Just remember that "adblock" doesn't block ads - it blocks ad networks. If publications ran their own ads (like they do in print) the ads would likely a)be of much higher quality, and b) not be blocked by "adblock"
Adblock can (and does) block ads that are not a part of an ad network.
If you're thinking making publishers handle ads will bring them back to the "good ol' days" of static print ads, you're mistaken. The only reason we haven't had these types of ads in the past is because the medium (print) didn't support it.
1. Most times, bad ads aren't written by the publishers at all-they are written by the advertiser. The flashing/movie/360/ugly ads are shown because they convert at a higher rate than "nice" ads.
2. Forcing publishers to run the ads would be even WORSE for for privacy since they would be considered "first-party" and have access to much more information.
3. Print publications that currently run ads don't even control 100% of the ad content. The only ones they control are the ones that look like text. Everything else is supplied by the advertiser.
1. The ad network permits the bad ad, regardless of who writes them. If the ad network didn't drop 400 domains worth of 3rd party cookies, with tracking, and give me such shite as autoplaying video, maximise on rollover and the like, I'd whitelist them. Or more likely never have blocked them in the first place.
2. They'd not be able to follow me around the net though, repeatedly showing me some car ad I accidentally clicked because it maximised on me.
3. Every print display ad I've ever run (quite a few) has been proofed by the publication prior to run. I'm not Pepsi so perhaps different rules apply?
The medium (print) did support it. Why do screens not? One word - pornography. Porn invented the banner ad and introduced the paradigm of ads that link to other sites. Clearly that is a failed paradigm. Traditional advertising will make a comeback. Digital media will look like traditional media. We will look back on the current mess as an aberration instigated by pornographers.
"First-party" ads are back to the future. Explain how they could possibly be worse for privacy?
99% of adblockers use rules that block anything that looks like an ad, regardless of where it comes from.
Also publishers running their own ads is an immense amount of work that requires a sales and adops team and does not guarantee any improvements in quality. The reason ad networks exist is because of the scale of the web and the challenge of trying to do direct deals between every website and advertiser.
I said rules as in basic network, HTML, CSS filtering rules that are created by people, and these filters are shared by all the major adblockers.
If you ever look at these filters, you'll notice that domains aren't the only thing they block but rather things like checking the dimensions of images for standard ad banner sizes, etc. - so even if that banner was run by the same site, it would still be blocked.
Yes, that would be true. But I'm suggesting something more radical - that either a) there are no links - an ad is just an image and is served by the publication, or b) the image does have a link, but again it is to a page hosted by that publication - perhaps with a query if the visitor would like more information from the sponsor.
If the ads were targeted to the content on the page (remember when that was top-of-the-line tech?) rather than 3rd-party ads relevant to my assumed demographic, that'd solve for (c) nicely.
I wonder if (d) could be a business idea - broker ads just like a regular ad network, but have the site itself host/deliver the ads. CPM is out due to needing to trust the site with accurate reporting, but you could definitely do CPC this way and have the click targets be centralized for the click tracking/redirect part.
Thank you for getting my point. Clearly the traditional ad broker is going come back to have a role - built-in ad blockers will see to that. CPM is out no matter what.
Comments
Just remember that "adblock" doesn't block ads - it blocks ad networks. If publications ran their own ads (like they do in print) the ads would likely a)be of much higher quality, and b) not be blocked by "adblock"
Adblock can (and does) block ads that are not a part of an ad network.
If you're thinking making publishers handle ads will bring them back to the "good ol' days" of static print ads, you're mistaken. The only reason we haven't had these types of ads in the past is because the medium (print) didn't support it.
1. Most times, bad ads aren't written by the publishers at all-they are written by the advertiser. The flashing/movie/360/ugly ads are shown because they convert at a higher rate than "nice" ads.
2. Forcing publishers to run the ads would be even WORSE for for privacy since they would be considered "first-party" and have access to much more information.
3. Print publications that currently run ads don't even control 100% of the ad content. The only ones they control are the ones that look like text. Everything else is supplied by the advertiser.
1. The ad network permits the bad ad, regardless of who writes them. If the ad network didn't drop 400 domains worth of 3rd party cookies, with tracking, and give me such shite as autoplaying video, maximise on rollover and the like, I'd whitelist them. Or more likely never have blocked them in the first place.
2. They'd not be able to follow me around the net though, repeatedly showing me some car ad I accidentally clicked because it maximised on me.
3. Every print display ad I've ever run (quite a few) has been proofed by the publication prior to run. I'm not Pepsi so perhaps different rules apply?
The medium (print) did support it. Why do screens not? One word - pornography. Porn invented the banner ad and introduced the paradigm of ads that link to other sites. Clearly that is a failed paradigm. Traditional advertising will make a comeback. Digital media will look like traditional media. We will look back on the current mess as an aberration instigated by pornographers. "First-party" ads are back to the future. Explain how they could possibly be worse for privacy?
This is completely false.
99% of adblockers use rules that block anything that looks like an ad, regardless of where it comes from.
Also publishers running their own ads is an immense amount of work that requires a sales and adops team and does not guarantee any improvements in quality. The reason ad networks exist is because of the scale of the web and the challenge of trying to do direct deals between every website and advertiser.
You are completely off the mark there, buddy. Ad blockers don't use AI image recognition - and besides, that technology doesn't exist yet.
I said rules as in basic network, HTML, CSS filtering rules that are created by people, and these filters are shared by all the major adblockers.
If you ever look at these filters, you'll notice that domains aren't the only thing they block but rather things like checking the dimensions of images for standard ad banner sizes, etc. - so even if that banner was run by the same site, it would still be blocked.
Yes, that would be true. But I'm suggesting something more radical - that either a) there are no links - an ad is just an image and is served by the publication, or b) the image does have a link, but again it is to a page hosted by that publication - perhaps with a query if the visitor would like more information from the sponsor.
Ignoring the amount of work I described in selling ads directly, this still doesnt solve anything.
In a few days at most, the filters will be updated to catch these images as well.
c) targeted more poorly (albeit without the privacy concerns.) d) expensive for the publisher (they have to do their own sales.)
And therefore only feasible for very large sites.
If the ads were targeted to the content on the page (remember when that was top-of-the-line tech?) rather than 3rd-party ads relevant to my assumed demographic, that'd solve for (c) nicely.
I wonder if (d) could be a business idea - broker ads just like a regular ad network, but have the site itself host/deliver the ads. CPM is out due to needing to trust the site with accurate reporting, but you could definitely do CPC this way and have the click targets be centralized for the click tracking/redirect part.
Thank you for getting my point. Clearly the traditional ad broker is going come back to have a role - built-in ad blockers will see to that. CPM is out no matter what.