Jeffrey Zeldman:
Advertisers don’t want to be ignored, and they are drunk on our data, which is what Google and other large networks are really selling. The ads are almost a by-product; what companies really want to know is what antiperspirant a woman of 25–34 is most likely to purchase after watching House of Cards. Which gets us into issues of privacy and spying and government intrusion and don’t ask.
And in this environment of sites so cluttered with misleading ads they are almost unnavigable, Apple looks heroic, riding to the consumer’s rescue by providing all the content from newspapers without the ads, and by blocking ugly advertising on websites. But if they succeed, will media companies and independent sites survive?
This issue is far from over. We have no idea how this is going to shake out, who will adapt and survive and who will fold. I do believe it is an issue ad publishers have largely brought on themselves. But it’s a shame there is and will continue to be a lot of collateral damage in this so-called Apple vs Google War.
If you went my attention, don’t insult my intelligence or invade my privacy.
Zeldman is correct. The ads are a byproduct of this rush towards consumer capitalism by big data. It would be funny if they weren’t so particularly wrong.
Preach it, brother! I do believe it is an issue ad publishers have largely brought on themselves.”
Preach it, brother!
We really see what could be a perfect storm…
Ads as a mean of keeping businesses alive is as realistic as perpetual motion. We long have ad sponsored services advertising in ad sponsored media being syndicated in ad sponsored media found through ad sponsored searches… the mother of all bubbles with nobody ever paying a bill. Outside of premium products (such as Apple’s and a few other brands) there is just the illusion of value.
The desire for “quality content” (or content promoted as such) is shrinking and so is the quality of quality content. Getting people with the attention span of fruit flies and millions of sources to choose from to be loyal to and pay for something… Would be hard enough. But since we have news papers and tv shows using Twitter and blogs as “sources”, analyst hogwash as facts, and rebroadcast shaky YouTube stuff during prime time mixed with some barely camouflaged agency tripe and press releases… even I get more and more reluctant to pay for that.
The stunning inability of “old media” to change old habits is limitless. Most electronic newspapers here still try to be the lookalike of a print edition. And no, wacky serif fonts, columns, articles continued on page x etc. are making as much sense as companies kindly returning emailed job applications.
The only “survivors” of this trend are the lousiest outfits attracting the least demanding clients (yellow press, Murdoch etc.).
I do like the attempt Apple is making with the News app, but I doubt that it will be enough to turn pages.
I’ve thought the same thing as Zeldman mentions at the beginning of the article. Content blocking in iOS 9 isn’t really about ads, it’s about Google. This is the next step in Apple’s carefully crafted plan – first iAds, now content blocking and Apple’s own News app as an alternative revenue stream for writers. Well played, Tim.
The way I see it the click bait web sites will be hit the hardest and first to go under. This should increase the demand for sites that produce quality content and use simpler more old fashioned advertising and thus they should be able to charge advertisers more (they will have more viewers because people won’t be viewing stupid ten page lists and slideshows). So yes the web will be smaller but much of the cruft should be gone making real websites more valuable. People might also chose over time to pay for a few sites they like with so much less free crap to compete with. Sites that just regurgitate others content may nearly disappear.
I was using ublock and just starting using Ghostery which is great.
Ads have disappeared completely.
Sorry, Jim.