Hercules, Sisyphus and the adblockers

What the media industry thought to be a formidably tough, but ultimately winnable task, has turned into a Sisyphean nightmare, writes Dominic Mills

There must be something about September and adblocking. A year ago, Apple’s decision to open up the iPhone to adblocking software put the issue firmly into the mainstream.

Last week, it took on several new twists. And it’s absolutely riveting.

First, World Federation of Advertisers CEO Stephen Loerke announced an initiative – the Coalition for Better Ads, no less – designed to bring advertisers, media owners and agencies together. Their task: find a way to produce better ads so that consumers don’t get so hacked off they block them altogether. You can read the full details here. Members include Google, Unilever, P&G, Group M, as well as various trade bodies.

Drawing on the classical myths, Loerke described the task as Herculean. A Herculean task is one that requires strength, determination and courage to overcome huge obstacles. But is eventually achieved.

Except that Loerke is being optimistic. Sticking with a classical analogy (as opposed to Private Frazer from Dad’s Army), a better one is with Sisyphus: his punishment was to roll a boulder up a hill, whereupon it promptly rolled down again. And again. For eternity.

And that’s how it feels with the adblockers.

Here’s an example. All the while the WFA has been drawing up its plan, arch-enemy AdBlock Plus has been plotting its own bid for domination. And what’s more, it got its retaliation – not just its own definition of what constitutes acceptable advertising, but a supply side ad platform from which publishers can self-serve pre-approved ads (approved by AdBlock, naturally) – in first.
[advert position=”left”]
What Loerke and his ad establishment buddies may have thought was a Herculean task – i.e. formidably tough, but ultimately winnable – has turned into a Sisyphean one: doomed.

And that’s how it’s going to be. Every time, the ‘industry’ fights back, the adblockers move the game on. Today it might be AdBlock Plus; tomorrow it’ll be someone different.

Much as I loathe everything the adblockers stand for – a rapacious greed hidden behind a mask of self-serving concern – you cannot deny they are meeting a consumer need. People are downloading adblockers because the whole system is bent on destroying itself. The fact that publishers get turned over in the process does not bother too many consumers. It should, but it doesn’t, and their best efforts to fight the adblockers will never, in my view, turn the tide.

Of course, as I’ve written earlier, I wish the WFA and its coalition well. The WFA has certainly lined up some heavyweights. But coalitions are inherently dodgy constructs (just ask Nick Clegg or, in the Iraq war, the ‘coalition’ of the willing). They have one shared interest, but a lot of contradictory ones. When the going gets tough, or some issues put them on opposite sides of the fence, will they hold together?

And what the coalition so far lacks – and you’d think it would be essential – is the voice of the consumer. It’s their antipathy that gives AdBlock Plus the opportunity. The IAB Tech Lab, one of the members of the coalition, says this isn’t a problem since it and others are and will continue to research consumer attitudes and behaviours. Hmm. Ok, but there’s nothing like making them feel included, as opposed to treating them like lab rats, by giving them a seat at the table.

Meanwhile, what of AdBlock Plus’s decision to launch its own tech platform, and thus go head to head with some of its sworn enemies. It’s certainly bold.

But the apparent logic, as described by AdBlock’s Plus’s Till Faida, defeats me. He says: “There are two ecosystems of online consumers out there right now: the one composed of people who block intrusive ads and the other where people do not. The Acceptable Ads Platform lets publishers reach [people who block intrusive ads] without changing anything about how they’re reaching [people who do not].”

Ok, so let’s say I’ve started adblocking because a) I don’t like ads b) the ad-rich experience is crap and c) they use up my battery and data allowance or d) all three reasons. All of a sudden, I start seeing ads . However you measure it, the experience will still be worse than an entirely ad-free one. It certainly wasn’t what I thought I signed up for.

Additionally, as the Wall Street Journal points out, AdBlock Plus’s SSP won’t be playing with a full set of data – certainly not behavioural data. It will be interesting to see how removing this from the equation affects consumers. Will they prefer it – on the grounds that it is (marginally) less creepy? Or will it reduce relevance and dial up irritation.

So if this isn’t in the interests of the adblocking consumer, who does it benefit? Well, obviously some publishers, provided they have handed over the dosh in the first place. And certainly AdBlock Plus, which now has an additional revenue stream. And as we well know, there are all kinds of hidden ways to make good money from adtech.

As the IAB’s outgoing boss Guy Phillipson says, AdBlock Plus is now effectively selling back to publishers the very consumers it took from them in the first place.

So good luck to the WFA. The hill is steep, and the boulders heavy.

Vogue scores zero for diversity

Like many, I have been watching the BBC’s two-parter on Vogue with a mixture of fascination and bemusement, and between the cracks of my fingers at the more excruciating moments.

But surely nothing can be as excruciating for Vogue and Conde Nast as the utter lack of diversity evident among the staff. Ok, there was some argy-bargy about sticking Rihanna on the cover, and there was a latino-looking model in the second episode, but as she was an outsider she doesn’t count. And besides, her ethnicity was distorted by the Afro wig – the largest I have ever seen – she was made to wear.

I know they’re all utterly self-absorbed, but is nobody at Vogue aware of the diversity/ethnicity issue? I get the feeling that, at Conde Nast, diversity goes no further than ensuring they recruit from more than one public school. Even the City does better.

It’s odd, really: fashion itself is pretty diverse ethnically (and I don’t just mean the models), and Vogue itself regularly celebrates ethnic-inspired design – clothes, jewellery, prints. Yet, as a representation of either modern fashion or modern Britain, it failed completely.

Vogue and Conde Nast should hang their heads in shame.

Follow Mediatel on Twitter: @MediatelNews