Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

Is Ad Blocking Bad?

9/12/2015

14 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, Founder of Mindful Marketing
Many companies do newsworthy things each day, but nobody nabs headlines like Apple. At this past week’s much-anticipated Apple event, CEO Tim Cook and other execs unveiled the iconic brand’s latest product plans, which included a controversial one: ad blocking.

The firm’s soon-to-be released iOS 9 software “will allow owners of Apple’s newer mobile devices to download Web browser extensions that can block advertising from being shown while they browse the Web.”  The extensions can be set to eliminate all ads, but by default they will only block ones that are judged to be “annoying.”

How is such ad-blocking possible?  The software works “by detecting and stripping out scripts in the code of web pages meant to make browsers pull content from ad networks' computer servers.”  Apple won’t produce the browser extensions itself; rather, consumers will be able to download them from the App Store, just as they do other third-party products.

In order to pacify the media organizations that are justifiably distressed by the ad-blocking announcement, Apple also will include with iOS 9 an app called News, which “will allow publishers to bypass blockers to serve their own ads or let Apple sell ads and share the revenue.”

Internet ads are one of those things that people tend to detest.  Certainly the content and methods of some digital ads deserve disdain, but is it right to block all internet ads?  For a more circumspect perspective on the issue, it might be helpful to consider another example.

For instance, what if there were an app that could help people avoid paying restaurant bills?  While eating, you activate the app, which identifies your table number, associates it with your order, hacks the restaurants’ computer system, and adjusts your entrée price to zero so it appears that your meal has been comped!

Unfortunately, there probably would be people who would purchase such an app.  Most consumers, however, would recognize the inherent immorality—it’s not fair to the restaurant to eat a meal and not pay for it.  Unless businesses intentionally offer us things for free, it’s only right to compensate them for what we consume.

On-line media is also something we consume, often at no financial cost to us.  We can scan CNN headlines, read New York Times editorials, and watch YouTube videos for free.  All of this media content, however, costs something to produce, which means someone must pay for.  Advertisers are those underwriters.  Firms fund online media that’s not their own because we will see and possibly respond to their ads.

Granted, some ads seem irrelevant to us and others are annoying, but it isn’t fair for consumers of on-line media to cut advertisers out of the equation when they’re the ones who make our media consumption possible.  To use software to block their ads is analogous to using the hypothetical restaurant app to dine and dash.

People need to pay for what they consume.  Our part in paying for on-line media is to allow digital ads to be directed to our laptops, tablets, and smartphones.  We don’t have to read or respond to the advertising, but we do need to allow it to appear.

However, there’s even more at stake than the potential inequity of us failing to uphold our end of the media arrangement.  Ad blocking also can precipitate some significant consequences.  In the absence of an incentive for advertisers to sponsor them, certain on-line media could fold, much like a restaurant would close if its patrons didn’t pay.

There’s little question that the Internet’s advertising clutter needs to be cleaned up.  People tend to avoid web pages where ads are especially intrusive, which defeats the purpose of the advertising.  At the same time, it’s unfair to block the output of advertisers—the very ones who finance the media and enable our on-line activities.  In the long-run, ad-blocking software will lead to some very adverse outcomes; however, in the present it seems to create value for the firms that produce it and for the people that use it, which makes ad-blocking a prime example of “Single-Minded Marketing.”



Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
14 Comments
Becca
9/20/2015 10:27:22 pm

I would agree that this idea is single-minded. As a consumer and user of Apple products, I understand that it would be nice to have annoying adds blocked and therefore see how this creates greater stock-holder value. However, I appreciated the perspective in this article because I so often forget what the purpose of those adds is. Those companies pay for those adds to be there so that people see them, and Apple is in a non-direct way stealing from them by blocking their adds. This is a non-ethical thing for Apple to offer and it will be interesting to see if there is any backlash on Apple as a result of them offering this app.

Reply
David Hagenbuch link
9/22/2015 06:32:58 pm

Thank you, Becca. I appreciate your feedback.

