This is painful: Google plans to have adblocker on by default in Chrome

by .
39 replies
Several instances where I've found about this:

The Verge:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/1/15...nounced-google

TechCrunch:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/19/go...er-for-chrome/

Wall Street Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-...ser-1492643233

(side note: also the Head of Mobile Web at Freelancer brought it up)

Going through it, it looks like the Chrome blocker is based only on ads that are 'intrusive' but don't give a clear identification as to what that actually means. What we do know, is that the Ad Blocker will be installed and 'on' by default.

I'm assuming it's going to be autoplaying videos, interstitials that take up the entire screen and it's not limited to ads outside of Google's own ad realm, they're also tackling users in their own markets that don't meet Google's own guidelines (just in case they miss any upfront I assume).

But the biggest questions that I have is exactly where do they draw the line? Chrome already takes up just over 59% of market share in the desktop browser market space and 54% in the tablet + mobile space.

Desktop:


Mobile + Tablet:


source: https://www.netmarketshare.com/brows...=0&qpcustomd=1

My advice now is to be prepared to start removing autoplay=1 on youtube embedded links. The chances of it affecting BuzzSumo users is also quite likely (modals etc) but we won't know how big of an impact this will have until it's rolled out to all Chrome users.

To stay up to date with chrome changes and daily updates, I'd recommend people have a copy of Google Chrome Canary installed on their computers as well, I suspect as with most changes to Chrome, they'd test it on Canary first.
#adblocker #chrome #default #google #painful #plans
  • Profile picture of the author safinsan
    May be their ultimate goal is to block facebook ads on chrome browser. How long they Google will allow this?
    People using their browser and facebook reaping benefit?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11108846].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rahul Chaurasia
      Absolutely right. Everything is just an excuse. Google's actual target is to handle Facebook. But now how Facebook will handle it?
      * Now what Facebook will do? Launch its own new browser or buy any browser like Mozilla or something else.

      But this time it will be hard for Facebook because Google provides a lot of service and that is why using chrome make a very good experience. Let's see what happen next.
      Signature
      Free Website Design ! Let Us Develop & Design Ur Blog/ Business Website Free of Cost.
      Dropship / eCommerce Store start from $500 (incl : Dropship Plugin+Hosting+Domain+SSL)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11109019].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by Rahul Chaurasia View Post

        Absolutely right. Everything is just an excuse. Google's actual target is to handle Facebook. But now how Facebook will handle it?
        * Now what Facebook will do? Launch its own new browser or buy any browser like Mozilla or something else.


        But this time it will be hard for Facebook because Google provides a lot of service and that is why using chrome make a very good experience. Let's see what happen next.
        Google Chrome is actually based on Chromium which is a free open-source browser. It would be fairly easy for FB to create their own browser similar to Google's Chrome. Add in a few unique features and they could probably compete pretty well with Chrome in the browser wars.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11110721].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author superowid
    Competition is getting hot.
    Signature

    Hard time to keep promoting business? Don't worry!
    JUST USE MY GRAPHIC & VIDEO SERVICES
    . . . . . Let me help cutting your ad production cost! . . . . .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11108862].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AshTJ
    Good. Less available ad impressions for advertisers because of dodgy websites = higher CPMs for me
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11108896].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Stephan Eijer
      Idd it could work out good
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11108989].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ryanbiddulph
      My point exactly. This weeds out some of the lower energy sites out there, making room for helpful sites.
      Signature
      Ryan Biddulph inspires you to be a successful blogger with his courses, 100 plus eBooks, audio books and blog at Blogging From Paradise
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11111334].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author helisell
    15 years I've been at this.

    "Everything changes all the time"

    That's the rule.....and you just have to get used to adapting, changing, learning and
    carry on making a living. Most people have to go out to work every day so we are very lucky
    to have these new problems.
    Signature

    Making Calls To Sell Something? What are you actually saying?
    Is there any room for improvement? Want to find out?

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11108974].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Brent Stangel
    Get out in front of it.

    Be one of the first with new software solutions or alternate strategies to sell and you will make a fortune.

