A possible resurgence of ads that inspire and are touching; it’s a bit of a leap to speculate that there could be a renaissance if the largest internet content players were to start to expect more from ad firms. Such a move could have repercussions for ad-supported websites and services, advertising technology companies, and advertisers themselves, depending what the final advertising filter looks like for Chrome.
Some publishing executives and media companies the move could have upside and downside, they say. "If this is something that takes concrete steps to clean up the most offensive stuff on the internet, then I think that’s very good news for us,” said Neil Vogel, chief executive at IAC ’s About.com Group. “People install ad blockers because low-end publishers violate their trust. If Google can stop egregious ads that make people want to block ads in the first place, that will be a good thing.” Another concern is Google already has almost total control over adverting on the internet. In addition to producing web browsers, Google also operates a mammoth online ad business complete with its own set of interests. "The risk here is this could concentrate a lot of power in the hands of one organization that is not neutral and has vested interests in all sides of this,” Mr. Vogel said. Publishers and ad firms are often reluctant to speak publicly about Google because of the power they feel the ad giant already has over them. Many content producers depend on Google to drive traffic to their sites and to help them sell advertising. “From the beginning, we have avoided the kinds of ads cited as the target of the Chrome ad-blocker concept—pop-ups, pre-roll ads etc.…. It’s clear there are a lot of very onerous experiences out there that have led to the understandable rise of ad-blocking,” said Jay Lauf, president and publisher of online news site Quartz, in an emailed statement. "We can’t comment on Google’s approach given what has been revealed thus far, but I think a more surgical approach is needed—deploying a sledgehammer approach to the ad ecosystem could have harmful implications,” Mr. Lauf added.
The WSJ interviewed Jason Kint, CEO of online publishing trade body Digital Content Next. His group is “committed to the Coalition for Better Ads as the forum for addressing consumer concerns around online ad experiences”, and said “Google’s potential ad filters appear to focus on enforcing those standards” He also stated “The world of ad blocking is as murky as they come. Friends and enemies can easily be confused, good and evil often mistaken and interests aren’t always as they appear”.
The Interactive Advertising Bureau, a trade group is looking to protect its constituents, their CEO Randall Rothenberg says, “Ad blocking is a war against diversity and freedom of expression”. The Coalition for Better Ads is a IAB member. Google is a member of both the IAB and the Coalition for Better Ads, alongside companies such as Facebook, AppNexus and other online publishers and advertising technology companies.
My view on all of this is, Google in a way, created this environment we currently have. If they look to charge a premium to consumers to improve their experience, it just seems unprincipled and hollow. Why not create a better service and environment for all consumers without charging for it? While the plans are still in their infancy and it remains to be seen if there will be a consumer cost associated, most media producers, for now, are reserving judgments. Which brings me to my next point how did we allow Alphabet to get so large that now no one is willing to speak out against it for fear of loss of business. I thought there were laws preventing monopolies from garnering this much influence and control? While I fully support, as I think most people do, that pop-ups, pre-roll ads are not useful and an annoyance; an internet experience free of them once and for all for all users should be free of charge and possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment