Google lost an estimated $6.6 billion to ad blockers last year
The rise of ad blocking is becoming a serious problem for digital media companies. And for Google, it's turning into a multi-billion dollar issue. PageFair, a company that works with publishers to measure the cost of ad blocking and to help them display less intrusive advertising that can be whitelisted by the ad blockers, estimates that Google lost out on $6.6 billion in global revenue to ad blockers last year. To put that into context, that's 10% of the total revenue Google reported in 2014.
Adblock Plus, one of the most popular ad blockers, does give internet companies the chance for their ads to be whitelisted if they meet an "acceptable ads" policy - which includes what they deem as non-intrusive ads like sponsored search links. But bigger digital advertising companies like Google (as well as Microsoft, Amazon, and Taboola) are made to pay Adblock Plus huge fees - up to 30% of the additional ad revenues they would have made were the ads unblocked, according to The Financial Times. Google has managed to claw back around $3.5 billion by getting on ad blockers' whitelists, but Google is rumored to be paying $25 million to Adblock Plus alone just to do so.
But Google is not necessarily critical of ad blockers, in spite of the threat they pose to its revenue. Earlier this month Google CEO Larry Page was questioned by shareholder at the company's AGM as to whether he was worried about the rise of ad blockers. He responded that the best response to ad blockers from the industry will be to create better ads.
Adblock Plus, one of the most popular ad blockers, does give internet companies the chance for their ads to be whitelisted if they meet an "acceptable ads" policy - which includes what they deem as non-intrusive ads like sponsored search links. But bigger digital advertising companies like Google (as well as Microsoft, Amazon, and Taboola) are made to pay Adblock Plus huge fees - up to 30% of the additional ad revenues they would have made were the ads unblocked, according to The Financial Times. Google has managed to claw back around $3.5 billion by getting on ad blockers' whitelists, but Google is rumored to be paying $25 million to Adblock Plus alone just to do so.
But Google is not necessarily critical of ad blockers, in spite of the threat they pose to its revenue. Earlier this month Google CEO Larry Page was questioned by shareholder at the company's AGM as to whether he was worried about the rise of ad blockers. He responded that the best response to ad blockers from the industry will be to create better ads.
a) Ads are obtrusive: although we are (largely) past the days of "punch-the-monkey" and other in-your-face advertising pop-ups, they still are far too pushy and obtrusive. Unless I am going to Amazon.com, I am not surfing the web looking to buy something; I am usually looking for a particular piece of information. Ads get in the way of that.
b) Ads are manipulative: Ads don't just present their product and its features and then let you make a decision about its merits; rather, they try to trick you into wanting it. I know we all assure ourselves that - while the common "sheeple" may influenced by ads, we ourselves are immune. But that's bullshit and we all know it. Advertisements worm their way into your subconscious, subtly influencing us in ways of which we are rarely aware.
c) Adverts use up bandwidth: Some of us are on slow link-ups. Others have data-caps. And regardless of anything else, most of us have better use for our internet connection than downloading ads. Advertisers subsidize their business by making the viewers pay for the privilege of fetching their product.
d) Advertisements are a security risk: Not a month goes by that there isn't another news story about how an advertising network got subverted and served out malware. Worse, because these networks are so ubiquitous, it is not as if you can try to avoid them by only going to the "safe" parts of the web. Even the most innocuous and best-intentioned website can accidentally infect its users if it is partnered with an advertising network.
e) Advertisers harvest personal information: Adverts wouldn't be half as bad if all they did was promote the products, but no; these days they do everything they can to track your movements and likes across the Internet so that they may compile a detailed dossier about your likes and dislikes. Not only do they then use this info to tailor more effective adverts for you (see complaint "b") but they then re-sell this information to their partners. Oh, and you can be sure they aren't putting security first either.
f) Advertisements influence content: Oh sure, the website INSISTS that their editorial content is free from any influence from advertisers, but when there's money involved, everyone is going to check their own words if it risks slowing that precious income. It might not always be obvious, but its there.
So boo-hoo if Google supposedly lost umpty-trillion dollars (as calculated by an advertising company; it smacks of MPAA/RIAA accounting techniques) to ad-blockers. Not using ad-blockers costs me too, and not all of it counted in money.