    Something I've learned over the years is to roll with the changes as quickly as possible.
    Signature
    Get Off The Warrior Forum Now & Don't Come Back If You Want To Succeed!
    All The Real Marketers Are Gone. There's Nothing Left But Weak, Sniveling Wanna-Bees!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11109132].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steve L
    I wonder if they were inspired by Brave browser at all.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11109291].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ryanbiddulph
    This is just pushing us to create more value. A good thing. Versus relying on ads alone or predominantly, now we render more helpful service, create robust products, earn more money and lift the IM realm higher. Good deal. Less manipulation. More making a difference.
    Signature
    Ryan Biddulph inspires you to be a successful blogger with his courses, 100 plus eBooks, audio books and blog at Blogging From Paradise
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11109294].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cynthiaSEL
    Google makes money on ads, so blocking other people from benefiting from their platforms seems a natural move for them to make.
    Signature

    By the way, do you want to learn how to get over your fears so that you can accomplish your dreams? If so, do this exercise How to Get Over Your Fears so that You Can Accomplish Your Dreams

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11109461].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tunydaniel
    why they do that? They are blocking Google Display Ads also?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11109823].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Marcus W K Wong
      Not necessarily all ads, just the ones that look intrusive, or act against Google's advertising policies. They're tightening the requirements of quality of ads, which makes sense.

      As ryanbiddulph said, they're pushing people to create more value which ties into Google's core vision and this is a great thing.

      This stretches beyond just google ads - it's going to change the landscape of IM and affect how people market their product, position their funnel, modals, landing pages - the whole 9 yards.

      It's nothing new for most hyper-white hat marketers and they'll be fine (if anything, they'll flourish as per expectation). But, advertising is going to get far more creative with lead magnets.

      Those that will see a hit initially will be publishers, but - I agree that it's for the better and publishers will recognise the quality of the ads in the short term.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11110573].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author drooselyn
    It's been a while since adblock and google are waging war. In all cases there will always be plugins to block advertisements.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11109914].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author discrat
    As they say adapt or die
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11109918].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ryanbiddulph
    Another ad guys, after re-reading.

    This is called progress. Or change. Or evolution. We see the cyber writing on the wall When the heavies make decisions, we go with the flow or try to swim upstream. You know the smart thing to do.
    Signature
    Ryan Biddulph inspires you to be a successful blogger with his courses, 100 plus eBooks, audio books and blog at Blogging From Paradise
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11110701].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Adrianne_
    The way I see it is that this will help us become better marketers.
    When one door closes, go ahead an open up another one. I
    don't see how this is different from a user downloading Ad Blocker
    and installing it on their desktop pc. A ton of people are already
    using Ad Blocker anyway. I'm guilty of using it myself, particularly on
    YouTube.

    When it comes to PPC, if a marketer finds that they're losing
    revenue due to ads being blocked, I'm guessing they will perfect
    another way to market their business. It is what it is.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11110707].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ZephyrIon
    The strong will adapt and survive. The others will fall off and budgets will free up.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11110835].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Luis Gomes
    The adblock "problem" isn't going away anytime soon. In fact I'm pretty sure that adblocking plugins will continue to be more of a hassle for publishers than some hypothetical adblocking feature in chrome in the far future.
    Also note that because Google is a huge advertising player and Chrome has currently the largest browser share, I'm guessing that this new feature will still get discussed at great lengths due to anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws. (Remember when Microsoft had to remove IE from Windows on Europe, etc).
    So, I'm guessing that as soon as Google starts blocking Bing or Facebook ads, then the litigation will begin, and that should pretty much halt the development or implementation of that feature. Of course I may be wrong, but it does seem a bit strange for Google to be doing this without second intentions as hinted by people on this thread.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11111319].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author writeaway
    This is actually WONDERFUL NEWS if you really think hard about it

    This will push publishers to pack value into their content and use the content as the IMMERSIVE value-focused 'ad'

    That's a good thing!
    Signature

    Want To Make More Money Online? Invest in BETTER CONTENT!
    Articles - Blogs - Authority sites - Ecommerce descriptions - Emails - Youtube video scripts - AFFORDABLE RATES!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11111540].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dburk
    I think this is a brilliant move on the part of Google.

    With so many users already installing ad blockers that block all ads, including Google's AdWords ads, Google needed to take action. By including ad blocking as a native feature in Chrome, they insure that high quality ads can still be seen while blocking the worst offenders.

