05-21-2008, 02:00 PM
|
|
Developer & Designer, News Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,959
|
|
More Mobile Advertising Heading Your Way
"Today at Microsoft Corp.’s online advertising leadership forum, advance08, Brian McAndrews, senior vice president of the Advertiser & Publisher Solutions Group, announced the availability of display advertising across two popular Windows Live for mobile services, the launch of new markets for Windows Live for mobile services, and upcoming advertising plans for its Live Search Mobile offering. This marks the first year that mobile advertising has played a leading role at the industry event that brings together some of the most influential thought leaders of the global advertising community. Announced today, advertisers can now extend their campaigns to social media through Windows Live for mobile in France, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. by creating banner ads that will be visible across Windows Live Messenger and Windows Live Hotmail. This builds upon Microsoft’s initial launch of mobile advertising for MSN Mobile in, France, , Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. where mobile ads are available alongside premium MSN Mobile content. Advertising on Windows Live for mobile is already available in Spain, and later this month will be available in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, further extending its availability for advertisers. All ads placed on these two popular services will adhere to Mobile Marketing Association (MMA) guidelines."
Microsoft has just announced an expansion in the availability of display advertising across its mobile services. You can already see an example of it at http://mobile.live.com/ (screenshot above). I know there's a vocal crowd out there who are strongly against ads in any way, shape, or form, and will go out of their way to block them, but the fact is they are both a direct and indirect source of revenue for many businesses, so denying them that is analogous to stealing. I'm all for mobile advertising - if a business wants to create awareness of their mobile applications and services, they should have a right to do so. My only hope is that given the small displays that mobile devices are endowed with, these ads don't end up being too "in-your-face".
|
| |
|
|
|
05-21-2008, 03:52 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 66
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius Wey
but the fact is they are both a direct and indirect source of revenue for many businesses, so denying them that is analogous to stealing.
|
I have to put my two cents in here.
I understand the need for businesses to advertise -- if I were in business I'd want to advertise too. However, 95% of what I see is irrelevant to me. And it takes up screen space whether it's PPC, PC, or TV, that I'd rather have for the apps I'm running.
Context is also important. I'm more tolerant of apps on a site like PPCT which I know is heavily ad dependent for revenue. Or a site like PCMag.com -- I see their ads in the print mag -- it's the same for the website.
However, I'd rather not see ads on my homepage, where I'm trying to get as much news, stock info, weather, etc. as will fit on the screen. I know Yahoo (my homepage) also needs ad revenue to exist, but they have plenty of other pages where ads are more tolerable, than on my "personalizable, customizable" homepage.
But I have a question is about the stealing comment. If I choose not to view an ad, I don't consider that stealing from the business. If we start to think of choosing not to view an ad as stealing from the business, then it seems that the next step is going to be to require us to watch ads whenever and wherever a business chooses to display them.
Or is the comment directed toward those who provide adblocking software? I still don't consider this stealing. The makers of software are not forcing anyone to use it and I don't know of any that is out there blocking advertising in mass rather than being run on individual PC's and PPC's by user choice.
Ah well. Maybe eventually, there will be a balance struck between the needs of advertisers and the desires of individuals. If the advertisers become more selective in ad placement, then maybe individuals will become more tolerant of ads in places where they make sense -- when we don't have them all over everything we try to view.
|
| |
|
|
|
05-21-2008, 04:53 PM
|
|
Developer & Designer, News Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,959
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmgibson
But I have a question is about the stealing comment. If I choose not to view an ad, I don't consider that stealing from the business. If we start to think of choosing not to view an ad as stealing from the business, then it seems that the next step is going to be to require us to watch ads whenever and wherever a business chooses to display them.
|
Glad you asked. I ought to elaborate on this. There's a difference between allowing an ad to display and ignoring it, and allowing an ad to display and actually being forced to read/watch it. I don't think businesses should ever make consumers do the latter - that's severely limiting freedom of choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmgibson
Or is the comment directed toward those who provide adblocking software? I still don't consider this stealing. The makers of software are not forcing anyone to use it and I don't know of any that is out there blocking advertising in mass rather than being run on individual PC's and PPC's by user choice.
|
The comment is not directed toward those who provide the software. It's directed more toward those who use the software knowing full well that blocking ads eats into a site's revenue. And I've tacked that point on to the end because I know there are users out there who aren't fully aware of the impacts that ad-blocking software may have on the lives of other people, so it's unfair to blame them for wanting to block ads for personal reasons.
But I know of people who do have that knowledge and do use ad-blocking software on ad-supported sites and services. They enjoy the benefits of these sites and services, but choose to block ads because of their general dislike of visual clutter. They're taking something from the providers and giving nothing in return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmgibson
If the advertisers become more selective in ad placement, then maybe individuals will become more tolerant of ads in places where they make sense -- when we don't have them all over everything we try to view.
|
Agreed. I made a similar point toward the end of my original post. Mobile displays are small enough as it is, so the issue of ad sizing and placement is something we need to pay particular attention to.
|
| |
|
|
|
05-21-2008, 05:01 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 66
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius Wey
It's directed more toward those who use the software knowing full well that blocking ads eats into a site's revenue.
|
I am confused now.
I am not fully aware of how revenue is generated for a site by ads. I just know that it is. What I don't understand is how ad-blocking software prevents that revenue from being generated.
Could you explain -- perhaps if more of us understand the effect, we'll be more selective in blocking the ads.
|
| |
|
|
|
05-21-2008, 06:18 PM
|
|
Developer & Designer, News Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,959
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmgibson
I am not fully aware of how revenue is generated for a site by ads. I just know that it is. What I don't understand is how ad-blocking software prevents that revenue from being generated.
|
Revenue generated from dynamic ad content is usually based on the number of ad "impressions" (i.e., displaying the ad) and ad "clicks" registered in a given time period.
