Live data from Hacker News

Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

adbeat.com

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#31
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?

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/d…

> 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.

QFT. Journalism has been awful at least for decades.

> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

- Michael Chrichton

In a complex world, the very idea of generalist journalists is broken.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#33
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.

"their business model"

Not all ad blockers have a "business model." Some are just volunteer efforts by people who are tired of the resource-sapping ads that have become common all over the web.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#34
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.

Information overload.

Your brain is automatically filtering stuff out because if it didn't you'd go crazy. Just imagine remembering everyone's face you saw on your commute or every conversation you had at that party last week.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#35
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.).

No, I can't say I ever did. And I don't think I said that. But from a time, where I might have been neutral and possibly interested in legit ads, the advertising has managed to create a strongly negative feeling, which usually then applies to the advertised products, even if they are legit.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#36
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.

Does anyone have an ad agency report from the 80's or 90's complaining about all the revenue lost from people going to bathroom during TV ad breaks?

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#37

It's time for display (or, for that matter, all ) ads to die. Web pages are unusable without adblockers, because otherwise ads will annoy you more and more to the point of throwing your machine out of the window... It is the greed of a few in our industry that has made the lives of everyone else pretty miserable.

I've spent some time recently about what the world would look like without advertising at all (or very limited types). Is that a thing that has a name?

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#38

> 1 in 5 ad-serving websites are visited exclusively by fraud bots seriously?? that's surely impossible?

I think this means that 1 in 5 pages hosting a third party ad network has no relevant content for a legitimate web user, so visits to that site must be by bots. Not saying that is what happens, just a way of interpreting it in a way that is not impossible...

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#39
post #22

>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…

I normaly push the back or close tab button when greeted by a welcome ad.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#40
post #20
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…

What would be the Google’s business model then? If display ads go, their money well dries as well.
Post reply on HN