    Essentially what is happening is the exact same thing with popup blockers. In the past we had to install popup blockers because there were so many websites with intrusive popup ads, including many that would start a chain reaction of endless loop popups that forced users to turn off their computers to recover. Everyone had to install popup blockers until Chrome, and other browser makers started building in popup blockers as a security feature.

    Let's face it, there are many publishers that load their web pages down with so many ads that the pages become barely usable.

    There is one popular website that I had to completely abandon because they loaded so many ads on every page that my browser would crash before the page would every finish loading. I literally could not visit the website without first installing an ad blocker. An ad blocker that only blocks the most offensive ads, or excessively overloaded pages, is a welcomed new feature.

    Don Burk
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11111632].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author writeaway
      Originally Posted by dburk View Post

      I think this is a brilliant move on the part of Google.

      With so many users already installing ad blockers that block all ads, including Google's AdWords ads, Google needed to take action. By including ad blocking as a native feature in Chrome, they insure that high quality ads can still be seen while blocking the worst offenders.

      Essentially what is happening is the exact same thing with popup blockers. In the past we had to install popup blockers because there were so many websites with intrusive popup ads, including many that would start a chain reaction of endless loop popups that forced users to turn off their computers to recover. Everyone had to install popup blockers until Chrome, and other browser makers started building in popup blockers as a security feature.

      Let's face it, there are many publishers that load their web pages down with so many ads that the pages become barely usable.

      There is one popular website that I had to completely abandon because they loaded so many ads on every page that my browser would crash before the page would every finish loading. I literally could not visit the website without first installing an ad blocker. An ad blocker that only blocks the most offensive ads, or excessively overloaded pages, is a welcomed new feature.

      Don Burk
      I suspect this is an anti-Facebook move by Google.

      Why?

      Tons of fake news / viral links spread through FB has very intrusive and misleading ad structures

      This gets in the way of readability and perceived value

      By KILLING the financial incentive at the source (the browser level), Google takes the incentive away from viral publishers using social media to crank out such low value but click magnetic content.

      The end result? These publishers' Return on Effort will tank and you'll see a shift to IN-CONTENT AD MECHANISMS ie., blurring of content and ad
      Signature

      Want To Make More Money Online? Invest in BETTER CONTENT!
      Articles - Blogs - Authority sites - Ecommerce descriptions - Emails - Youtube video scripts - AFFORDABLE RATES!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11111748].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dburk
        Originally Posted by writeaway View Post

        I suspect this is an anti-Facebook move by Google.

        Why?

        Tons of fake news / viral links spread through FB has very intrusive and misleading ad structures

        This gets in the way of readability and perceived value

        By KILLING the financial incentive at the source (the browser level), Google takes the incentive away from viral publishers using social media to crank out such low value but click magnetic content.

        The end result? These publishers' Return on Effort will tank and you'll see a shift to IN-CONTENT AD MECHANISMS ie., blurring of content and ad
        Hi writeaway,

        I don't see it as anti-Facebook at all. I think it will likely help Facebook nearly as much as Google. Both services rely 95% on a healthy ad revenue model for existence.

        This is clearly a pro-advertising move, in my opinion. Just as including native popup blockers, and implementing Quality Scores for AdWords, both helped to remove offensive advertising practices, this will serve the same practical purpose. It's about preserving a healthy and prosperous ad revenue model, not about gaining advantage over a competitor.

        To the notion of "blurring content", that is not a new phenomenon, in fact it is a well established practice. Not coincidentally, as the use of ad blocking software has increased so has the the need for native ads. Native ads explicitly blur the line between content and advertising. In a world of ad blocking, it is the only option for publishers, unless, of course a more responsible native ad blocker gets built into browsers, just as we saw with popup blocker technology.

        Once you have decent, responsible, ad blockers built-in to web browsers, you can maintain a healthy ad revenue model. The current trajectory, without native built-in-browser ad blockers, will kill free services like those provided by search engines and many other publishers.

        This is strictly self-defense of the most important revenue model within Google's services. Without ad revenue there is no Google Search, at least not a free version, without ad revenue there is no Youtube, at least not a free version, without ad revenue there are almost no content networks, at least not free to access non-promotional content.

