[deleted]
Is Ad Avoidance a Problem?
21–30 of 49 posts
Re: Is Ad Avoidance a Problem?
#22> But the funny thing is that advertising spending is actually increasing, both in the United States and globally. Moreover, it has grown three years in a row, reaching more than half a trillion dollars in 2012. This is true even of live-television ads, which are the most intrusive and the easiest to avoid, yet are nonetheless growing at a healthy pace—by eight per cent last year in the United States. For every $1 on…
"For every $1 one company spends on advertising, another has to spend $2 to steal your attention. Inevitably this means the industry will continue to grow infinitely as companies continue to try to buy your attention"
It sounds more like the industry will grow to the maximum that the economy can sustain, and no further. It may appear to be unlimited now but that probably means that the economy can sustain far more advertising than we are seeing today. Every time a new communications system is developed, the market will shift -- and we have so many systems now that the market is just catching up to all the ways we have to advertise.
I also suspect that there is another game occurring, which is the ads-versus-ad-blockers game, and that will also reach some equilibrium. As advertising becomes more aggressive, defenses against advertising will become stronger.
Re: Is Ad Avoidance a Problem?
#23TV ads are still a growing business according to TFA. Mm... In other news, people still go to the bathroom, fetch a snack, walk their dog, etc. during TV ads. And more recently, browse their tablet or smartphone. Try this poll around you: You watch TV with: [ ] No other screen on hand [ ] One other screen (e.g. tablet, smartphone or laptop) [ ] Two screens [ ] Three or more screens Then consider the price advertisers…
Its hard to laugh unless you know the financials. If advertisers are paying 10 million dollars for super bowl ads and getting a 15 million dollar return then they are the ones laughing at your naivete.
Or not... Assuming your figure is even remotely correct, it's a pittance -- especially considering the budget to make that ad. And a dozen years ago they'd have gotten a lot more. Plus, it's not exactly easy to trace those $15M now, is it? It's not as if they were placing a cookie or a but on those TV viewers. They're spending it blindfolded.
Admittedly, there's more to ads than just selling. There's also a brand factor and a "you made the right decision to already buy this" factor.
Still, ever noticed those ads at bus stops, next to which virtually every bystander is busy using their smartphone? Methinks the returns in those, like on TV, are getting lower by the day.
Re: Is Ad Avoidance a Problem?
#24I use ad-block, and this was only a recent development for me. At first, I didn't really mind ads since I mostly ignored them. I'm pretty sure there is a study somewhere about the long-term impact of web-based ads compared to billboards and TV ads, and I'm pretty sure that study would say that the long-term impact of web-ads would be much lower than TV ads, and basically forgotten in 5 minutes, and if not so soon, probably vaporized within a week.
The problem became too much when advertisers and webmasters decided to use other means to gain my attention. An ad in the corner of the page is no big deal. When the page starts to look like a Nascar event with no meaningful content, this is irritating. Since this apparently wasn't in-your-face enough, they added in pop-ups, scrolling ads, and most confoundedly, ads that talked. I listen to music when I am browsing, and I can't describe how disrespectful this is to me. I sometimes browse with my computer muted, but some of these ads have figured out how to turn my volume on! This is no longer an symbiotic relationship between buyer and seller, but a one-sided fuck you. This is in plain terms, abuse, and it is wrong and these assholes don't deserve a dime from my clicks or my views.
But the problem gets worse because showing me ads is no longer good enough. Now I have a few thousand companies tracking my every move. I dealt with slow-loading sites via iframes and gigs of cookies on my computer. So now, I turn on Disconnect or Ghostery.
I used to earn money from ad revenue on my sites, and I am going to put ads up on my current sites. It would be foolish for me to depend solely on ad revenue, and I certainly don't hold any ill-will toward people using ad-block, so I would have to think of other ways to monetize my content. Book review? Here's a link to Amazon with my affiliate code. It isn't as invasive and it offers my users choice without invading their privacy, their ability to see my content, and doesn't effect my site-speeds.
It is all a tough balance. Sure you want some analytics and you want some revenue, but depending solely on invasive ads and trackers doesn't serve your users. Once you lose sight of the users, you lose sight on usability, content quality, and many other aspects. I want to create a great product first and a revenue machine second.
Re: Is Ad Avoidance a Problem?
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its hard to laugh unless you know the financials. If advertisers are paying 10 million dollars for super bowl ads and getting a 15 million dollar return then they are the ones laughing at your naivete.
Or not... Assuming your figure is even remotely correct, it's a pittance -- especially considering the budget to make that ad. And a dozen years ago they'd have gotten a lot more. Plus, it's not exactly easy to trace those $15M now, is it? It's not as if they were placing a cookie or a but on those TV viewers. They're spending it blindfolded. Admittedly, there's more to ads than just selling. There's also a brand fac…
"Still, ever noticed those ads at bus stops, next to which virtually every bystander is busy using their smartphone? Methinks the returns in those, like on TV, are getting lower by the day."
