[Closed] iOS9 and Ad Blockers

Dunno, but thanks for letting me know 9 is out 😆

🙂

Yes I saw an article late last night and downloaded when it was quiet, servers very busy now !

Yes we are going to be impacted by this but we are preparing for a transition in revenue streams away from display ads. There's no point in any publisher sticking their heads in the sand about it or even trying to think of ways to avoid it by blocking the blockers. Publishing is going to need to adapt it's business model and we are adapting.

Despite Apple effectively moving to kill off ad revenue for publishers they are providing for publishers elsewhere - namely via their News App in iOS 9. Publishers will be able to put ads in those feeds that the ad blockers will not be able to remove. Apple receives a 30% cut of ads that they put in a publisher's news channel within this app.

So, you see what Apple are doing here.

Once the News App is available to everyone (It's only launched to US iOS 9 users today) then you'll see lots of publishers (us included) encouraging you to read our stories via various apps. Our twitter followers may have already seen us use links to our stories that go via something called Google Newsstand. This is Google's version of Apple's News App. It's glitchy at the moment but soon both Google and Apple will be joined in this publishing market by Facebook and their Instant Articles. Again, these are publishing channels protected from ad blockers as they don't present content in a browser.

Incidentally, if you have installed iOS 9 and you want to see what the News App will be like then go to settings, change your Region Settings to United States on your device. Then restart your device. The News App will appear and you can search in there for the Singletrack Magazine channel, among others.

Times are definitely changing and we are all going to be seeing a lot less advertising on websites. The hope with publishers (and us) is that the few ads you do see will command much higher rates and so the world will keep turning.

The reality right now though is that no one knows what's going to happen to publishing revenues. A subscription or a mag purchase will help us a lot mind 🙂

Android explicitly forbids ad blockers on its ap store as ad revenue is so important to Google.

Because they're not on the app store but installed from other sources, I'd expect.

For those on the [url= https://beta.apple.com/sp/betaprogram/ ]public beta programme[/url], 9.1, which was released last week, has the News app available for UK users.

They're on the chrome web store

So, which is better? Peace or Purify or is there another I should know about?

Its interesting to read Mark say that articles read through the apps will soon be a main funding stream rather than presumably pushing people to the home page.

As with the Magazine though, that still leaves the forum (and other forums) at a loose end. If ad revenue really does fall then the forum has to be propped up by other funding, and how do you judge what amount of your profit is due to forum traffic subsequently using your funding streams.

I can see it going 2 ways, closed forums, or excessive amounts of ads (to make more from those who do not ad-block). However, if you increase ads, do you risk driving away people who cant ad block (android users?). [i like the swearfilter edit ;0)

By the way, there is a list of blockers here:

http://www.loopinsight.com/2015/09/16/a-list-of-content-blockers-for-ios-9/

Ive seen the article links at google newstand come up on the twotter feed from ST Towers. But Ive never clicked on one. Usually as I've seen the link on the forum page up there ^ top right and made a decision to click on it or not.

I dont see how dragging me away from the forum to another app is going to help ST with ad views etc unless ALL articles are ONLY able to be read at the google newsstand. 😯

I dont see how dragging me away from the forum to another app is going to help ST with ad views etc unless ALL articles are ONLY able to be read at the google newsstand.

I imagine that would be roughly the intention, certainly the free articles. I imagine subscribers will still be able to read them on the site.

I have nothing to add other than what happens over the next few months is going to be interesting.

Having installed Peace this morning, I must say it does make mobile web viewing feel extremely quick in comparison to yesterday. I don't mind ads, but the speed is the thing for me.

Is there any evidence that revenue is lost from people who install Ad Blockers? Or are the people who install blockers the type who never clicked ads anyway?

I have nothing to add other than what happens over the next few months is going to be interesting.

sounds ominous

It's fascinating stuff and I feel for publishers having to wade through these changes in the digital world.

That said, the times I click on an advert on a web page are invariably in error and the promise of much quicker page loads for content I want to view rather than content that is being thrust upon me is too tempting to ignore.

Adverts on websites I have no issue with in principle. However they too often fundamentally ruin the user experience of that website, which is why I'm sure ad-blockers will be hugely popular.

So how come it allows them for Chrome browser? (apparently)

Probably because they're available for Firefox, so otherwise people would just stop using Chrome.

Or are the people who install blockers the type who never clicked ads anyway?

I have however been royally cheesed off when free apps that I do use suddenly decide to find the need to monetise by displaying popover ads and capture my app interaction as a click (tap?) thru. If that's all the incentive they can conjure up to make me pay for the full version, then sod it, I'll delete the app faster than you can say "freeload", and change my 5* review in to 1*.

Glad ST is not burying head in sand.

Is there any evidence that revenue is lost from people who install Ad Blockers? Or are the people who install blockers the type who never clicked ads anyway?

Do ads [i]served[/i] not generate revenue also, I wonder? I guess it'd depend on whatever deal a given site had made with the advertisers.

Having installed Peace this morning, I must say it does make mobile web viewing feel extremely quick in comparison to yesterday. I don't mind ads, but the speed is the thing for me.

Part of the problem for me is when you have a slow connection website content jumps around until everything is loaded, its like designers (or the code) only puts standard sized place markers in situ for ads, which then re-size as content is loaded. This is a problem particularly when the text you are reading or buttons you want to click load quickly, but then jump all over the place as ad after ad slowly loads. Its better now ive got 4G but when your back to E or poor 3G it makes browsing ad laden forum slow and less enjoyable.

Is there any evidence that revenue is lost from people who install Ad Blockers? Or are the people who install blockers the type who never clicked ads anyway?

