There's something Ive been curious about, and as one of the companies on that committee I wonder what your thoughts are on this.

I honestly expected advertising industry folks to recognize the adblock problem and to take meaningful action long before the prevalence of adblocking tech got to this stage of such common household use. Instead, it feels like they've doubled down on the obnoxious ads.

I figured they'd realize that abusive ads will encourage ad-avoidance behaviors, but they seem totally oblivious to the root cause of the problem.

There's that soundbite about a man's salary depending on his not understanding the problem, but that feels like a gross oversimplification of this issue.

Can anyone with the ad companies offer any insight into the thought processes at play wrt adblock?

Perverse incentives and lack of regulation means nobody cares.

The adtech industry isn't full of idiots, it's thousands of people like you and me. Most people know how it all works, but unfortunately these companies are currently setup to make money on data and scale by any means - not by quality. 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? The agencies who sell them the ad campaigns and have inside deals with their own vendors?

Also the most annoying ads are the ones that show the most "engagement" - precisely because they are annoying. The ad that overlays the page and gets in your face will show more impressions and more time on screen than the less intrusive versions, and so these formats continue to get more money. Same with the outstream video (the ads that open up between paragraphs). Everyone wanted video, there wasn't enough inventory to go around, so these companies just created new spots for it. Unfortunately you can't escape from watching it so their stats look great and now these companies are massive.

What about data collection? Even the FCC/FTC hasn't really done much around proper disclaimers or data rights. Europe is leading the way with GDPR but that's still waiting to play out.

This is a tough industry where doing the right thing doesnt make you much money, and so you get the results you see.

> 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.

I don't know how representative I am here, but it seems as though the listed acceptable ad criteria miss the point. The criteria focus upon the presentation of advertising. That is nice, but the reality is that users can choose to leave a site and avoid visiting it in the future if the presentation of advertising is annoying.

A more important question is: how can you keep advertisers honest? Clearly labeling content as advertising is a step in the right direction, but I would also expect some measures to ensure that the advertisers are being held accountable for the content of the ad and where the ad redirects to.

Then there is the issue of data acquired by the tracking of users. While I am at the extreme end, by viewing no form of tracking as acceptable, any advertising standard that fails to place restrictions on data handling and collection is basically saying that the abuse of user data is okay as long as you don't annoy the user.

This is the regulation I'm referring to. A global industry moving billions of dollars with very little oversight.

You can write some code, wrangle together some sites (or even make some fake ones) and start selling your inventory on the exchanges today. Nobody will stop you and there are so many vendors that you will undoubtedly get paid by some large brands who don't know where all their ads are running. It is a mess, to put it lightly.

So yes, privacy and data regulations are sorely needed but we need to start somewhere. GDPR is something we (as in our company) is watching to see how that plays out.

As others here have pointed out, the definition of an acceptable ad here says nothing about tracking[1]. This is what I mostly care about, and I don't see ABP (or now the AAC) wanting to change anything. So I'll stick with uBlock(Origin) thank you.

I do have a question thought - as a someone in the ad industry, do you ever think to yourself: "We've built the largest surveillance system the world has ever known... for the purpose of selling vacuum cleaners and toilet paper."

[1] https://acceptableads.com/en/about/criteria

Edit: For the record, I whitelist ad networks like The Deck in all my ad blockers, because their privacy policy meets my definition of acceptable tracking (http://decknetwork.net/privacy/).

No we don't think that, because that's not how it works.

Advertising is just distributing a message, a small subset of marketing in general. And marketing is connecting consumers to services/products they want and need. Creating brands and desires is a separate art within it but saying it's just a system to sell some toilet paper is incredibly reductive and I'm sure you know it's not that simple.

Surveillance is the act of monitoring, not the system itself. So yes, unfortunately anything that has a large surface area of data access will be at the mercy of greater actors who might (forcibly or otherwise) use that access for surveillance. There's nothing special about online advertising here, rather this is an issue about personal rights, laws and the government in general.