Reply
Erin
9/23/2015 05:11:13 pm

The process of ad-blocking while simultaneously being paid to put up the ads must be an incredibly lucrative system. Google's Chrome has had an ad-block extension which I have definitely enjoyed. That has demonstrated to me that certain websites, like hulu.com, for example, have the capability of refusing to function when ad-block blocks their adds. Chrome's ad-block therefore allows certain websites to be an opt-in ad-free zone. Google brings in massive amounts of revenue from advertisement fees yet seems not to have the same controversy of the upcoming Apples iOS system.

The fact that Apple will create this ad-blocking program, and then a program for which they can charge a higher fee to get around the ad-blocking program is where their practices sit solidly in single-mindedness for me. The idea of ad-blocking is not single-minded: free speech allows for all sorts of unwanted content that the user should be able to prevent. Apple's usage, however, steers it remarkably near the controversy of net neutrality.

The comparison between having large internet carriers being able to charge for the bandwidth on their net is, I think, a more apt comparison than the restaurant. Apple's baseline system would just be the iOS, without the ad-blocking program. Large companies will be able to afford Apple News, effectively only hurting the individuals already struggling to pay for internet advertisements.

There's then a conundrum. If I need to pay to consume, I want at least guidelines over what images and suggestions pop up in my browser yet just providing that right to the highest bidder is definitely not a mindful way to approach this. Apple's execution of this idea is not the best, yet I think it's more problematic on the negation of its own program than the principle of ad-blocking.

Reply
Charmaine
9/23/2015 07:33:22 pm

Having used and even enjoyed Google Chrome's ad block extension, I have never given it much thought about the purpose of ads and how they are a form of "payment" for the web services that are being used each day. To see ads in this new light has made me question if ad blocking is as good as I always thought it was. It is definitely more convenient and less annoying to not have to see ads everywhere especially as some ads or pop-ups could contain virus or inappropriate content. Nevertheless, after reading this article, it is obvious that ads are placed on websites for a reason and as the article says, "advertisers are the ones who make our media consumption possible." However, the fact that Apple will include an app called News, which “will allow publishers to bypass blockers to serve their own ads or let Apple sell ads and share the revenue,” shows that they are single-minded in their mindfulness. While this action will generate stakeholder value, it does not uphold a high societal value. By making publishers pay to bypass blockers, they are increasing the cost publishers need to expend to provide ads. Apple is definitely not approaching this the right way but in terms of creating stakeholder value, it might create higher value.

Reply
Anders
9/23/2015 11:38:09 pm

I am undecided as to whether this product is an example of single-minded or mindless marketing. A program that blocks adds could certainly be profitable for Apple for the short term, but if it is really successful it would end up defunding the social media and websites that Apple products are used to browse. It seems to me that there must be ways in which Apple could partner with the companies that make the adds it is trying to block that would be more productive for both parties. The whole point of social media and the internet is to connect efficiently with other people and share ideas, so this add-blocker seems contrary to the values of the industry as a whole. Furthermore, Apple also is also selling a product to allow advertisers around their add-blocker.
"In order to pacify the media organizations that are justifiably distressed by the ad-blocking announcement, Apple also will include with iOS 9 an app called News, which “will allow publishers to bypass blockers to serve their own ads or let Apple sell ads and share the revenue.”
The fact that Apple sells a product to undo another of their products to me is the most single-minded part of the whole thing.

Reply
Sharlene
9/24/2015 12:20:09 am

I can see why this would be single minded, as users of the internet need to understand that ads are being invested in, and is online for a reason; to appeal to the wants of the needs of the customer. That is usually achieved by giving the people what they want. For example, if Virgin Airlines wanted to target college students to use their airline by providing a student fare during the holidays, ads would be created and put online as everyone today prefers everything online. But if people are going to block useful ads that appeal to their convenience, they will also be missing out on things that could have potentially made their travel expenses more reasonable.

However, companies need to also understand when and where to put their ads. If they were to put it in places like Spotify, where there are ads all the time, listeners tend to get annoyed that ads are always running when they just want to listen to music. Places like YouTube are more acceptable in the sense, that it is not too long.

