How many blockers can we handle?
Ad blockers are spreading rapidly online—how long can this trend be tolerated without countermeasures? An article by Christoph J. Walther from the print edition.
A new kind of online advertising is needed. This realization has been spreading since more and more net users have been using ad blockers. Particularly since Apple has also made this possible on its cell phone operating system, the topic is not only being discussed in the media industry, but also among the public. Ad blockers have been around on the Internet for several years and are by no means unknown. The start-up PageFair has dedicated itself to the topic and publishes an annual report on the subject (together with Adobe).
In the 2015 issue, it is reported that the use of ad blockers in Europe increased by 39 percent last year (41 percent worldwide). Once again, Switzerland is not worth collecting data on here, so we note that ad blocker use in Germany is at 25.3% of internet users (or 18 million in Q2 2015), in the UK at 20.3%, in France at 10.4%. In Europe, they are most widespread in Greece (36.7%) and Poland (34.9%).
No alarm in Switzerland
In Switzerland, a survey conducted by Werbewoche among the major publishers did not reveal any alarmed concern or extraordinary urgency. When it comes to concrete figures, only Steven Goodman, Head of Strategy and Marketing at Watson, is specific and reports that the share of desktops is stable at between 15 and 20 percent. And he also speaks plainly about what this means: "We would make around five percent more revenue if there were no adblockers." And the head of Netmetrix, Rolf Schmitz, explained on request that, based on a survey carried out some time ago, it is assumed that 15 to 20 percent of users in Switzerland use an ad blocker. And he confirmed that these effects are "not factored out" of the published reach figures.
As the example of Watson shows, ad blockers are expensive: the PageFair report estimates that online publishers have lost 22 billion dollars in revenue worldwide as a result and assumes that mobile devices (smartphones, tablets) will be the most popular. This prediction was easy to make when the report was published at the beginning of August, as Apple, whose Safari web browser dominates 52 percent of the mobile web browser market, had already announced at the beginning of June that the next version of the iOS operating system would contain an application programming interface (API) to suppress advertising content in Safari. The topic, which had previously received little attention even in specialist circles, gained momentum and hit the headlines following the release of iOS9 in mid-September: Various ad-blocking extensions topped the hit parade of downloaded Safari extensions after just a few days. That was a wake-up call. Especially for the online advertising industry and also for online publishers.
It dawned on me that something had gone wrong here. Although it is easy to install an ad blocker, a few specific steps are still necessary, which nobody takes on without need. And so the rapid spread of ad blockers is a clear response from the online audience: we've had enough! We don't want video ads that start playing as soon as we open a page. We don't want trackers that record our behavior and thus interfere with our privacy. We don't want ads that are so extensive to download that the display of the content is delayed for an unbearably long time. We don't want advertising that overlays content and is difficult to get rid of (the X to close it is hard to hit at the first attempt, especially on smartphones).
These and similar phenomena have increased significantly in recent times because users hardly pay any attention to conventional online advertising formats such as simple banners. Hence the intrusive video advertising, from which publishers earn more money now that the prices for simple display advertising have plummeted.
Who broke the contract?
Publishers point out that there is a customary right between publishers and readers that advertising is part of the product. In the good times, newspapers were financed to more than half in this way. And hardly anyone took offense, the agreement was valid. So who has violated it in the online world? Is it the consumers who use ad blockers? Or is it the publishers who have gone too far with new forms of online advertising, incurring the public's displeasure and bringing about the termination of the old agreement themselves?
But perhaps everything is half as bad and can soon be dismissed as an episode in history. Just like advertising by e-mail and pop-ups. When the Internet became widely available at the turn of the century, electronic mailboxes were soon overflowing with often dubious advertising emails (known as spam). Better and better spam filters came to the rescue, and today a number of rules have been established (above all: the recipient's consent, the option of simply unsubscribing), with which newsletters etc. are recognized as a marketing instrument. And when, in the early days of the mass distribution of the Internet, web browsers were also used to open unsolicited windows (so-called pop-ups) with advertising messages, this annoyance was eliminated by technical measures taken by the browser providers to suppress such pop-ups.