        I see this as a very smart move, one that I welcome and strongly encourage, as opposed to doing nothing and watching the entire internet convert into purely paid services or promotional content.

        Don Burk
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11112082].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Luis Gomes
          Originally Posted by dburk View Post

          This is clearly a pro-advertising move, in my opinion. Just as including native popup blockers, and implementing Quality Scores for AdWords, both helped to remove offensive advertising practices, this will serve the same practical purpose. It's about preserving a healthy and prosperous ad revenue model, not about gaining advantage over a competitor.
          It's clearly pro-advertising but do you really think that there's no strategic play here and they're doing it for the greater good?

          Let's see:
          - Google's number one source of revenue is, by a large margin, advertising.
          - Google owns the browser with the largest market share.
          - Google will now implement some sort of ad control directly into said browser that will make it have to actually inspect every ad your browser loads and, presumably, report it to headquarters so it can then run its algorithms and pass its judgement on them.

          Questions:
          - How much is it worth to Google knowing exactly what other ads people are seeing from all of their main (and not so main) competitors?
          - What or who will decide what ads are good or not?

          And the comparison with popup blockers isn't really a fair one.
          Popups will load processes into your computer and are relatively easy to block from a tech point of view.
          Now, some abstract idea that one ad is somehow more "likeable" or "better" than another ad is definitely not as easy or as straightforward to classify.

          A better comparison would be if your TV turned itself off whenever there was an ad playing that the TV's manufacturer didn't seem fit.

          Originally Posted by dburk View Post

          Once you have decent, responsible, ad blockers built-in to web browsers, you can maintain a healthy ad revenue model.
          Maybe, but remember when the most used adblock plugin around tried to curate ads using some sort of very lightweight and non-intrusive ads system AKA acceptable ads? People uninstalled in flocks and just installed more aggressive plugins.
          The lesson here is that people that use adblock don't really want better ads or Google curated ads. They want no ads. That's also why adblocking plugins usually go with easylist as default source with its "block everything" approach.

          I'm probably being a bit pessimistic or even shortsighted about this and Google may in fact come up with some kind of great and innovative machine-learning, quantum powered AI superbot that will really turn the advertising industry around for the better.

          But somehow, Google having even more control over online advertising is really not something I can see as positive for the whole. Hoping I'm wrong though.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11112154].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author dburk
            Originally Posted by Luis Gomes View Post

            It's clearly pro-advertising but do you really think that there's no strategic play here and they're doing it for the greater good?

            Let's see:
            - Google's number one source of revenue is, by a large margin, advertising.
            - Google owns the browser with the largest market share.
            - Google will now implement some sort of ad control directly into said browser that will make it have to actually inspect every ad your browser loads and, presumably, report it to headquarters so it can then run its algorithms and pass its judgement on them.
            Hi Luis,

            Yes, I agree. I think that sums it up correctly

            Originally Posted by Luis Gomes View Post

            Questions:
            - How much is it worth to Google knowing exactly what other ads people are seeing from all of their main (and not so main) competitors?
            - What or who will decide what ads are good or not?
            I think is fairly safe to say that Google already has this data, and has had it from the very beginning, this is the core technology of their search engine, it also was possible with their page rank toolbar browser extension, and currently available with technology embedded in their browsers.

            Originally Posted by Luis Gomes View Post

            And the comparison with popup blockers isn't really a fair one.
            Popups will load processes into your computer and are relatively easy to block from a tech point of view.
            Now, some abstract idea that one ad is somehow more "likeable" or "better" than another ad is definitely not as easy or as straightforward to classify.
            Again, this is one of Google's core technologies and has been since their inception. Their entire existence depends on their competency of reviewing and approving of ads. Not a stretch for them to incorporate what they are known to be exceptionally good at into an ad blocker.

            Originally Posted by Luis Gomes View Post

            A better comparison would be if your TV turned itself off whenever there was an ad playing that the TV's manufacturer didn't seem fit.
            Not a bad idea, they could call it a DVR (digital video Recorder)

            Oh.. wait... they already have that technology widely implemented. An oddly enough, the CATV supplies it as a standard feature for most paid TV services.