Then again, for people who keep hearing the same ad might take notice of the product, so I guess it really depends on the audience, or might I say the individual.

Reply
Deborah Ting
9/24/2015 01:03:14 am

I would agree that Ad- blocking is a simple minded marketing as some of the ads posted benefits us and some does not but having those those somehow benefits us. For example if a company would like more customers, they would surely advertise their product and by advertising, they will post ads so people could see and they would be willing to try the product and if they like it, they would have regular customers. Companies should not simply come up with ads that does not bring advantage to the people.

Reply
Lydia
9/24/2015 10:44:10 am

I agree that Apple's move is single-minded. Ad-blocking is appealing to customers and would create stakeholder value for Apple. However, ad-blocking means that websites may shut down because of a reduction in funding from advertisers. I dislike the idea that information, which is what the internet represents, may become inaccessible or only available at a cost. Ad-blocking is challenging society's value of knowledge. I also dislike the impression that Apple is trying to control the internet by determining what ads are considered relevant. I think that a good compromise between websites and users (that doesn't involve ad-blocking) would be for websites to only use ads relevant to the website content. However, ad-blocking is not entirely bad. After all, there are some ads with salacious content which are inappropriate for children.

Reply
Hannah Jossi
10/25/2015 07:17:27 pm

Apple's release of ad blocking software through the App Store appears to me as more of a legal issue than simply an advertising dilemma. Advertisers are rightly concerned that their work in advertising online can simply be disposed of through a simple app. The comparison to dining and dashing through a hacking app seems to be a slightly overstated opinion, but nonetheless the point is taken - it is somewhat doing against social and ethical patterns of society. Justice should be upheld in every realm, including advertising. As stated in the blog, though some ads are irrelevant or annoying, there is no reason for injustice. Well written and good job contrasting and recognizing both perspectives (consumer and advertiser) in the ad blocking issue.

Reply
David G
10/26/2015 08:47:55 pm

Ad blocking is a tricky subject to debate against. For the user, there are no negative effects to using an ad blocking extension. By using it, users can browse through articles and videos without having to watch 30 second videos or have multiple tabs open up that redirect the user to places they do not want to be. The ugly appearance of ads via the Internet makes it clear that there needs to be a different approach towards advertising online. It is because of the inefficient and frustrating nature of advertisements that ad blockers have been created. Some sites, such as Youtube, create the option for users to skip ads after a mere 5 seconds. This allows for more control over the amount of time people must give to an ad and less frustration over the ad itself. Overall, the improvement of ads via the Internet will aid in the fight to stop people from blocking out the advertisements completely.

Reply
Haley Baker
10/26/2015 11:50:18 pm

I found this article interesting because it reminded me that the ads that I like to block, are paid for and do have a purpose. While I would pay for ad blocking software, especially for the more intrusive ads, I often forget that a company made them with a purpose. This article definitely highlights the dilemma of ad blocking, and shows the morality of the subject wonderfully.

Reply
Jonathan
4/2/2016 11:07:37 pm

I disagree with the rating on this topic. Online ads are out of control, they rummage through our data to place products, services based on our viewing history. Ad's run rampant with no regulation and little to no censorship. Borderline Pornographic ads are forced upon us on websites that have nothing to do with that topic. Ad-blocking is the consumers way of saying "This is enough" Until stricter regulations are imposed on advertising online, I think that ad-blockers are the only way to navigate the web properly. Online ad's are being forced on us even for services and products that we pay for. There is no limit to how much advertising can be thrown our way, what used to be a 30-second clip to watch subscribed internet content has now become watch 5 2-minute ads that often run longer in total that the content we are trying to consumer. Ad's are out of control, and Apple allowing Ad-blockers to be installed is just them late to the game of Ad-blockers, and giving users the ability to block content they do not want to see.

Reply
David Hagenbuch link
4/3/2016 11:24:30 pm

Jonathan, you raise some very good points. The on-line ad environment often is out-of-control and needs to be reformed.

Reply
liana link
9/6/2022 09:46:00 pm

thanks for info

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly