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

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#51

Post by _nalply »

Let's just have a cold look. If people don't want something what can a company do? Bundle that nasty thing with something people want. And this is what the ad industry has been doing. And now the power to bundle has started to unravel long ago.

It's simple. Would you prefer something with or without distraction if you had the power to choose?

Ad industry is doomed. Except if they find a way or other to regain the power to force the bundling. For example by declaring ad blockers unlawful.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#52

Post by pellucidar »

petre wrote: post #39
taneq wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I use Kill Sticky Headers for those, and if it fails, reader mode, and if that isn’t available, the back button.

https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#53

Post by mancerayder »

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.

14%? I try to aim towards 0% as much as I can.

It's a numbers game. While the industry buys and sells impressions, only a tiny percentage of people actually buy things. Why in the world can't THE TYPE OF PERSON that tolerates online advertising be their target, instead of the rest of us innocents?

You ever take a taxi or Uber and have the radio blaring, including commercials (which last many minutes at a time, sometimes a huge percentage of the ride)? I have, in fact most of my car rides. THAT is the type of person that tolerates ads.

If the entire ad experience were opt-in, maybe they could charge higher for impressions. Those impressions would actually matter, because the chances of trying to forcefeed and forcibly distract a concentrating nerd reading a news or tech article and the latter getting annoyed would be much smaller.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#54

Post by jasonkostempski »

NotCamelCase wrote: post #27
_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.).

Pay-per-click doesn't need to be part of the arrangement.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#55

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #31
jim-jim-jim wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, sh…

From what I can tell, journalism has continually improved since the founding of the Republic. It's useful to correct unrealistic expectations we have about it: that its practitioners are selfless volunteers serving out of civic obligation. It's a profession like anything else, with good members and bad ones, almost always under the same masthead.

I think it would be tough to argue that modern institutional journalism is somehow worse than that of, say, the World War 2 era.

Crichton's "amnesia effect" is a vivid example of how people get this wrong. Are newspapers wrong about Palestine? Quite often. But it's not for the same reason that they're wrong about show business. Show business is a specialized beat with specialized reporters and not every newspaper has someone dedicated to it. Everyone understands that about reporting Palestine, but fewer people understand that about show business, and so Crichton sounds incisive when really he's just making a banal observation: different journalism outlets are strong on different topics.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#56

Post by Nadya »

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.

Adblockers are a racket, their business model involves asking advertisers to pony up protection money for exceptions

Want to show me where Gorhill asks advertisers to pony up money to be exempt from uBlock Origin?

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

This is one of the core design choices of uBO: use minimal resources

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#57

Post by ldiracdelta »

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.

_Not_ recalling an ad doesn't mean that it isn't actually in your brain. Professor Robert Cialdini sited research in his book "Pre-Suasion" that the most effective ads were those that were _not_ recalled by users. You're effected by ads more than you think or recall.

* https://www.amazon.com/Pre-Suasion-Revolutionary-Way-Influen...

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#58

Post by TagAsDelusion »

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?

So if we get rid of it, that will go away? Promise?

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#59

Post by tedunangst »

tptacek wrote: post #55
rayiner wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, sh…

From what I can tell, journalism has continually improved since the founding of the Republic. It's useful to correct unrealistic expectations we have about it: that its practitioners are selfless volunteers serving out of civic obligation. It's a profession like anything else, with good members and bad ones, almost always under the same masthead. I think it would be tough to argue that modern institutional journalism…

I don't think it's that banal an observation. Most media consumers don't subscribe to all the relevant trade pubs. Which means most of the journalism they consume comes from outlets that are weak.
Post reply on HN