            Originally Posted by Luis Gomes View Post

            Maybe, but remember when the most used adblock plugin around tried to curate ads using some sort of very lightweight and non-intrusive ads system AKA acceptable ads? People uninstalled in flocks and just installed more aggressive plugins.
            The lesson here is that people that use adblock don't really want better ads or Google curated ads. They want no ads. That's also why adblocking plugins usually go with easylist as default source with its "block everything" approach.
            Exactly my point.

            If Google isn't able to build a better ad blocker, like they built a better popup blocker, then Google, Facebook and all other free services are likely to disappear if the current trend of "block everything" remains intact.

            I think the comparison to popup blockers is spot on because Google and other browser makers quickly jumped in and made popup blocking a native feature when some popup blockers started to block all types of ads. By adding Popup blocking as a native feature they temporarily destroyed the market for 3rd party popup blockers that contained indiscriminate ad blocking features.

            I believe that Google hopes to repeat their success at quelling the demand for 3rd party popup blockers within the now emerging 3rd party ad blocker market.

            Originally Posted by Luis Gomes View Post

            ]I'm probably being a bit pessimistic or even shortsighted about this and Google may in fact come up with some kind of great and innovative machine-learning, quantum powered AI superbot that will really turn the advertising industry around for the better.

            But somehow, Google having even more control over online advertising is really not something I can see as positive for the whole. Hoping I'm wrong though.
            More than a bit pessimistic, I'd say... This is already part of Google's core competency and has been for years.

            Google must do something and do it quick else Google, Facebook and nearly all free web based services will be forced into becoming paid services or face extinction. Which would you rather see?

            Personally I's rather see a responsible ad blocker rather than the end of advertiser supported free services like Google search, Facebook, Youtube and the like.

            That's my take, I like using those ad revenue supported services without having to pay for them. People that advocate for blocking all ads are unwittingly advocating the blocking of all ad revenue supported services. There is a lot at stake here, not just for Google, at least it is in Google's interest to save the world-wide-web from the fools that would narcissistically ruin it for the rest of us.

            Who else, but Google, is in a position to do this?

            Don Burk
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11112187].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Luis Gomes
              Hey Don,

              Quick disclaimer: I'm not against improving the online advertising industry in a way that can make everybody keep using free services and those services continue profiting from advertising.

              And you make some good points, but I just think that we're too willing to give Google much more information than they already have and getting it closer to becoming a walled garden.

              Anyway, here are some comments and arguments to your post.

              Originally Posted by dburk View Post

              I think is fairly safe to say that Google already has this data, and has had it from the very beginning, this is the core technology of their search engine, it also was possible with their page rank toolbar browser extension, and currently available with technology embedded in their browsers.
              The core technology of their search engine is most definitely not to analyse the ad-networking behavior of their competitors. But of course I get what you mean, Google obviously already has a ton of data about our browsing habits. But there's a thin yet dangerous line between "sending anonymous information to Google" and literally analyzing your fully rendered page after being decoded by SSL, etc and sending that to be dissected by their algos so they can determine if an ad is bad or not.


              Originally Posted by dburk View Post

              Again, this is one of Google's core technologies and has been since their inception. Their entire existence depends on their competency of reviewing and approving of ads. Not a stretch for them to incorporate what they are known to be exceptionally good at into an ad blocker.
              It's a different thing approving ads from customers on their platform than doing it real time in a world with what must be many thousands of different adnetworks and adservers. So, unless they just adopt the same strategy of current adblockers and just seed from a list of predefined identifiers (e.g.: easylist) I don't really see how they'll get around claims of bias. And even if they just seed easylist, in the end it will actually just be easylist minus a list of some sort of "agreeable ads" approved by google


              Originally Posted by dburk View Post

              Not a bad idea, they could call it a DVR (digital video Recorder)
              Oh.. wait... they already have that technology widely implemented. An oddly enough, the CATV supplies it as a standard feature for most paid TV services.
              Yeah, maybe it wasn't the best analogy, but I'll take it anyway. Even with a DVR, your service is still delivered with ads and they weren't filtered by the TV manufacturer, DVR manufacturer or even the cable company. You just made use of a paid service the cable tv company provides you or a DVR you bought and programmed. Kind of like if you decided to install an adblocker for your TV and not the other way around.


