Google’s ad blocking changes herald a positive new era for publishers and advertisers
Despite Google's new ad blocker spawning endless think pieces spelling doom for the digital publishing industry, Bonzai's Rupert Pay argues that the changes are actually a good thing.
We all know bad ads slow down websites, annoy users and drive them to install ad blockers that remove all ads. And on February 15 2018, Google will introduce a new ad blocker to Chrome to cut down on spammy or intrusive advertisements.
But what does it really mean for advertisers and publishers?
How did we get here?
The move was instigated by the Coalition for Better Ads, following an inquiry that identified which consumer ad experiences ranked lowest across a range of user experience factors – and that correlated with an increased propensity for consumers to adopt ad blockers.
The research, involving over 25,000 consumers, found certain ad experiences fell beneath a threshold of consumer acceptability on both desktop and mobile devices. As a result, the new ‘Better Ads Standards’ want to strip any ‘annoying or disruptive’ ads like videos that autoplay with sound, pop-up ads that take up part or all of the screen, prestitial ads with ‘countdowns’ and large sticky ads that take up more than 30% of the screen.
This means Google will block any ads that are non-compliant to the new Better Ad Standards on the Chrome browsers. Meanwhile websites can also end up on the ‘blacklist’ at Google’s discretion.
Google will also offer website publishers an Ad Experiences Report that identifies whether or not a publisher’s websites are on the list, and what the potential problems with the publisher’s website are.
The wider impact on publishers and advertisers
Although debate continues that the new adblocker will make Google some sort of ‘ad superpower,’ Google has clarified that only one percent of publishers (so far) aren’t compliant with third-party ad blocking standards, meaning the vast majority of web-publishers will not be impacted by the ad blocker at present.
At the same time, Google has previously announced, the blocker won’t be removing all ads — just ones that are considered bad using standards determined by the Coalition for Better Ads, which bans things like full page ads, ads with autoplaying sound and video, and flashing ads.
I wholeheartedly welcome the multilateral approach that the Coalition for Better Ads is taking to improve the all-round user experience. This initiative in many ways paves the way for ad formats with better ad experiences and less disruptive site visits. But at the same time, we don’t believe that any one tech company, be it Google, Apple or other has the unilateral right to be ‘judge, jury and executioner.’
Ultimately, the primary responsibility resides with the publisher – as it is their audience that is being affected. And in order to be proactive, publishers need to start planning campaigns more mindfully, by avoiding formats that do not adhere to these standards.
At the end of the day, each one of us visits multiple sites, and we’ve all experienced sites that have more advertisements popping out at us than actual content. Keeping a check on this leads to a healthier advertising environment and a much better user experience at the publisher’s site.
Moving forward, I believe a limited blocking tool could have the potential to push publishers to be more innovative and engaging with their ad strategy, enhance overall web user experience and ultimately, limit the spread of wholesale ad blocking, which ultimately benefits everyone.
Critical factors to consider in the era of Google Adblock:
- Certain sites previously monetising using every ad in the game will need to rethink their strategy and clean up their ad formats portfolio.
- As a publisher, ensure you maintain a balance between better user experiences and ad monies.
- Publishers and advertisers need to take compliance seriously, especially publishers as they have more to lose here.
- If not careful, advertisers might see their top performing formats being blacklisted.
- Be mindful of grey areas: there are some ad formats that seem to be violating the experience, but not completely.
Rupert Pay is the vice-president of sales for creative technology platform Bonzai.
The irony is that I couldn’t even finish reading this article because of the aggressive flashing Retail Marketing Summit ad.
User ID not verified.
I suspect people will keep going with more rigorous ad-blocker’s than the Chrome one. By the sounds of it, Google’s new ad-blocker is far too permissive – e.g. blocking only auto-play videos only if the sound is on (Just because it doesn’t have audio – doesn’t mean it hasn’t just used all of someone’s mobile data), no mention of blocking the borderline softcore porn on most websites etc.
So basically readers will keep using the undetectable and stronger ad-blockers.
This is looking at the problem from the wrong direction. You need to make the ads something that doesn’t infuriate users. Trying to get the blocking software to suit publishers better is like trying to combat climate change with better air-conditioning.
If the solution doesn’t address the problem…..shockingly the problem doesn’t go away.
User ID not verified.
Hi Penny,
Thanks for your comment. You’re touching on the flip side of the coin there. I couldn’t see this ad you’re referring to at the time of replying to this, but intrusive and unimaginative creative is clearly the other challenge we face, and not mutually exclusive. Generally speaking, I still feel that creative agencies have a long way to come to reflect current consumer media habits, particularly around mobile. In a way, I’d like to think that what Google and initiatives like betterads.org are doing for formats, are the same as what we’re doing for the canvas where the ads are built. We firmly believe in maximising the creative potential for our users.
Rupert
User ID not verified.
Hi line,
Thanks for this, although I don’t agree that it’s too permissive. As I stated about, nobody should unilaterally have the right to say what’s ok or not. Ultimately, the publisher will lose out if they don’t improve their UX, so the primary responsibility does reside with them in our view, assisted by businesses like ours. They also have the ability to ‘quality control’ in-house built ad creative (in reference to the above point), but would they push back on creative agency supplied ads (as Penny has described), which could mean losing out on hard fought revenue. That becomes a difficult choice. What is for sure, is that there isn’t one single problem. There are a few that we are all collectively responsible for fixing.
Rupert
User ID not verified.
Thanks for getting back. I think the statement that nobody should unilaterally determine acceptability and its a perfectly reasonable position to take – however – in practice the audience decides. Giving just auto-play ads as an example, its clear that the audience decided its not acceptable hence the dramatic jump in ad-blockers on mobile. Maybe the audience shouldn’t have the right to decide in theory, but they do in practice.
Choosing to block some but not all auto-play is something which sounds reasonable/middle of the road, but in reality simply won’t cut it for audiences that don’t want any auto play (i.e. all audiences). There is no reason for web users to stick with just a half-measure ad-blocker when there are better options out there.
User ID not verified.
Neither could I. It was a perfect example of why ad blockers had a huge take-up rate practically overnight. The fact that Google is getting on board with ad blocking only confirms how unwilling people are to see them.
User ID not verified.