So it's time...
For a TV Ad blocker then...
The upfront market for broadcast and cable networks has taken an unexpected U-turn from last year’s dip, seeing an increase in advertising sales of $800m to $18.6bn in the most recent completion. According to research firm Media Dynamics, this 4.5 per cent increase in TV ad revenue is a blow to OTT video platforms on PCs and …
Yeah well. Im more extreme than that. I even avoid product placement in movies by simply getting someone else to read the IMDB community reviews and trivia for me then summarise it all in one sentence.
Just like everyone else on that site I can formulate my opinions and make obscure references without ever having to sit through hours of entertainment.
I now have way more time to achieve my life goal of having my own wikipedia page due to being famous for reading every page on wikipedia (including historic edits).
Hopefully then I wont need Google or anyone as I will know quite literally everything.
Seriously though. Any guy that claims he doesnt watch TV is outing themselves as being single and possibly lonely.
Im married and even though I try to actively avoid watching TV, I find it to be almost impossible to do so...the missus and the lad make sure of that.
Also why is NickJr trying to sell my lad PPI claims and funeral cover. Hes 18 months old.
It'll be a fucking odd day when I come home and find him on my tablet checking his credit score on clearscore because the talking turtles made him do it.
A friend of mine had to give his 5 year old a bollocking once as he spotted an extra £2000 in his bank account...initially he thought bonus and bought a very expensive round of drinks but when he got home he found out his lad had signed him up for a Wonga loan!
Or a HD recorder. I love mine, and not because I want to record stuff (I hardly watch TV) but because I can buffer up. When I notice something I'd like to watch I start by hitting the pause button, then do something else in between. From the laundry to getting a new cup of tea right down to reading the news behind my PC.
Then, usually approx. 15min. later, I start watching. First ad block: fast forward. This can be tricky because some ad blocks honestly last for nearly 10min (makes you wonder if you're looking at a TV show or movie or ads) but it works. Especially if you decide to pause somewhere in between to get a drink or do a bathroom break, etc.
It may take getting used to, but it beats what I usually did: during a commercial break I often switch to another channel which doesn't have them, often forgetting all about the first show I was watching and continue watching elsewhere.
The massive amount of ads really ruin the TV experience for me. Luckily there are still plenty of local channels which don't break up their programs for some stupid ads (which are also my favorites).
"Or a HD recorder. ..."
I refuse to spend $100/month to have to fast forward constantly. Last time I had cable TV, the channel providers had gotten sneaky putting up a quick splashscreen making it look like the program was starting, but then shove two-four more commercials.
Its far cheaper to have Netflix/Hulu/Prime and for stuff not on them, to just buy it outright, and then you don't have all that annoying fast forwarding nonsense. (I pay the extra $ for ad free Hulu, so awesome)
Easy. Just record everything on your PVR and use skip.
Can't remember the last time I saw a complete Ad-break on TV.
Mind you, I don't watch a lot of TV and even less from the chanels that have ads.
No, I don't want to buy a new car let alone sell my current one for 20% inder market value
No, I don't want a free parker pen or vastly overprices of 50's life cover.
No, I don't want to make a PPI claim.
No, I don't want a supposedly waterproof phone that is a security nightmare
Yours a decidely grumpy old man.
"BBC. They take lots of my viewing time advertising their content so still a burden. "
Not only that, but programmes seem to be made with as-break slots built in ready of overseas sales, documentaries in particular have "here's a recap of what you just saw, here's what's coming up in the rest of the show, oh, and in case you forgot in the 30 seconds, here's what you just saw again". Even the local news does that at half-time and they are not likely to be broadcast commercially.
Even easier is to just record programs. My DVR strips out all adverts automatically, not by design but by hacked firmware. It is a rare occasion that one slips through. Most of my TV watching is done via downloads, where some kind person strips out all the ads for me. So Admen are free to put in as many ads as they like.
> as advertisers grow increasingly wary of the rise of ad blockers and choose to spend their precious ad dollars elsewhere
So the advertisers would prefer not to spend their money on a medium where they can see how many people are blocking their ads. And instead spend it on a medium where they can't tell how many people are FF-ing past them during the breaks?
"If I see an advert for product X, then when I want to but something in that product category, Product X is removed from the list of possible suppliers."