ABP does have a weakness when it comes to privacy clarifications - and as I've said before I'm not a fan of them or their approach - however since the list only allows certain ad networks, it greatly cuts down on the number of trackers since they would still remain blocked. The hope is to get greater rules put in place (by the entire industry) but we have to start somewhere or this never gets off the ground.

> Lots of strong emotions here, as usual with anything ad related on HN. The fact is that advertising pays for much of the internet content you consume for free.

I'd be perfectly happy if ads could no longer support free content on the internet. It would mean that I'd either have to pay for what I want to read, or the author would have to give it away for free. If every bit of ad-supported content had to go into one of those two categories, I don't think I'd lose anything I care about.

Sure, that's valid - for you. But there are billions of people who would choose ad subsidized content so what's important is a choice of options.

Also you run into more advertising in the real world then online and every company you work for is most likely successful because of advertising.

> But there are billions of people who would choose ad subsidized content

How do you know? (Honest question.)

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.

Our company has no malware. We don't run any 3rd party content or tags and everything is simple, static, fast and non-intrusive native ads.

That being said, other companies do run 3rd party tags/content and since it's impossible to verify this completely, they're open to malware and fraud. Until advertisers stop sending them money, there's not much I can do about it.

However committees like this and working with adblockers and other industry groups to put some rules and, more importantly enforcement, in place has the potential to finally change things.

As a member of the committee, can you explain why it's only the opposing party's seats which haven't been filled, and why the committee is so heavily stacked against them (7 vs 3.5, if we assume a rando is not going to be very effective)?

Unfortunately I don't know. We didn't even know the other names of people or companies until today - and there are some there that I wish weren't.

Explain where the progress is in creating a committee that's packed with advertisers who decide which ads the ad-blocker software does or doesn't block.

The entire advertising mechanism is a balance between advertisers, the supply chain (vendors, agencies, publishers, etc) and the consumer.

ABP is on behalf of the consumer, but you can't change an industry from one side. Progress comes from discussion and commitments to do something, so you need all sides at the table.

Our ad network was designed from day 1 to be simple, static, fast, private and safe. It's one of the reasons we're in the committee, and hopefully this gives us leverage to show other companies as well as advertisers that there's a better way that still delivers results without the terrible effects of legacy options.

I agree with you completely; the balance indeed is among advertisers, the supply chain, and consumers.

I assert that balance, in this case, means all parties trying to optimize for their own best interests. This self-interested optimization, in turn, plays out in a give and take among all parties. The balance is maintained through checks and balances; the parties act as adversaries when necessary to prevent any individual party from gaining too much power or subverting the interests of another. Otherwise the system becomes unstable.

> The fact is that advertising pays for much of the internet content you consume for free.

I've never had free internet... which ISP do you use?

> It's because of perverse incentives and a lack of regulation in the entire industry that force bad formats, fraudsters, malware, and the pursuit of data and volume to win over quality and user experience.

The whole point of advertising is to trick people into buying shit they don't need.

> As much as I don't care for the ABP approach, it's something that can be used to actually make progress and that's what this is, progress.

This is a step backwards, not progress.

> It's finally some outside pressure on the industry to change from the segment of the advertising mechanism that matters most - the people themselves.

Bullshit. This is a way of lifting the pressure on the industry, and this initiative is mostly supported by players in the industry. Not the people.

DISCLOSURE: I WORK AT GOOGLE ON NOTHING AD RELATED BUT IT CERTAINLY PAYS MY SALARY.

>> The fact is that advertising pays for much of the internet content you consume for free. > I've never had free internet... which ISP do you use?

How many payments from Comcast to New York Times happen per year? Hint, the number rhymes with buck mall.

>> It's because of perverse incentives and a lack of regulation in the entire industry that force bad formats, fraudsters, malware, and the pursuit of data and volume to win over quality and user experience. > The whole point of advertising is to trick people into buying shit they don't need.

