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

Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

adbeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#21

Post by zoomooz »

Forgive me, but:

  1. Banner Blindness?
  2. Ad Blockers?
  3. Fraudulent Impressions?
Those are motivated entities attempting to achieve a goal?

I think the title is more like:

  Three Arbitrary Sections in a Blog Article Regarding the Difficulties Faced by Digital Advertisers

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#22

Post by taneq »

gammagoblin wrote: post #19

>The facts are sobering: 86% of consumers suffer from banner blindness and only 14% of users are able to recall the last display ad they saw. Ah, yeah, we suffer from banner blindness. It's such a bad thing for those consumers, they don't care about our useless ads anymore!

And then the follow-up claim that users "simply notice native ad placements more" because they're in the content area, ignoring the fact that mobile users are way more likely to accidentally click them in the process of scrolling the web page. I know I've done this a nonzero number of times, compared with the zero number that I've deliberately clicked on.

And don't get me started on "welcome ads" aka "click the tiny near-invisible X in the corner to close the damn thing, and if you miss you'll get taken to some horrible site which will eat half your monthly mobile data".

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#23

Post by drivingmenuts »

xaedes wrote: post #12

The facts are sobering: 86% of consumers suffer from banner blindness and only 14% of users are able to recall the last display ad they saw. Poor fellows... They suffer so hard. No for real, I think banner blindness is an automatic attempt to solve the real problem: intrusive unwanted and even dangerous ads.

I don't suffer from banner blindness so much as revel in it.

Seriously, the moment an ad pops up, I'm looking for the close button. I don't pay any attention to the advertiser and if I do, it's usually an automatic negative impression.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#24

Post by otabdeveloper1 »

krylon wrote: post #18

> I am concerned — very, very concerned — that costs of ads will go up and up and up from this unethical obstruction "unethical obstruction"? UNETHICAL OBSTRUCTION ?!?!?!?! You have got to be ____ing kidding me! First of all, that is like saying switching to a different channel during a commercial break is unethical. It's like saying the use a spam filter is unethical. Secondly, and most importantly, in an age where…

> "unethical obstruction"? UNETHICAL OBSTRUCTION?!?!?!?! You have got to be ____ing kidding me!

He's actually right. Adblockers are a racket, their business model involves asking advertisers to pony up protection money for exceptions.

> Not to speak of the negative impact ads have on website performance, battery usage and waste of bandwidth.

This is true, but adblockers don't care about fixing the user's problems.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#25

Post by ChrisSD »

otabdeveloper1 wrote: post #24
krylon wrote: post #18

> I am concerned — very, very concerned — that costs of ads will go up and up and up from this unethical obstruction "unethical obstruction"? UNETHICAL OBSTRUCTION ?!?!?!?! You have got to be ____ing kidding me! First of all, that is like saying switching to a different channel during a commercial break is unethical. It's like saying the use a spam filter is unethical. Secondly, and most importantly, in an age where…

> "unethical obstruction"? UNETHICAL OBSTRUCTION?!?!?!?! You have got to be ____ing kidding me! He's actually right. Adblockers are a racket, their business model involves asking advertisers to pony up protection money for exceptions. > Not to speak of the negative impact ads have on website performance, battery usage and waste of bandwidth. This is true, but adblockers don't care about fixing the user's problems.

From a technical perspective you're wrong. Adblock Plus does sell exceptions but something like uBlock Origin doesn't and it was designed to be low on resources

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#26

Post by pferde »

tomjen3 wrote: post #20
damian_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, but don't forget it pays for the bulk of journalism globally. What's your alternative revenue model?

That assumes there is a revenue model - which there probably isn't; ads can't be that business because it biases the news[fn:1], when I read a newspaper I read it through some aggregator[fn:2], which means I am not going to pay for any particular newspaper (because I would need twenty such subscriptions) and I can't buy a bundle (because it does not exist and probably doesn't contain the particular newspaper the link…

> and I can't buy a bundle (because it does not exist and probably doesn't contain the particular newspaper the link is to).

Wouldn't some kind of syndication service work, where you subscribe to a custom bundle out of selection of available news sites, and the sites then get revenue based on how many readers included them in their subscription?

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#27

Post by NotCamelCase »

_ph_ wrote: post #9

There are many problems with the state of online advertising today. First of all, far too many online ads are actually fraudulent. They are either advertising dubious products, like penis enlargements pills or lose weight fast, or are click-baits for other ad-loaded pages. And of course, there is malware served along with the ads. And the remaining more or less legit ads are damn annoying. So for me, I try very hard…

So you used to find online ads interesting/useful and click before? I always thought at least tech literate people don't click on ads at all. I for one don't recall a single time I clicked on an online ad (mostly due to your reasoning that they are dubious.).

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#28

Post by jim-jim-jim »

damian_ wrote: post #6
pferde wrote: post #5

Reading this article just makes me want to rent a bunch of cloud instances or something and set up a bunch of bots to contribute to more "ad fraud". Burn those ad money, as fast and as much as possible.

That's fine, but don't forget it pays for the bulk of journalism globally. What's your alternative revenue model?

If the bulk of journalism outlets went out of business along with their advertisers, I'd consider that a win/win. I know that in the age of Trump we're supposed to venerate journalism as some kind of selfless civil duty, but the vast majority of it is throwaway punditry and apologia for an illegitimate order.

Actual investigative work like the kind of stuff Shane Bauer has done would still have legs on subscription/donor based platforms.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#29

Post by tomjen3 »

pferde wrote: post #26
tomjen3 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes there is a revenue model - which there probably isn't; ads can't be that business because it biases the news[fn:1], when I read a newspaper I read it through some aggregator[fn:2], which means I am not going to pay for any particular newspaper (because I would need twenty such subscriptions) and I can't buy a bundle (because it does not exist and probably doesn't contain the particular newspaper the link…

> and I can't buy a bundle (because it does not exist and probably doesn't contain the particular newspaper the link is to). Wouldn't some kind of syndication service work, where you subscribe to a custom bundle out of selection of available news sites, and the sites then get revenue based on how many readers included them in their subscription?

Even so, who is to say that the particular newspaper the article links to is included in that bundle? Or that it is included in the bundle of the other people commenting (yes that is moving the goal post, but I forgot to included it in the original)?

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#30

Post by marcosdumay »

pferde wrote: post #26
tomjen3 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes there is a revenue model - which there probably isn't; ads can't be that business because it biases the news[fn:1], when I read a newspaper I read it through some aggregator[fn:2], which means I am not going to pay for any particular newspaper (because I would need twenty such subscriptions) and I can't buy a bundle (because it does not exist and probably doesn't contain the particular newspaper the link…

> and I can't buy a bundle (because it does not exist and probably doesn't contain the particular newspaper the link is to). Wouldn't some kind of syndication service work, where you subscribe to a custom bundle out of selection of available news sites, and the sites then get revenue based on how many readers included them in their subscription?

It should work. That said, how willing are the newspapers to adopt a revenue plan that might work?

From here, my impression is that nearly all of them are completely unwilling to change anything at all. Even their layout they can't bother to adapt for the web.

Post reply on HN