I've maintained for a long time that the ad networks themselves are the problem, not advertising as a whole. There is a place for video advertising (around content that is also video), there is a place for audio advertising (on the radio, around podcasts, on music services), and there is even a place for animated, interactive advertisements, on sites that are expected to dance and move anyway, like online games.
The trouble is, most third party networks are so laser focused on getting people to "interact" with their advertising that they've skewed the game in favor of distracting users from the content they arrived to consume. They're so focused on targeted advertising that they regularly invade users privacy, utilize questionable data collection practices, and break down security barriers when browsers try to shut down their violations of user trust. It's no wonder ad blockers are on the rise, because the existing ad networks are all untrustworthy.
There will always be a place for advertising when it's done properly. Watch an NFL broadcast and observe the product placement, the logos and sponsors everywhere. It's organic, integrated into the very fiber of the broadcast in a way that couldn't be blocked with even the most sophisticated blocking software. And it's also usually quite tasteful, there to promote the product, but not distracting enough to detract from the game the viewers came to the channel to watch.
This kind of advertising, organic product placement and sponsorships, where the content creator and the advertiser have a real partnership and coordinate their efforts, this is the kind of advertising I want to see more of. For all the drama they tend to draw, I commend the Gawker sites (Gizmodo is particularly good about this) for their Sponsored posts and their frequent "Deal of the Day" posts, which are first-party advertising that my blocker regularly fails to block. And you know what? Some of the deals are genuinely interesting to me, because Gizmodo clearly knows their audience, and selects advertising partners that make sense on their blogs. More of that please!
If the ad floats over the content. If the ad overlays my screen. If the ad forces me to do something to dismiss it, I don't care what the product is. I'm going to be less inclined to buy.
Put a normal, rectangular ad on the screen that doesn't dynamically resize itself while I'm trying to read the content and don't spread the content across 31 different pages just to increase the number of ads you show me.
> ad networks themselves are the problem, not advertising as a whole
I would perhaps say that it's the way that ad networks interact with content sites that's the problem.
With the current "automated just-in-time auction of the eyeballs of the person-we-identified-using-the-site's-metrics, with the site itself just providing the rectangle of space to slot the result into" model, content providers are essentially entirely beholden to whatever the ad network thinks is the best thing to put on their page.
An ad network could instead be a sort of "marketplace" service that lets content providers browse ads from various sources (or get ads suggested to them, using the same algorithm they'd have used originally to force ads on users), and then approve for display the ones they find tasteful/in line with their brand.
That is, after all, the model for running ads in any other medium: the publisher gets to provide ultimate editorial judgement on whether a given ad belongs in their publication.
(Also, in such a model, the content provider would likely be the one hosting the resulting ads, so we'd be able to avoid the whole ads = tracking beacons problem we face today.)
As a publisher, I've made the decision to sell advertising in monthly blocks like a magazine would as opposed to an eyeball-based auction system. Anecdotally, I think this deters me from trying to maximize how much money can be made off of every eyeball that visits my website.
I also sell and self-host my own advertising which can only be non-animated jpgs/pngs which gives me ultimate judgement. There is a barrier to entry on this style of ad sales, but overall I feel like it has been worthwhile pursuit so far in the 3 or so years I've been doing it.
It can be done relatively simply when you make direct deals with ad agencies or cross-promotion deals with other product companies. The problem is that no ad network wants to be a part of it; and for the little guy, ad networks are the only thing with economies-of-scale large enough to be interested in purchasing your nearly-worthless ad-space.
Thus my view: we need a "catalogue of creative, you pick what you run"-style ad network, so that the little guys have somewhere to turn instead of acquiescing to the existing networks and ending off with their sites showing chumboxes[1].
> Watch an NFL broadcast and observe the product placement, the logos and sponsors everywhere. It's organic, integrated into the very fiber of the broadcast in a way that couldn't be blocked with even the most sophisticated blocking software.
As an aside, I've seen multiple cases of live video-processing to replace or overlay advertisements on sporting events, such as those plastered on the walls of arenas. (Generally done during broadcasts of those events, as part of deals that separate the market for broadcast and in-person advertising at those events.) So, don't underestimate the ability to block advertisements given sufficient motivation.
I wonder how long before someone writes an ad-blocker that can remove or replace those video-processed overlays. I mean, if they can put them there in the first place, it ought to be easy to remove them.
I've thought about that many times when watching old sports videos, especially some motor racing and football which used to have very prominent cigarette advertising - thankfully illegal now here in Australia.
Often the ads are blurred which I actually don't like as it kind of ruins the feel of the show. I'm not a fan of such retroactive censorship, it feels historically dishonest. What is a film if not a recording of the zeitgeist? And within that zeitgeist, cigarette advertising was acceptable. I'm not sure if it's actually required legally as I could have sworn that I've seen some without the blurring.
Customisable TV ads is not an idea I'd be prepared to release onto the world. If there's one thing that humanity doesn't need, it's more advertising.
There is a much bigger barrier to entry when it comes to monetizing via product placement and sponsorships. For smaller entities, developing dedicated advertising partnerships is just not on the table.
So if the the ad networks themselves truly are the problem (and as a result adblocking is ever on the rise), it sounds like there is an opportunity for a better, more "organic" solution accessible to the long tail of smaller sites looking for monetization options. Sounds like a tricky nut to crack, as I'm sure anyone who works in the industry would tell me.
Adblock Plus has an "Acceptable Ads" program that allows non-animated, non-sound ads to remain on the page. People who think supporting the sites they visit is the right thing to do, can enable acceptable ads while blocking annoying ones.
I agree with this. One of the places I don't mind advertising at all is podcasts. Typically it's a short 10-20 seconds, integrated into the content, products relevant to the audience and none of the tracking or security risks that come with traditional online advertising.
Some great examples of this are the TWiT network and the Co-Optional podcast.
The trouble is, most third party networks are so laser focused on getting people to "interact" with their advertising that they've skewed the game in favor of distracting users from the content they arrived to consume. They're so focused on targeted advertising that they regularly invade users privacy, utilize questionable data collection practices, and break down security barriers when browsers try to shut down their violations of user trust. It's no wonder ad blockers are on the rise, because the existing ad networks are all untrustworthy.
There will always be a place for advertising when it's done properly. Watch an NFL broadcast and observe the product placement, the logos and sponsors everywhere. It's organic, integrated into the very fiber of the broadcast in a way that couldn't be blocked with even the most sophisticated blocking software. And it's also usually quite tasteful, there to promote the product, but not distracting enough to detract from the game the viewers came to the channel to watch.
This kind of advertising, organic product placement and sponsorships, where the content creator and the advertiser have a real partnership and coordinate their efforts, this is the kind of advertising I want to see more of. For all the drama they tend to draw, I commend the Gawker sites (Gizmodo is particularly good about this) for their Sponsored posts and their frequent "Deal of the Day" posts, which are first-party advertising that my blocker regularly fails to block. And you know what? Some of the deals are genuinely interesting to me, because Gizmodo clearly knows their audience, and selects advertising partners that make sense on their blogs. More of that please!