Ad-blocking software has a direct and indirect effect. It directly affects the impressions, because it prevents the ads from being displayed. It indirectly affects the clicks, because if there's no ad to display, there's no ad to click. As a consequence, the external provider serving the ads will register no impressions and no clicks, which ultimately hurts the site owner as he/she pockets less revenue.
|
| |
|
|
|
05-21-2008, 09:29 PM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,396
|
|
Blocking Ads Is Stealing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius Wey
Revenue generated from dynamic ad content is usually based on the number of ad "impressions" (i.e., displaying the ad) and ad "clicks" registered in a given time period.
Ad-blocking software has a direct and indirect effect. It directly affects the impressions, because it prevents the ads from being displayed. It indirectly affects the clicks, because if there's no ad to display, there's no ad to click. As a consequence, the external provider serving the ads will register no impressions and no clicks, which ultimately hurts the site owner as he/she pockets less revenue.
|
I agree about not getting clicks, but are you sure that ad blockers actually prevent the impressions? I can see two ways for the software to work:
- Basically rewrite the HTML to remove ad sections. That will block impressions.
- Rewrite the HTML to download the ad but hide it. That will generate the impression, but won't display that ad. (Of course, that's in some sense cheating the advertiser, but that's another issue.)
As for ad blocking being "stealing", I'll disagree. Do you fast forward through commercials on TV or DVDs? If so, isn't that basically like blocking ads?
And what about annoying forms of ads? I personally don't mind banner ads, but what about pop-ups or pop-unders, interstitials, Flash or in-line text ads? Is somebody who allows banner ads but blocks pop-ups stealing? (And don't get me started on those annoying in-line text ads. I'm glad Jason allows turning those off.)
I view ad blocking as harmful to the ad-supported model, but certainly not stealing. Depriving somebody of revenue is not necessarily stealing.
Steve
|
| |
|
|
|
05-21-2008, 09:33 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 451
|
|
Right, so what next, DRM for websites?
I find it curiously hypocritical that tech sites complaining about fair use are starting to go down the potential slippery slope that has plagued RIAA and MPAA; namely, it starts with calling their customers thieves.
|
| |
|
|
|
05-21-2008, 10:04 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 62
|
|
No Ads On Sites Of Retail Companies Thanks
Blocking Ads is stealing?  OMG! I must rush off right away to turn in ComCast and every Cable/Satillite Provider out there - they all block adds on broadcast channels and substitute their own! Maybe there's a big reward in it for me
OK, a site that has no retail hook has to pay the bills if it is to remain a subscription-free service, and Banner ads is one way to possibly do so. But Microsoft doesn't need to clutter up my precious visual real estate with ads for FedEx in order to keep the servers turned on!
Screen space on my device is valuable. I have less than 3 sq" to work with, and it costs me ~$120/month, so if Microsoft and Fed Ex want to commandeer 0.5 sq" of it, they owe me at least what I have to pay for the 'privilige' of carrying their ad around with me. Otherwise they are 'stealing' from me!
With that 0.5sq" costing me about $20/month, plus the purchase and depreciation of the phone, those Pirates will be stealing a lot from me, as compared to the ~$0.01/click that they might lose from FedEx if I block them. So if I block the ads, my actions will be far less 'criminal' than theirs.
Besides, didn't Microsoft build a banner/pop-up blocker into Internet Explorer? OMG! - Another desperate 'thief' for me to turn in for the Reward! Gotta go make a phone call!
MadSci
|
| |
|
|
|
05-21-2008, 10:43 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 444
|
|
Working for one of the largest publishers in the world, I can report that ad blocking software categorically prevents an impression from being registered. The mechanics of what happens is beyond me, although I do know that the earlier attempts at ad blocking added entries to the HOSTS file to prevent proper DNS resolution.
As to your other comparisons (i.e., TV, DVDs, etc.), the ad industry position is that it's just like blocking online advertising and that -- if not stealing -- you are failing to honor your end of the ad-supported publisher/audience "contract."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony99CA
I agree about not getting clicks, but are you sure that ad blockers actually prevent the impressions? I can see two ways for the software to work:
- Basically rewrite the HTML to remove ad sections. That will block impressions.
- Rewrite the HTML to download the ad but hide it. That will generate the impression, but won't display that ad. (Of course, that's in some sense cheating the advertiser, but that's another issue.)
As for ad blocking being "stealing", I'll disagree. Do you fast forward through commercials on TV or DVDs? If so, isn't that basically like blocking ads?
And what about annoying forms of ads? I personally don't mind banner ads, but what about pop-ups or pop-unders, interstitials, Flash or in-line text ads? Is somebody who allows banner ads but blocks pop-ups stealing? (And don't get me started on those annoying in-line text ads. I'm glad Jason allows turning those off.)
I view ad blocking as harmful to the ad-supported model, but certainly not stealing. Depriving somebody of revenue is not necessarily stealing.
Steve |
|
| |
|
|
|
05-22-2008, 12:05 AM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 303
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underwater Mike
As to your other comparisons (i.e., TV, DVDs, etc.), the ad industry position is that it's just like blocking online advertising and that -- if not stealing -- you are failing to honor your end of the ad-supported publisher/audience "contract."
|
I don't remember signing an agreemeant with them. Just like I didn't agree to receive add text messages on my phone. Since when is permission a given?
The day the block me from fast forwarding through commercials on my DVR is the day I set them on fire, the DVR that is.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