Or, it's to inform you about the stuff that's out there. It's all perspective. "Trick"? What phone do you own? I guarantee you heard about it through some form of advertisement. And before you say that it's only because you read a review about it - I 1000% guarantee you saw an ad somewhere that primed you to even read the article.

>> As much as I don't care for the ABP approach, it's something that can be used to actually make progress and that's what this is, progress. > This is a step backwards, not progress.

Why?

>> It's finally some outside pressure on the industry to change from the segment of the advertising mechanism that matters most - the people themselves. > Bullshit. This is a way of lifting the pressure on the industry, and this initiative is mostly supported by players in the industry. Not the people.

There's no one on the other side right now - ABP is at least bringing the people to the table.

If you don't like it, then turn on and pay for Google Contributor (see earlier disclosure about my employer) and then no ads AND the site you visits actually get paid.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.

Please don't create accounts to do this with.

ISP are providing access/transit, not content. Just because you have a car doesn't mean you can go to any store and carry out merchandise for free.

Advertising, and the greater marketing concept, is not that simple. It's about connecting customers looking for wants and needs with the companies that offer them. There is a certain amount of work in creating that desire (hence the wants and not just needs) but it's ultimately still the consumers choice.

Care to explain how this is backwards progress and lifts pressure on the industry? ABP is a company and extension that only makes it harder for the existing ad networks to continue.

> ISP are providing access/transit, not content.

If you want to go that route, then none of the advertising companies, or companies that make money from advertising are providing the content either. There are several steps before the content comes from some person's mind to your computer, the ISP is one of those steps.

> Care to explain how this is backwards progress and lifts pressure on the industry?

You want me to explain how an initiative to not block a subset of ads alleviates the pressure from blocking all ads? Seems pretty trivial to me.

> This is a company and extension that only makes it harder for the existing ad networks to continue.

Nope. They did make it harder before, when they weren't taking money from advertising companies to not hide ads, and weren't launching initiatives such as the topic of this thread.

Those companies are contracted and put in place by the content producers and owners to monetize their content, in exchange for giving it to you for free. Some content producers dont do this and charge you directly instead.

There will not be an internet without ads. So that is not a logical or reasonable goal.

The very vast majority are fine with advertising but the current situation is out of hand - so yes, working on standards that everyone agrees on and moves forward with will create progress.

Just because it's done this way at the time, it doesn't mean it's right.

To be fair, the monetization of "free" content should be done different way: utility payment model is the way to go. YouTube Red got it right, they just haven't pushed it all the way - eliminate ALL ads. Apple Music and Spotify got it right too.

As a customer, I have fixed amount of hours to spent in a day to consume content, so content providers have to compete for this time to get compensated. If you pay flat fee at ISP level, then it can distributed to content owners minus platform service fee. This way you don't stuff people with gazillions of non-relevant ads and there's natural flow to get higher quality content to attract customers to your site.

Ads are not needed to get "free" internet.

Right for who though? The important thing is to have choice as a consumer, both ads and paid or ideally a spectrum between both extremes.

Advertising is the most egalitarian method because everyone regardless of money can access the same things. This is an important issue in a world full of great wealth and power disparity.

Also what you're asking for is basically a cable bundle for the internet. It's in the works by a few companies, we'll see if it goes anywhere.

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.

I don't agree that this is a step backwards, but I certainly do agree that this is not a step forward.

Progress will be defined by decreasing the amount of obnoxious advertising, until we see that there is no progress and this is all talk.

I do enjoy that both sides are trying to improve the situation, but I still feel like the ad industry has yet to acknowledge that they are the root cause of the problem.

We almost need an advertising "intervention"... If the creation and rapid adoption of adblocking software isn't the embodiment of that though, I don't know what is.

> Progress will be defined by decreasing the amount of obnoxious advertising

That's exactly the point. Advertising is necessary, but showing that we all agree to a better implementation of it will let us move forward rather than making things worse.

The people in the industry know the reason, but again it's about incentives and lack of oversight. Far easier to just look the other way and make a few dollars than try to go against the grain.

> Advertising is necessary

No it's not.