Home The Sell Sider The Real Story Behind Chrome’s Ad Blocker

The Real Story Behind Chrome’s Ad Blocker

SHARE:

The Sell Sider” is a column written by the sell side of the digital media community.

Today’s column is written by Ryan Pauley, general manager at Concert and vice president of revenue operations at Vox Media.

Certain corners of the advertising world discuss Feb. 15 with the kind of panic you might associate with the latest Bitcoin crash. The source of their anxiety? Starting on that date, Google’s Chrome browser will begin blocking noncompliant (read: annoying) ads on sites that traffic substandard formats.

The doomsayers expect the sky to fall – and indeed, if you’re a publisher whose site is clogged with annoying ad formats, a marketer who works with creative partners to produce intrusive ads or an ad network that makes money from running ads that cover up publisher content, you are in a bit of self-inflicted trouble.

But for the rest of the industry, this change represents an important, albeit small – Google estimates about 1% of publishers are not compliant with the new standards it’s enforcing – first step in ridding the internet of a menagerie of dreaded ad experiences.

The entire digital advertising landscape stands to benefit from the shift to more high-fidelity ad experiences: Ideally, readers will see ugly and irksome ads with far less frequency, marketers will be forced to invest in quality ad solutions and publishers that adopt more attractive and effective ad units will thrive.

To grasp the issue, we need to understand the kind of ads that Chrome is attempting to banish. The Coalition for Better Ads tested 55 desktop and 49 mobile web ad experiences and identified four desktop and eight mobile ad experiences that fall below some “threshold of consumer acceptability.”

These include formats that have long distinguished themselves for their enraging qualities: blaring autoplay ads whose mute buttons are impossible to find, blinking and flashing animations and pop-ups or interstitials whose sole intention is to prevent readers from accessing editorial content.

If your site serves up these ads on more than 7.5% of your pages, they’ll be blocked until you shape up. Publishers that clear that (incredibly low) bar will not see any change.

One might wonder why we are even still seeing these things online if they’re clearly not good for the advertiser or the audience. We’re collectively stuck believing that quality and scale are mutually exclusive when, in fact, they can certainly coexist if you put the effort in.

Marketers, for example, should align themselves with partners who value quality ad solutions. They should invest in creative work that delivers a great user experience while avoiding publishers and creative partners who rely on the kinds of ads that are being squashed by Google. This is a call for marketers to treat digital ads with the same care and respect as ads that run in print or on television.

Subscribe

AdExchanger Daily

Get our editors’ roundup delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Despite Google’s efforts, many of the worst industry offenders will come out unscathed, particularly the non-publisher-led ad networks driven by financial incentives, instead of audience incentives. These networks, notorious for producing some of the worst ad experiences, will only be blocked if they have access to a large enough share of a publisher’s inventory to activate the blocker – meaning that they’ll likely skate by despite Chrome’s change.

Working in digital publishing, I can guarantee you that the most premium publishers are already well on their way to eliminating any monetization partner who delivers substandard experiences. These are the ads that are known to drive audiences to turn on their own ad blockers. So, marketers and publishers alike, continue working with partners producing these types of formats at your own peril. There are quality alternatives that can actually produce more revenue.

Feb.15 brings us one small step farther in the right direction. It might not drive noticeable change, but the motivation is right. Let’s all use this as a nudge to make our own much-needed changes.

Marketers: Remember your audience, since they’re the most important asset for your brand and it’s clearer than ever that they don’t enjoy being annoyed.

Publishers: Let’s work together to continue to build solutions that can work much harder for our partners, without making any sacrifices.

To those who continue to rely on inferior experiences and shortcuts for scale: You might not be immediately scorned, but this is a warning call that soon you will be left behind.

Follow Concert (@Concert), Vox Media (@voxmediainc) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Must Read

Betrayal, business, deal, greeting, competition concept. Lie deception and corporate dishonesty illustration. Businessmen leaders entrepreneurs making agreement holding concealing knives behind backs.

How PubMatic Countered A Big DSP’s Spending Dip In Q3 (And Our Theory On Who It Was)

In July, PubMatic saw a temporary drop in ad spend from a “large” unnamed DSP partner, which contributed to Q3 revenue of $68 million, a 5% YOY decline.

Paramount Skydance Merged Its Business – Now It’s Ready To Merge Its Tech Stack

Paramount Skydance, which officially turns 100 days old this week, released its first post-merger quarterly earnings report on Monday.

The Arena Group's Stephanie Mazzamaro (left) chats with ad tech consultant Addy Atienza at AdMonsters' Sell Side Summit Austin.

For Publishers, AI Gives Monetizable Data Insight But Takes Away Traffic

Traffic-starved publishers are hopeful that their long-undervalued audience data will fuel advertising’s automated future – if only they can finally wrest control of the industry narrative away from ad tech middlemen.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters

Q3: The Trade Desk Delivers On Financials, But Is Its Vision Fact Or Fantasy?

The Trade Desk posted solid Q3 results on Thursday, with $739 million in revenue, up 18% year over year. But the main narrative for TTD this year is less about the numbers and more about optics and competitive dynamics.

Comic: He Sees You When You're Streaming

IP Address Match Rates Are a Joke – And It’s No Laughing Matter

According to a new report, IP-to-email matches are accurate just 16% of the time on average, while IP-to-postal matches are accurate only 13% of the time. (Oof.)

Comic: Gamechanger (Google lost the DOJ's search antitrust case)

The DOJ And Google Sharpen Their Remedy Proposals As The Two Sides Prepare For Closing Arguments

The phrase “caution is key” has become a totem of the new age in US antitrust regulation. It was cited this week by both the DOJ and Google in support of opposing views on a possible divestiture of Google’s sell-side ad exchange.