All our campaigns are CPM based ie paid by the impression and not by the click. I'm looking at a graph right now showing the dip in our a revenue overnight with coinciding with the launch of iOS9.

Tuesday was the best ad revenue day on our site in several months. Our market CPM went sky high (this is a market set price - we don't control it) as advertising networks rushed to get their campaigns delivered before 'D Day'.

It would have been nice, of course, if Apple had fully launched their News app for as properly when iOS9 went live - but they haven't, so I'm sat here watching graphs go down without any of the promised tools to make it up elsewhere yet. It's a little worrying right now.

Incidentally, if you are on Android then our new Grit.cx app is now available in the Play store complete with free news feed stream from the site. It gives you an idea of the direction digital publishing is going. There's an ad in each news story but it's just one and it's not a pop-up or anything super annoying. It's worth a look 😉 The iOS version is currently pending review by Apple. They seem to be busy right now though.

This is a problem particularly when the text you are reading or buttons you want to click load quickly, but then jump all over the place as ad after ad slowly loads.

^ this. Even on a good 50Mb wireless connection this is still a pain.

@Mark thanks for the reply, very interesting

@Cougar, that's a good question delivered vs blocked. I'm sure the advertisers would push back on paying for ads no one sees

@STATO yes that rendering thing really annoys me

There is a browser incorporating You Know What created by the company who originated You Know What. The android app is available on Google Play.

@ohno yes but If that encourages people into Chrome Google wins in other ways by collecting browsing data and also they can control which ads are blocked and sell advertisers more expense "non ads" which are not blocked. Facebook found a way to advertise on mobile via "suggested" stuff in your newsfeed

Facebook found a way to advertise on mobile via "suggested" stuff in your newsfeed

Luckily there are Apps for cleaning up FB so you don't see any crap.

Or are the people who install blockers the type who never clicked ads anyway?

Personally speaking yep, never clicked on an Ad unless by accident, but been using blockers for as long as I can remember.

@Mark, thanks for the posts. Illuminating to hear a publisher's perspective on the blocking debate. I follow this closely in my own work life, so have an interest. Glad to hear you've been proactive. 🙂

Blah-di-blah, ad blockers di-blah, chuffing blah-di-blah adverts, "we're not getting any more revenue-di-blah"

Excuses,

Excuses..

Heard em' all before..

di-blah..

We want solutions no excuses..

di-blah..

😆

Once the News App is available to everyone (It's only launched to US iOS 9 users today)

Any clues as to when that might be?

No idea but assuming fairly soon as it IS in there now. It just doesn't appear until you set the region to US.

I think ads on web pages are a good way to fund websites, it's just many got too greedy (too much page space given over to ads) and the ads themselves got too distracting or intrusive (I installed an ad blocker specifically to stop my browser crashing on STW). Any flashing ads should be banned by Google, web sites should give a maximum 20% of page space to ads and you should have more control of ad content you wish to see. So I basically blame Google, ad content providers and some web-sites for ruining ads as a source of revenue rather than ad blockers.

Very interesting what sits below the best for the customer exterior... The big change is getting people to accept that content isn't free and hosting isn't either, unfortunately the genie is out the bottle

The content (on the forum) [b]is[/b] free, it's provided by the users. The question (specific to STW) is whether the forum users are/should be prepared to pay either for the functionality, or to subsidise other parts of the site. The more general question is whether paid-for content is worth the cost over the free alternatives that exist. There's a good mix of free and paid for news sites, that both seem to be surviving for now. I use the free ones but that's mostly because I'd rather read the Guardian and BBC than the Times or Telegraph anyway.

The content (on the forum) is free, it's provided by the users.

The rest of the site / mag aside,

Content on the forum may be "free," but hosting costs, bandwidth etc are not. Mark has said time and again on here that without the advertising there wouldn't be a forum.

Main reason I'm a P is to support the forum because I recognise the value in it - despite the occasional bickering it is by far the best online community I've been part of.

(A lot of ads get blocked by our work firewall so I wasn't seeing a lot of them anyway, even without any freeloading add-ons installed).

I do enjoy the mag, but rarely get the precious time to sit down and read it, which reflects on my chaotic life rather than the quality of the mag.

Yes of course I realise that there are costs involved in running the forum, as you would have seen if you'd got to my second sentence. I don't understand the point of your scare quotes around free, the content really is genuinely provided free, and that was why I was replying to the guy saying content wasn't free. No-one is paying me for this post and it's worth every penny!

Arguably, value is in the eye of the reader rather than the writer. (-:

Cougar most of what we post is for the benefit of boosting our own egos 😀

Works for me.

As GrahamS said;

Main reason I'm a P is to support the forum because I recognise the value in it - despite the occasional bickering it is by far the best online community I've been part of.

the content really is genuinely provided free

If the forum closed tonight, where would you and the other "content providers" go?

For a bike ride?

If the forum closed tonight

Ski Club of GB did exactly that, but one thing they did have in their favour was a large number of customers with auto-renewal direct debits that just carried on auto-renewing year after year "because they've always been a member".

The other forum of which I am a member (P there too) came in to existence pretty much because of that episode. 10 years of a deserted forum, and 10+ years of a new "free" forum that's nothing to do with the commercial operation that had its own free forum.

The forum is an investment in the main product, even if the free bit does need to help subsidise the main product.

As for time to read the mag, I read mine while doing err... "daily business". Only one story per sitting. Don't want numb legs. 😉

Doing my best to take out the £15 digital subscription but the link isn't opening. Seems to be at the page rather thann my end as some links work and others don't.

Given that currently £10 of that £15 goes to two great charities (see news on home page) I'd suggest any other freeloaders do likewise.

Can't argue about £5 a year.