So what do you do when it's the ONLY supplier? Or when ALL the possible suppliers display ads? Do you go without?
"Just seeing an ad does not guarantee any heightened desire for the product. On TV, in print, or on the web."
Most advertising is about brand awareness, not getting people to go out and buy X today. They want you to remember X so when you next need a product from the same catagory as X, you're more likely to choose X if you have subconscious positive feelings towards X.
That, of course, is where the low grade "in your face" ads fail. You don't get positive feelings from them.
"So the advertisers would prefer not to spend their money on a medium where they can see how many people are blocking their ads. And instead spend it on a medium where they can't tell how many people are FF-ing past them during the breaks?"
The advertising industry has always be regarded as snake-oil salesmen. What you need to understand is to whom the snake-oil is being sold. It's not the viewers, it's the advertisers.
Make better ads.
Oh and a forum I used to like ads on (VERY relevant) has gone to a blocked ad server not allowed out of any of my hosts,
I made a point of telling them too
Quite a few other posters are also of the same opinion. A lot of us block adserver.adtech.de.
I'd add to that 'don't bombard the same ad constantly, people only become desensitized to your message after a few views and after a few more, annoyed and often vow to avoid your service or product like the plague'
True. Also, be aware that if you bend over backwards to target your general contruction material related ads Bullseye to Hillbilly Central in their styling, anybody else might get put off and swear never to do any business with you even if you're the one selling the last brick on the block, not even if you're the one paying me to take them away...
With hobby based forums often the adverts are very directed, at the users, you have the manufacturers, the shops, the magazines, all exciting you, then get blocked.
The advertisers are often small businesses with 1 to 5 employees, trying to tell us about their latest thing, but then the move to a dodgy server scuppers it for all of us.
Most hobby forums run adverts the users actually want.
Most general forums get adblocked.
I seem to think ads in the 70's were better - catchy enough to sing and only 3 of them per 20 minutes of TV time.
I especially remember the Woolworths one from one Christmas "Harry's hover mower, just look how fast he's going! ... everybody needs a Woolworths so-ome time" So much better than, "OWN IT NOW ON DVD" (liars, its licensed...), and "THINGS YOU WON'T WANT TO MISS", er, yes actually I do want to miss it and I'm just plain tired of being bombarded by high-impact advertising which thinks it can force itself into my brain.
I don't know if I was more easily pleased or they were actually better ads, but they seemed fun. Now I"m likely to miss it all, because I'm playing XCOM instead of watching TV programs which have been spoilt by adverts.
This reminds me of the imbecilic consluttant which recommended Virgin Wines 10+ yeas ago to drop support for Mozilla and Safari on their website because they were (at the time) less than 10% of the UK web population.
Result - revenue drop 50% as "global 5%" did not correctly reflect the distribution of people who would buy expensive wine online and in that set Safari and Mozilla use was > 50%.
6% audience based on global count means totally nothing on the Internet as it may actually coincide with the 6% of people most likely to buy on the net and having the disposable income to do so.
So far there has been no analysis on how does ad-block usage relate to shopping on-net/off net habits and disposable income. My educated guess is that there is a very strong correlation. So the ad slinging marketing scumbag low life is right to be worried. However, moving that money to TV is of no use as the set who is using ad-blockers is not watching any ad-infested TV either.
That may have been true (no it wasn't) back when PCs were still selling, but the smartphone / tablet era happens to herald the age of ubiquitous web shopping. There's a reason brick and mortar can't keep fending off Ebay and Amazon and the bajillion other sites from eating their lunch - by much, much, much,much, much, much many more than a measly 6% of anything whatsoever. Sorry, couple of decades wrong there...
The majority of the people make it very clear they do not want ads, little is done except creatively finding ways to place more.
One small-minded person is offended by song lyrics, gets government to ban it across an entire nation.
(the decisions was quickly reversed, but displays the power of one sod)
The inmates are running the asylum.
IIRC, there was never any evidence that they "worked", but there is plenty of evidence that flickering frames causes headaches and seizures.
All the good PVRs have "skip forward", which is much better for the viewer than fast-forward.
Sky boxes don't, but those are well known to be by far the worst PVRs on the market.
