CNN’s John Oliver stirred up some controversy in his comments lamenting the rise of the internet and fall in journalism last week. One consumer responded to a Facebook reposting of the article by saying, “it’s my choice to block ads.”
Pagefair’s May 2016 report says that ad blocking software has been installed on an estimated one out of five five smartphones on the mobile web, worldwide.
“By preventing ads from being displayed, the blockers deny websites the revenue needed to provide free content and services. By blocking ads, the software with names like AdBlock Plus, Purify and Crystal are threatening the free Internet most users love,” said Michael Korsunsky’s in his recent article entitled, “Just Say No: Why Ad Blocking is Economically Unsustainable.”
Some news sites, including The New York Times, are using proprietary anti-ad blocking technology. MGID has its own anti-ad blocker, which we launched in June, which is free to publishers in our network.
Internet users who run into anti-ad blockers will have a choice. Turn off ad blocking and view free content or leave the block up and miss out.
In the end, internet users need to understand that advertising pays many of the bills, creating jobs and providing content readers want to see.
And as long as native ads are clearly disclosed as paid content, then what’s wrong with just skipping them like most people do when a commercial comes on TV?
Despite all of the continued concerns about ad blocking, the overall prognosis for native advertising is very healthy. Research from Business Insider Intelligence says that native ads are much more effective than traditional banner ads. They also predicted that this year (2017) spending on native ads will reach $7.9 billion, up from $4.7 billion in 2013, a growing to $21 billion by 2018.