Maybe, but I think those ads tend towards the "effective if people see the logo many times per day" sort of ads. You are likely to see the ad for a moment before pulling out your phone, or while you exit the bus, etc. So maybe a major fast food chain will put its logo there, just to remind you that they exist and to increase the chance that you eat there for lunch.
Re: Is Ad Avoidance a Problem?
#26Someone should make an app that aggregates a list of companies that pay for advertisements which are especially disruptive or annoying, so I can be extra sure that I'm not supporting their behavior.
Re: Is Ad Avoidance a Problem?
#27If you read far enough, the article actually suggests ad avoidance isn't so bad.
Another point to Bettridge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
Also, I really liked the linked article on gaze aversion, which argues that smartphones are a bigger threat than DVRs: http://adage.com/article/adagestat/smartphones-a-bigger-dist...
Or on the internet, it's not really ad block, it's the fact that I can't remember the last time I watched a show on one screen at home without easy access to a second screen to flip through cat pictures or whatever during (muted) commercials.
Guess I'm not the only one.
> Anyone who can reach the unreachable for even a moment has their hands on gold.
Is targeted door-to-door sales the next big thing?
Re: Is Ad Avoidance a Problem?
#28> But the funny thing is that advertising spending is actually increasing, both in the United States and globally. Moreover, it has grown three years in a row, reaching more than half a trillion dollars in 2012. This is true even of live-television ads, which are the most intrusive and the easiest to avoid, yet are nonetheless growing at a healthy pace—by eight per cent last year in the United States. For every $1 on…
"For every $1 one company spends on advertising, another has to spend $2 to steal your attention. Inevitably this means the industry will continue to grow infinitely as companies continue to try to buy your attention" It sounds more like the industry will grow to the maximum that the economy can sustain, and no further. It may appear to be unlimited now but that probably means that the economy can sustain far more ad…
> It sounds more like the industry will grow to the maximum that the economy can sustain, and no further.
Fair point. I would argue that as long as (1) globalization exists (2) the population increases, it can sustain growth. In other words as long as the number of eyeballs increases so too will the people try to farm them up.
> Every time a new communications system is developed, the market will shift -- and we have so many systems now that the market is just catching up to all the ways we have to advertise.
Regardless of communication medium, in theory it doesn't mean the market spends any more or less on advertising. The goal is all the same, grab attention and convert to buyer. So I'm not sure what you mean by "the market will shift".
Re: Is Ad Avoidance a Problem?
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not whether people are willing to pay for content, its can people really afford premium content? Ad-less content isn't very attractive when you have pay $99 per episode. Essentially advertisers have been subsidizing content for years and the question is can people really afford premium TV content and in what capacity? I'm not sure what the exact numbers are but its something to consider when thinking about the "…
Excuse my ignorance but where do the advertisers get the money to pay for the content? They get it from me if I buy their product. So instead giving my money to the advertiser who then gives it to the artist, why wouldn't I just give it to the artist myself (like with Netflix, etc.)? I don't have the numbers but I am quite sure that movies at the theater woudldn't be that much more expensive either. The advertisers d…
I'm just speculating here but I could think of some reasons why advertising is a better revenue model than direct charging for a studio (also I think the theater model doesn't depend on ads. For ads I mean tv/cable/ota).
1.) Better price discrimination. Instead of 3 people paying $5.99, I could convince an advertiser to advertise 3 different products at different price points. If the advertisements were 100% effective and I got a 10% commission, it could result in one person buying a $500 Louis vuitton bag and another buying a Macy's store brand bag at ($50). That gets me a revenue of $55 compared to $18 if I sold direct. (I know that TV ads don't actually work this way, as you can't track whether a commercial led to a sale of a product)
2.) The advertiser may be willing to pay more for the ad spot than you are for the content. Again speculating here, but if an advertiser is willing to pay $20 per view and you will pay $10, then the studio is incentivised to go the ad route. (I think this is most likely, as people were livid when Netflix had to increase price of their streaming package meaning consumer could be more price sensitive).
All in all, I have to believe that advertisers haven't been pissing their money for decades, and that studios aren't so consumer hostile that they would bend infinitely for advertisers. If the charge-the-consumer-directly model actually worked I don't think studios would be so hostile to Netflix, and HBO would likely offer a streaming package that didn't depend on the cable package.
Re: Is Ad Avoidance a Problem?
#30I think the problem is that some ads are so heavy-weight. I kind of wish there were an ad-block tool that would only block ads that are too large (data-wise) or that take too long to load.
There is. Adblock Plus allows plain and unobtrusive advertising out of the box. For example, Reddit was recently whitelisted, which I'm sure helps their bottom line.