              Originally Posted by dburk View Post

              If Google isn't able to build a better ad blocker, like they built a better popup blocker, then Google, Facebook and all other free services are likely to disappear if the current trend of "block everything" remains intact.
              I think the comparison to popup blockers is spot on because Google and other browser makers quickly jumped in and made popup blocking a native feature when some popup blockers started to block all types of ads. By adding Popup blocking as a native feature they temporarily destroyed the market for 3rd party popup blockers that contained indiscriminate ad blocking features.
              I believe that Google hopes to repeat their success at quelling the demand for 3rd party popup blockers within the now emerging 3rd party ad blocker market.
              But did they really build a better popup blocker? Or did the fact that it's now included in the browser made it irrelevant to have a popup blocker as a third party app?
              And if they add an adblocker to their browser isn't it also likely that a lot of people will stop downloading an adblocker plugin? Or maybe they can then just have a valid reason to block them on the play store since it would be replicating existing functionality or some other excuse like that?
              And then Google stops having to pay the (rumored?) Eyeo extortion money and can go ahead and take almost complete control of the online advertising world since other companies would then have to pay them for the whitelist? Again.. maybe being a bit dramatic here, but we're still talking about a giant corporation.


              Originally Posted by dburk View Post

              Google must do something and do it quick else Google, Facebook and nearly all free web based services will be forced into becoming paid services or face extinction. Which would you rather see?
              Personally I's rather see a responsible ad blocker rather than the end of advertiser supported free services like Google search, Facebook, Youtube and the like.
              Of course I want all those services to continue as they are and even improve. I just don't have your sense of urgency that any of those companies are in any risk of disappearing or going the paid route anytime soon. This is a move by Google to optimize their core revenue source and most definitely not a selfless act to save the internet from the bad advertisers out there. One thing is for sure, under the guise of an adblocker, they'll definitely have more control over every piece of advertising not only in their adnetwork, but also the ones running on their browsers, currently at about 60% of the world's share.


              Originally Posted by dburk View Post

              That's my take, I like using those ad revenue supported services without having to pay for them. People that advocate for blocking all ads are unwittingly advocating the blocking of all ad revenue supported services. There is a lot at stake here, not just for Google, at least it is in Google's interest to save the world-wide-web from the fools that would narcissistically ruin it for the rest of us.
              Yeah, I'm definitely not advocating for blocking of all ads. But it's funny that you mention Google saving the www from the narcissists that ruin it for the rest of us. Because the biggest reason for the usage of adblock? Not malware, popups, modals or punch the monkey banners. That's right, it's youtube video ads. Not sure if this is funny or ironic, but it's definitely something to navel gaze for a bit.

              Originally Posted by dburk View Post

              Who else, but Google, is in a position to do this?
              Who knows? Maybe some startup of tomorrow. Some kid in a basement today, etc. Or are you suggesting just giving up and handing the keys to the online advertising kingdom to papa Google, because they know best?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11112289].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dburk
    Hi Luis,

    I think we agree on most every point.

    I understand and respect your cautious view of a company as large as Google. I support the idea of having a critical viewpoint of the dominant player in the browser market.

    I'm just pointing out that Google, and only Google, is in a position to do this at this time. That Google, more than any other company is suffering from the indiscriminate 3rd party ad blocking and has the most to lose.

    As the maker of the most dominant browser, and the operator of the largest ad network for the web, no one else could pull this off without Google's involvement. It's kind of a no-brainier, and I'm suprised they have waited this long to do it.

    I haven't seen their implementation yet, but I think they will likely create a version that will please most people, else why bother. They have to dance a fine line between giving people what they want without destroying their revenue model. Google is in a unique position to benefit the entire ad revenue supported web while serving their own personal interests, lucky for us they are serendipitously tied together.

    I guess I am cautiously optimistic, while you are cautiously pessimistic. Google has more to lose than anybody if they get this wrong. I think they are properly incentivised to do the right thing. Only time will tell for sure.