In recent weeks, since ad blockers for Apple devices have taken the public's favor by storm, new proposals and initiatives to solve the problem have emerged, if not daily, then weekly. For example, the association of leading American media brands on the web, Digital Content Next, together with the World Association of Newspaper Publishers, WAN-IFRA, announced a corresponding initiative at the end of September. Other industry organizations have spoken out with manifestos and other proposals. They make it clear: online advertising 2.0 is needed. Advertising 1.0 has developed organically on the web over the last twenty years through trial and error. Standards are needed that specify to the advertising industry what is permissible on a website. Do we want ads that jump around the page? Do we want ads that cover up content? Do we want ads that collect data about users without them and publishers being informed?
Users are difficult to convince
Only if websites can assure users that they will only display unobtrusive (but not boring) advertising will they be willing to do without ad blockers. But the road to new online advertising standards is long and complicated. It is not just a matter of format issues, which have been defined by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, IAB, in recent years after having proven themselves in practice in most cases. Now it is also about content aspects and the use of online advertising elements. This can be debated for years in international standards committees. And if such a standard exists, it will be easy to argue about its correct application. There will always be sites that display advertising without restrictions. Up to what point is it still more profitable to accept ad blockers? So the question is: when will reach measurement show these losses and when will they have a direct impact on tariffs?
This is because it is unlikely that users will remove their ad blockers, but on the contrary will recommend them to all their acquaintances on the basis of positive experiences. And the incentive to activate certain websites on ad blockers will be low. This is why there will soon be an arms race in the use of technical tricks. Websites will detect the use of ad blockers and encourage users to unblock their site or take out a subscription. Websites can also display advertising directly from their editorial system, which means that it can hardly be distinguished from editorial content in purely technical terms. Or other web servers that are not yet on the list of addresses to be blocked can always be used to display advertising. And providers of ad blockers will come up with methods to circumvent these measures.
Christoph J. Walther
This article already appeared in the print edition of Werbewoche 19/2015 from 23.10.2015

GOOGLE AND ITS ILK IN THE STARTING BLOCKS
It is the publishers who must take a pioneering role in countermeasures to advertising bots. Because the stakes are high. It's not just the loss of revenue that will push any hopes of making a name for themselves online even further away. Ultimately, the survival of trustworthy brands is at stake. People like to point to the music industry, which, after the emergence of songs in MP3 format in 1996, failed to offer an acceptable alternative to the distribution of pirated songs online. It was of little use, for example, to cover helpless mothers with multi-million dollar lawsuits because their youngsters had used the net for free.
It was only when Apple offered a practicable solution with the Music Store (later iTunes) in 2003 that the situation eased. However, music publishers had to face up to the consequences of their failure and swallow Apple's commercial dictates. If media companies fail to win back and consolidate the trust of users in the open web, they open the door for platforms such as Amazon, Apple, Google or Facebook to jump into the gap and offer a solution for news distribution that is accepted by the public. And which degrade publishers to suppliers of mass-produced goods, as their brands hardly play a role anymore. But even worse: if online advertising loses its reach, this could mean the end of the open web, which has been largely financed by advertising since its inception. Particularly at risk are well-established small publishers in the American market who earn their money exclusively through advertising. The withdrawal of publishers' offerings behind paywalls and into apps is encouraging this development.
Interestingly, the American technology giants have recently become involved in the media sector. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has bought the renowned Washington Post and is thus taking an innovative approach. To counter the accusations of European publishers (keyword: ancillary copyright in Germany), Google has launched the Digital News Initiative, proposing a partnership in the areas of technology and innovation. Only to be overtaken on the right by Facebook, which offers a concrete solution with Instant Articles, similar to Apple, which not only enabled ad blockers with iOS9, but also offered an app for news distribution. It is clear that the technology giants have smelled blood and are just waiting for the news industry to be weak enough to bite in desperation. The fact that publishers will be able to agree on binding standards and enforce them on the market, firstly worldwide and secondly in the near future, is unprecedented.






























