Adblock Plus announces members of independent Acceptable Ads Committee

Not a single comment about malware. I will NEVER again install an app that is ad supported because I got malware on my phone because I merely started an app that served an ad from god knows where.

Unless you deal with this issue, I'm going to continue to use uBlock Origin and uMatrix. Once sites close up, I'll decide to pay the fee, or not. I'll likely not pay the fee and find something else to do with my time.

Obviously there are more than two options, but I'm asking about your preference between those two. You can give me a ranking of order of preference for all the different options you can think of if you prefer, but I'm mostly interested where paywalls fall in relation to ads.

First of all it's not like cable bundle - you pay flat fee to access EVERYTHING like utility (probably % of your ISP bill). Call it content tax, if you will (BBC in UK is funded this way). Internet is NOT free anyway. Then whatever you paid goes to authors in a share proportional to content value consumed (I don't want to go into weeds on how to evaluate fair price for the content, but it's possible).

It is right for content consumer: no annoying ads, no interruptions, no more punishment for using "free" content by being blasted with non-relevant junk.

It is right for the content creator: you rewarded for high quality content, not for ads shows (natural flow of interests) -> no need to beg visitors to disable adblockers (this is what some youtubers do). BTW, IMHO, this is also a very good and organic way to "embrace" piracy - just redirect torrents income share to copyright holders - nobody will ever fight torrents after that point.

Ad companies is unnecessary middle-man in this relationship. And this middle-man will be eventually eliminated for good. I understand that you represent one, but there's still market for ad companies in other areas - where ads are relevant to context (like when I'm searching to get a new car or fix my fridge). Ads should help users, not annoy them.

> The adtech industry isn't full of idiots, it's thousands of people like you and me.

> The advertisers who hold all the money could do something by only spending it on good vendors - but who's going to tell them that?

I guess I always figured (hoped?) that the folks like you and I, but in that industry, would speak up to the folks buying the ads, but you're right: Us folks aren't the ones selling the ad campaigns to the folks with the money.

Vendors can't be that aloof though.. can they? Surely they're aware of the impact that poor advertising campaigns can have on their brand? Are you seeing any hints of that?

> Also the most annoying ads are the ones that show the most "engagement" - precisely because they are annoying.

From what you've seen, would you say that despite the growing prevalence of adblockers, these types of "engaging" adverts are still the most profitable today?

I mean, I figured one of the reasons ad companies were getting so vocal about adblockers lately is that it was starting to impact their bottom line. Perhaps just not enough to spur real change yet.

Do you think ad companies will change their ways when adblocking starts to have a more significant impact on them financially, or do you see them as too stuck in their ways, perhaps needing to be unseated by startups who aren't afraid to push respectable advertising and raise the bar?

One of my takeaways from watching the documentary "Art & Copy" was that advertising can be respectable and engaging without being intrusive and in your face, but I can't think of very many recent examples of that. A diminishing art form perhaps.

Vendors? They have no brand to worry about. The current markets are built on volume with their profits as a percentage of total ad spend by their clients - so it's in their interest to run as many ads as possible. Worrying about things like quality and fraud only reduces revenue so they just look the other way.

Fraud isn't that hard to combat - these companies know who they're paying since you have to write a check eventually. It's a business problem, not a technical problem, but as long as there is money to be made, vendors wont stop their habits.

The major advertisers do have brands to worry about, but there is so much confusion with thousands of vendors and multiple layers of agencies that it's hard for any marketing team to really know where exactly their ads are running online. Some companies are paying more attention now with the current political climate but there's not much change yet.

Yes, the annoying formats are more engaging and get more money and are thus more profitable to run. Buyers want as many video ads as possible so vendors complied and stuck them everywhere they could. This is why you have autoplay sticky videos on every page, because buyers keep buying them and the numbers look good - nevermind silly details like the fact that people hate them and didnt really have a choice to interact.

Can things be better? Will the situation change? Yes. Adblocking still isn't big enough but that's why this committee is progress - it allows the few companies/startups who are willing to do things different to set the rules and finally get the leverage they need against ad buyers. If the only way to advertise to the increasingly valuable but unreachable adblocking users is through vendors who follow these rules, then the market will change in response and the legacy companies and practices will finally go away. The buyers = the money = the power. Shape the way the money flows and change will follow.