Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Ad Blocking Wars

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 236 posts

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#161

Post by dredmorbius »

kasey_junk wrote: post #155
dredmorbius wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and the branding power of advertising is significant. It's been argued (persuasively IMO) that targeted advertising is counterproductive in this regard. Much as I find the practice annoying, a large stadium or other facility endorsement programme has a sticking power for brand awareness which a microtargeted, microsecond-auction online placement doesn't. Much the same as investing in streetfront retail space s…

I think one of the arguments for the more specific form of targeted advertising is for the measurement of impact, not that it is in some way more impactful. Assumedly that measurement can lead to more impactful ads, but we are awfully new to programmatic advertising for that to be proveable. I do know that advertisers believe targeting is valuable.

IMO that single-targeting-impact measurement is grossly misplaced. Though this also isn't generally my area of expertise (I have however worked in campaign assessment for various marketing efforts).

Better IMO is to look at broader measures of response. Multiple campaigns with various metrics -- coupons, response codes, promotions, differing Web URLs, etc. See what has a better measured response as an aggregate on desired outcomes.

The problem with ever-more-intrusive-and-objectionable advertising is that it turns people off.

I've largely abandoned commercial media, will consciously avoid stores whose advertising (or products) are annoying, and keep winnowing down the list of mobile service providers who are even vaguely acceptable to me (if I can possible swing it, I don't carry a phone), due in part to consideration shown their own customers.

I'm hoping that eventually those negatives will be large enough to sway practices. Google are actually in a position to have an impact, I've encouraged them on this before.

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#162

Post by lelandbatey »

deelowe wrote: post #104
pixl97 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By that logic, you shouldn't be online at all... That's a strange leap of logic. >Wikipedia Asks for donations, it doesn't show ads. There are many other websites that are internally funded in other ways that exclude direct ads.

And there are many that are. For those that are you really have two or three options morally: 1) Don't visit the site 2) Visit the site and don't use an ad blocker 3) Pay for premium service (e.g. youtube red) wherever it's available I refuse to accept that there's some moral high ground to using an ad blocking service. Especially for people like us (I assume you work in tech) where a huge percentage of our salaries…

I'm confused. Both I and my computer just send a request "may I have this article/video", and the server responds "yes" and sends the data. However, it also sends along a bunch of other stuff (advertising).

At no point in this did I ever agree to have anything other than the requested data sent to me. And at no point did I see a screen that said "please watch this ad to view this content." The ad was just sent anyway.

If you need me to pay money to consume some content, then why aren't you asking me for money? Or if I'm "supposed" to view an ad, why isn't that agreement formalized?

Basically, it's my computer, and I'm not restricted by any kind of agreement to watch ads. So why should I?

What possible moral grounds are there that says I have to allow you to serve me extra garbage data that I never consented to receiving, and even more extreme, that I am somehow obligated to consume the advertising that I never consented to receiving?

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#163

Post by byuu »

majewsky wrote: post #98
melted wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny thing is, Apple doesn't pay a dime for product placement.

Source? ;)

Apple's just that kind of company. For some reason, they don't seem to need to advertise their products. Not sure why that is ...

Sent from my iPhone

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#164

Post by id »

cbhl wrote: post #150
colmvp wrote: post #14

Arguments seem to glaze over the ethics of advertising and imply that it's a benign, acceptable practice. Yet the more I read psychology, the more I am aware of ways advertising can manipulate the thoughts we have towards brands when we're not aware of it. So to protect myself, I try to avoid ads in any circumstances (ublock, minimal usage of ad-supported apps). Quite frankly I'd rather have more subscriptions. I pay…

Subscriptions lock out people without credit cards (children, less affluent) from the Internet. This makes me sad.

It also locks out well-off people with credit cards - they can't possibly subscribe to everything.

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#165

Post by JacobJans »

colmvp wrote: post #14

Arguments seem to glaze over the ethics of advertising and imply that it's a benign, acceptable practice. Yet the more I read psychology, the more I am aware of ways advertising can manipulate the thoughts we have towards brands when we're not aware of it. So to protect myself, I try to avoid ads in any circumstances (ublock, minimal usage of ad-supported apps). Quite frankly I'd rather have more subscriptions. I pay…

"Spotify, ad-free magazines on my Kindle, and local journalists" all manipulate the thoughts you have.

We don't live in a bubble; we're a product of our surroundings. No aspect of the world is benign.

The fact that ads may "change you" is not an argument against advertising, because it doesn't distinguish advertising from anything else, at all.

It seems to me there is a moral judgement happening here. But, what is the appropriate way to distinguish moral manipulation from immoral manipulation?

Communication – even honest communication – is designed to influence other people. I'm trying to "change you" with this message. Should this message be blocked?

Yes/no?

What is the difference?

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#166

Post by blhack »

I don't understand where the disconnect for ads is.

1) I have money. I got the money specifically so that I could use it to buy things.

2) Give me options of things to buy, and I will buy them.

3) Show me things that are relevant to my interests, and I will probably buy those things.

Advertisers seem to be failing (badly) at 3. Ads that I see are not only intrusive (full page CSS popovers have gotten to the point where I just disable javascript), but they're also irrelevant to me.

WHy?

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#167

Post by jonesb6 »

Wait "war" sounds like it's an even fight. If I wanted to I could remove 90% of ads from my life RIGHT NOW. In fact I've already removed ~70% of them just by adding an ad blocker to my browser and by not having a tv (opting for streams etc).

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#168

Post by [deleted] »

lelandbatey wrote: post #162
deelowe wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there are many that are. For those that are you really have two or three options morally: 1) Don't visit the site 2) Visit the site and don't use an ad blocker 3) Pay for premium service (e.g. youtube red) wherever it's available I refuse to accept that there's some moral high ground to using an ad blocking service. Especially for people like us (I assume you work in tech) where a huge percentage of our salaries…

I'm confused. Both I and my computer just send a request "may I have this article/video", and the server responds "yes" and sends the data. However, it also sends along a bunch of other stuff (advertising). At no point in this did I ever agree to have anything other than the requested data sent to me. And at no point did I see a screen that said "please watch this ad to view this content." The ad was just sent anyway…

[deleted]

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#169

Post by nitwit005 »

kasey_junk wrote: post #156
nitwit005 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine two models for a moment. In one, everyone is free to advertise, and in the other, no marketing of any kind is possible (magically enforced somehow). What's the difference between those two? Competing companies will occasionally edge ahead with clever ads, but in general they just cancel one another out. Having marketing exist isn't a "win" for companies, unless they have no serious competitors, because their…

A major component to modern advertising is educating people that options exist. In the no advertising model things simply wither on the vine with no support to keep them going. Smart phones are an obvious example. They existed for ages before a powerful marketing company pushed them to the mainstream (plus the usability improvements). That sparked a technical revolution...

That imagines there's no other way of people being informed. People would simply subscribe to some sort of service that reviews things. As it is, newspapers and magazines have reviews of most of the items normal people care about.

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#170

Post by jamiequint »

manicdee wrote: post #92
adblawk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misunderstanding the example. Advertisers do not pay $15 per user, that's the amount we would need from 5% of our users to replace the revenue lost from no advertising. The example puts the value of each user per month at $1, which is what advertisers pay.

Are you assuming that the majority of your users don't consider your content to be worth $1/month?

Penny Gap: http://redeye.firstround.com/2007/03/the_first_penny.html
Post reply on HN