The Ad blocker problem rumbles on...
One of the clear (and clever) ways for Publishers to deal with Ad blocking is to not let readers who are using them, to see any content.
The argument goes, that the content has to be paid for and Advertising is the way that does that. So if you block the Ads (using an Ad Blocker), there's no way of paying for the content.
So Publishers automatically detect you have an Ad blocker and deny you access. It follows the legal action against 'Brave', already featured on this Blog so is part of the story.
However, it might now seem that the very detection by publishers of Ad blocking is illegal because it's being done without permissions.
There's talk of a letter from The EU which outlines that privacy is the main issue and readers must give consent to have their Ad blocker well, blocked.
200 million people are using Ad blockers and Publishers are really suffering. This is another problem on top of that problem for them. Now that it's found it's way into the 'privacy community' and activists, will only add to it.
But remember! Video is not Ad blocked! streamabout.com
The row about Ad-Blocking rumbles on but is anything being achieved and isn't it simpler than all of this?
Some of the UK's and US largest publishers have sent a 'cease and desist' legal threat to 'Brave', a new browser with Ad blocking backed in, run by the former CEO of 'Mozilla'. The publishers include The NY Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal et al - 17 of them at least. Presumably too, they've a lot of letters to send to a lot of Ad blockers.
They seem to favour a long legal battle about 'copyright' than using their heads.
'Brave' blocks all Ads except...their own. Clever boys, although the premise is that publishers also get a share (estimated 55%). Publishers claim it's a breach of copyright and will seek damages. Fair enough, that's going to take a legal while....
(As an aside, Denis O'Brien's mobile Digicel is blocking Ads since September, for a different reason because as a 'platform' that carries traffic to the publishers, they too want a share of the Ad money.)
The difficult bit of course, is that online publishers rely on advertising to pay for (and profit from) their sites. Ad blocking diminishes that revenue and Ad blocking is on a surge in an overcrowded market. But you have some sympathy for publishers who are running a business too.
However, it's often forgotten that it's the users who want to Ad block, a point that seems to be missed.
And why? Because of the Ads, not because of the content.
They do not want to be extensively tracked (and they are with the 'consent' of the publisher) and they want a faster browsing experience (which heavy 'rich' advertising negates).
'Brave' sells itself as 'Browse safer and faster'. That's what users want and that's why users are using Ad blocking like 'Brave'.
More than 200 million people use Ad blocking software for these reasons and as a consequent, browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, Safari are all allowing users to do so. Adblock Plus, the most used blocker, takes payment from companies to bypass their Ad blocking software, often referred to by critics as 'extortion'.
So Ad blocking is something the user wants and we know, the user also wants content. After all, that's why they're online.
Is the solution therefore, not simpler?
If the publisher simply refuses any content to users with Ad blockers (no access to any news for example) that will fix it. And if the publishers come together (which 17 titles seem very keen to do legally), this can be done overnight.
ITV and Channel 4 are good examples of the start of this journey.
You want access to the site? Switch off your Ad blocker or you get none.
It's really that simple because on balance, users want the content more than they'll suffer the Ads. Exactly as they do in traditional media.
You want to stop Ad blocking then just stop giving the content. Today.
Ad Blocking, which really hurts online publishers who depend on Advertising, just got easier.
It looks like Apple have just made it easier to block Ads on Ipad and Iphones through their new 'safari' browser release by allowing ad blocking extensions as an option.
Ad blocking is growing by over +70% a year with 144 million users in 2014. It's going to hurt Google and Facebook and will push publishers onto Apple's iad product in order to have Ads on Apple devices.
So basically, if Apple is bringing traffic to Ads via their Safari, they want a cut and encouraging general ad blocking is one way.
We'll see but, not a good day for publishers.
