There are enough people pouring fuel on the adblocking fire that a few water buckets from the government aren’t going to make a blind bit of difference, writes Dominic Mills.
Ronald Reagan was a polarising figure – although, with hindsight (i.e. comparison with Donald Trump) he looks like a raving moderate.
Nevertheless, two of the things he said stick in my mind. One was funny. Responding to allegations that he worked two-three hours a day and took an afternoon nap, he replied: “They say hard work never killed anybody…but I figure: why take the chance?”.
The second was overtly political, and I strongly disagreed with it at the time. He said the nine most depressing words in the English language were “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Over the years I’ve come to believe that Reagan was essentially right, and the news that culture secretary John Whittingdale may intervene in the issue of adblocking brought his comment to mind.
The idea that the government, however well-intentioned, can act in any meaningful way – bar one – to take the fight to the adblockers looks like whistling in the wind. In any case, if the EU referendum goes in favour of staying in, then Whittingdale as a ‘Brexiteer’ is probably out on his ear.
And while I agree with his view that adblockers are the modern-day equivalent of racketeers, the truth is that they are responding to consumer demand. Adblocking, at heart, is a market-driven phenomenon, and so it requires market solutions, not government fiat.
[advert position=”left”]
When governments intervene, they are essentially political, they tend to favour the establishment (i.e. those with the biggest lobbying budgets), the law of unintended consequences takes hold, and popular will may be discarded.
So what is the one exception where the government could do something? Well, that something – which would marginally ease, but not solve, the problem is the BBC – specifically the BBC’s online activities.
As long as consumers with adblockers who are denied access to commercial publishers – mostly newsbrands, but also some lifestyle publishers – can turn to the BBC for ad-free content, then the fight against adblocking is hamstrung.
Nevertheless, there is a sense that the ad market – by which I mean publishers, agencies, advertisers and their respective trade bodies – is getting its act together. All the parties have woken up to the problem, and at the same time the adblock blockers (i.e. the likes of PageFair, SourcePoint and Rezonence are at least getting a hearing.)
In the background, the IAB’s LEAN initiative is moving along, albeit slowly.
Adblocking could be a source of competitive advantage in the fight for consumers by all kinds of providers of online services.”
And here’s a video of a session from the ISBA annual conference earlier in March where the panellists exhibit more optimism (or less pessimism) on fighting adblocking than hitherto.
But it all seems terribly slow, and in the meantime adblock software penetration continues to rise – albeit not exponentially – and new threats, more serious, emerge.
In the mobile sphere Three’s proposal to incorporate Shine’s adblocking technology is the most visible manifestation of this.
There are indications that the Three initiative may fall foul of EU laws on privacy and net neutrality, but it is the underlying principle behind Three’s plans that are most scary for the ad industry.
This is that adblocking could be a source of competitive advantage in the fight for consumers by all kinds of providers of online services.
If this is so, then adblocking software could become a default addition adopted not only by all mobile operators but also, for example, web browsers (maybe not Chrome) and anti-virus software.
Imagine the framing of this proposition: do you want access to all those crappy, intrusive, data-gobbling, page load-slowing ads, or a nice clean online experience?
No prizes for guessing how consumers might vote for that.
Is this fanciful? It’s certainly the scenario painted by one of the adblock blockers I saw speak last week (Chatham House rules mean I can’t say who).
Of course, some will say that, and I paraphrase, if you’re selling fire extinguishers it helps if you portray everything in the house as a fire hazard.
But, and this is where the metaphor nears the end of its useful life, however many fire retardant regulations the government passes, it can’t stop fires. And right now, it looks to me like there’s enough people pouring fuel onto the adblocking fire that a few water buckets from the government aren’t going to make a blind bit of difference.
