Firstly, allow me to blog responsibly and address my bias. I am writing this at my desk, in the office of this digitally specialized ad agency. I am a fledgling Ad-Man. More specifically, a copywriter. I am also young enough to have grown up with the Internet – I had a loud Windows-95-running desktop next to my Legos and Rumble Robots. My childhood nostalgia is dying of dysentery on Oregon Trail and the sound of a dial-up connection. That is to say, I am a digital native. It’s not as if HTML is my second language (just ask any of our developers) but the Internet is, and always has been, a part of my life.
The Rise Of The Ad Blockers
Now to the Ad Blocker saga, with all of its muddled nuances and industry implications.
The issue with ad blocking software has been bubbling under the surface for a while, finally bursting forth like Ol’ Reliable with Apple’s recent release of iOS 9. This tipped the scales with the seemingly small change to, for the first time on Apple mobile devices, allow ad-blocking software in Safari. In the short time since the iOS 9 release over 20 ad-blocking apps have popped up in the app store – when researching for this article that list included the #3 app, Purify Blocker, and the #22 app, Crystal.
Another ad blocking app, Peace, had tremendous sales shortly after the launch – 38,000 downloads in only two days. Then the creator Marco Arment had a crisis of conscience and pulled the app. Apple is now issuing refunds to anyone who purchased Peace, but the question remains – why would someone willingly walk away from an incredibly successful (and profitable) app?
Ads Are Revenue For The Site Owner
Here we find ourselves in more philosophical territory. The Free Internet is not really free. Many websites rely on advertising revenue to stay operational; seeing an ad is the cost of visiting one of these sites. Without ad revenue, thousands of sites would likely collapse into the red ether of unprofitability. Ad-Blocking software prevents websites from getting ad revenue in the name of streamlining user experience on the Internet.
No Ad Revenue = Less Income For The Site Owner
To many, ad blockers seem like a gift. No more banners. No more unwanted videos. No more data eaten up by ads. No more feeling targeted by brands, at least not while browsing the web. The issue is that the balance of the Internet is thrown off; there is a disturbance in The Force. A rise in prominence of ad blockers means a decline in advertising dollars. This cost difference has to be made up somehow, and by someone.
The first major plot twist strikes. Ad-Blockers, emanating from the iconic AdBlock Plus, are allowing companies to pay them fees to allow their ads to get past ad-block filters. Essentially brands can purchase the right to be on a “whitelist” that allows their ads to circumvent ad-blocking software. The founder of Peace withdrew the app because of the frightening impact of deciding which messages are seen and which messages are blocked. Meanwhile, the founder of AdBlock Plus is paying the owners of other ad-blocking software a monthly fee to use the same whitelist.
As if this wasn’t convoluted enough, there are also reports that Apple is allowing media sites to get around ad-blockers if, and only if, they carry Apple exclusive stories.
Allowing a select number of companies (those that are willing to pay the steepest bribes) to control what messages are seen on the Internet is a dangerous concept that flies at the face of the Free Internet and Net Neutrality.
Alternatives To Ads
How then, can we escape this Orwellian future of the Internet? There are a few alternative systems that could be explored.
1. Donations
If users enjoy the content of a particular page, then they can simply donate to that website. As any charity could attest – donations vary. The programmers, designers, writers etc. that work for a website will have far less incentive to do so without a consistent source of income. The integrity of the actual content is also threatened. With a donation system in place, companies could make large “donations” to gain favorable coverage or reviews, picking and choosing which sites to financially back behind-the-scenes. There is a democratic ideal at stake here too – sites that represent segments of the population with less resources will accrue fewer donations. Ultimately only the widest appeal sites would survive, and only the mainstream views would be communicated.
2. Site paywalls
Many sites, particularly online newspapers and magazines, already have paywalls in place. Fans subscribe for a monthly fee to have access to the content they most enjoy. If this becomes the norm, we will end up with Internet users frustrated by monthly payments and constant log-in screens just to see the news relevant to them. This also cuts off access to online news for those that cannot afford it.
3. Pay-per-content
This is the most avant-garde option of the lot – a system where Internet users make micropayments per piece of content they wish to view. Without constantly making tiny withdrawals from a bank account, a significant data security risk, crypto-currencies would need to be utilized. The Internet would almost become like a video game, where you have an in-game currency that you spend on whatever items or features you want – only those crypto-currencies would be worth real money.
Are These Alternatives Viable?
Not to paint a one-sided picture, each of these options also has its strengths. Donations would (ideally) reward the best content and allow users to directly support their favorite sites. Paywalls operate like subscriptions or memberships, enabling people unlimited access to their go-to sites while maintaining a consistent revenue stream for publishers. Pay-per-content places the emphasis on the quality and relevance of material, and allows for people to be more selective with where they spend their money.
The other option is to continue to enable advertising on websites. Again, as a digital advertiser I am naturally inclined to this position.
Ultimately, We Need To Hold Online Advertising To A Higher Standard
We can all agree that there are some incredibly invasive aspects of online advertising. Loading a site only to have a video blare sound at you, or cause the site to load slowly, or eat your no-longer-unlimited data is incredibly frustrating. It kills the user experience. We need to hold online advertising to a higher standard. If Internet users stop being bombarded by low-quality, irritating advertisements – then maybe they wouldn’t try to find a way around them. By emphasizing quality (over sheer quantity) digital advertising publishers could continue taking in ad revenue, the Internet could keep its vast array of content, and I don’t have to update my resume.