    Don Burk
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11112328].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Luis Gomes
      Originally Posted by dburk View Post

      I'm just pointing out that Google, and only Google, is in a position to do this at this time. That Google, more than any other company is suffering from the indiscriminate 3rd party ad blocking and has the most to lose.

      As the maker of the most dominant browser, and the operator of the largest ad network for the web, no one else could pull this off without Google's involvement. It's kind of a no-brainier, and I'm suprised they have waited this long to do it.
      Hey Don, yeah in that sense you're absolutely right, they are in a unique position for that.

      It's just a shame that it has to come to one big corporation doing something that will be pretty much one sided instead of some sort of new advertising standard or protocol that could be implemented through some sort of api or library and could then get adopted by all browsers.

      Maybe that's where they're heading and that would really help ensure impartiality across browser vendors.

      If not for something like that my greatest fear is that pretty soon we'll also have a facebook browser and an amazon browser, and an ebay browser, etc, all with their own rules. (only half kidding here)

      But oh well, let us await for further developments
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11112340].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dburk
        Originally Posted by Luis Gomes View Post

        Hey Don, yeah in that sense you're absolutely right, they are in a unique position for that.

        It's just a shame that it has to come to one big corporation doing something that will be pretty much one sided instead of some sort of new advertising standard or protocol that could be implemented through some sort of api or library and could then get adopted by all browsers.

        Maybe that's where they're heading and that would really help ensure impartiality across browser vendors.
        Yes, I hear ya.

        It would be nice if Google joined up with other advertising networks in the industry and they all collectively gave input on any new standards and practices for the ad industry.

        The could call it the Network Advertising Initiative, and Google could join other advertisers and together they could set mutually accepted standards and practices for the industry.

        oh... wait... looks like they already did that. Now it's time for implementation. Bring on the ad blocker.

        Don Burk
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11112408].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steve B
    Originally Posted by Marcus W K Wong View Post

    This is painful
    I don't see it that way at all. I guess it's going to be painful to advertisers that dump untargeted low response mass campaigns on the general public, but for "enlightened warriors" that put their ads in front of audiences that want to hear from them ... this is actually good news!

    Hasn't Google always been about providing the user with a quality search experience? That's what they claim and I see this as just another attempt to reign in the "Spammers gone wild" type ads that no one really wants.
    Originally Posted by Marcus W K Wong View Post

    . . . the Ad Blocker will be installed and 'on' by default.
    Lest we forget . . . Google is a private company and they don't consult with you and I about their strategic moves and strategies. I see this as a positive step to "cleaning up" their product's ease of use and effectiveness.

    Steve
    Signature

    Steve Browne, online business strategies, tips, guidance, and resources
    SteveBrowneDirect

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11112330].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Marcus W K Wong
      I'm seeing the 'pain' perspective from the seats of publishers rather than advertisers. Virality content destinations that are frequented for the purpose of procrastination are going to get hit pretty hard considering they purposely break list contents ('21 Awesome Ways To Churn Butter Without Hands' as example) to build page views and of course, lift impression count.

      I still suffer banner blindness on these sites, but I can see the implementations being a solid 'get-your-sh*t together' for advertisers. It's educating but painfully so for advertisers and publishers alike. Being blunt is kind right? lol
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11112443].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Sridhar Ramaswamy, the executive in charge of Google's ads, writes in a blog post that even ads "owned or served by Google" will be blocked on pages that don't meet Chrome's guidelines.


    Funny.

    I guarantee Forbes spammy intro page will survive.
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11112451].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Marcus W K Wong
      And they're not even being nice about it..

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11112527].message }}
  • I've used adblocker forever.

    A lot of online marketers will have to adapt
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11125724].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author spearce000
    You can be sure they won't be blocking Adsense ads.
    Signature
    WordPress Security Clampdown – was just for the War Room, now available to all Warriors. Protect your WordPress site from hackers. No opt-in required.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11126751].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author qlegrand3
    We must evolve as the software does.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11126755].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nicheblogger75
    I don't think it's that big of a deal.

    Most people who use the Internet have ad blockers enabled anyway.

    Besides, there are several good WordPress plugins that can get around that.

    You also have to remember that every time Google does something like this, software developers always come out with a way around it.

    It's par for the course and nothing to be worried about.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11126774].message }}

Trending Topics