, give me something worth opting-in to.

I agree with the parts that are visible. However, your data is being sold behind the scenes eg Verizon tracking you through a service you have paid for.

I take huge issue with that. I pay for cell phone service. I should not be used to derive additional revenue for another channel. It's single use not multi.