Even if I see an add, I won't click on it. so all they are is annoying little things on any page that I see. I won't even look at them. On the TV Ads that show up before a video, I mute the sound and minimize the window for however long the ad runs and then I restart the video. So to the advertisers, you're no more than an annoyance and I'm not looking anyway. You're better off doing product placement.
"On the TV Ads that show up before a video, I mute the sound and minimize the window for however long the ad runs and then I restart the video."
You just watch. Next thing you'll know they'll detect the ad is not visible and PAUSE it as long as it's covered, only restarting it when you switch back.
After that, it'll be ads for things for which there is no alternative (the market is captive), meaning the only option is to go without, which may involve Walking on the Sun...
Careful with that product placement though - at some point I came really close to stop watching my favorite Firefly alumnus when they started conspicuously showing Windws phones into my face every five minutes on Castle. They definitely made sure I'll even refuse to simply use even a handed one ever, on principle.
The high incidence of advertising posing as 'journalistic content' (impartial content) is probably a big driver of ad blocker adopation.
If only ad blockers would include blocking click-bait websites.
Here in Canada, in a printed publication an advertisement can only imitate the fonts and style of the host publication if it carries an "Advertisement" label immediately above it, to differentiate the advertising from (hopefully) impartial content.
Yay for subscription services. Netflix doesn't show me ads, just the occasional recommendation of one of their shows (which 1 out of 2 i actually turn out to enjoy watching). Live sports (darts is all i follow anyway), there's cheap streams for that. The only place i sometimes am confronted with ads is probably in the car. But with mobile bandwidth being virtually unlimited these days i can just stream music and podcasts from my server at home. Problem solved.
Why does ITV insist on ruining every film they show by inserting another program half way through? It was bad enough when they stopped a film to show the news in the old days but now they aren't forced to do that they stick some crap in there to drive viewers away. Somebody there need firing.
Shhhh! Don't tell them that we're skipping the ads or they'll find a more intrusive way of trying to brainwash us, such as product placement. Imagine being immersed in a good drama when suddenly the leading actor pulls out a tube of haemorroid cream and extols it's virtues.
On a more serious note, I'm surprised the Freeview and Freesat organisations haven't insisted the PVR manufacturers disable ad skipping.
the more they will try to subvert the whole system.
Talking of surreptitious ad-placement...
We'll get to that in a bit.
Something I have noticed recently - say the last week or two since I've properly posted - is that sites like the Daily Mail are now hard coding videos into their main page. This gets the whole fan whirring again like billy-o! It slows down loading, you know, all the benefits from having 4 fucking videos playing constantly on a single page. Nice work Einstein.
They get away with this because people have fast computers, but for those of us that don't, it's bloody rude.
Also, the Independent, has started nagging with every page 'WE SEE YOU ARE USING AN AD-BLOCKER'. That's right. What the fuck is it to you? Want me to go elsewhere for my comic reading?
It's actually illegal to probe my system for plugins. Against the law. Yet you think it is acceptable.
Because it is very easy to go elsewhere or not visit a site. There is not one single news site in the world today giving impartial news. The whole fucking lot is disgraceful propaganda. And they want me to pay to be lied to?
Another thing that is notable in the current deconstruction of the media is the fact that they have actually stopped writing articles. That is right. They have given up. They now link to or show rather, fucking twatter posts by no-marks. Not a coherent paragraph to even precis what it is they are trying to convey.
And they want me to pay? To allow my machine to be ad-raped by them on top? Fat chance bozos.
But yeah, talking of dirty tricks and ad-placement (as we earlier were). I've noticed a massive, disruptive even, tangent that all of the major Audio sites have taken lately. I'm talking the only ones that matter, the big ballers in the game.
They are absolutely riddled with posts about 'How do I get this Calvin Harris sound he used in "I'm gonna mug you off, bitch" - the one that sounds like a pair of spoons?'. Then they post in another section of the site, under a different troll name, all with less than 5 posts that registered last week, and they ask 'Do you think Calvin Harris is an untalented twat, or the great white hope of rock'n'roll music?'.
Of course, they get a response. It's pretty obvious that Calvin Harris, and I do mean Calvin Harris specifically has got his PR people to do false advertising via trolling on the site. The site owners know this as well, but for some reason don't seem too bothered. Times must be hard for clicks eh lads.
The quality of these sites has gone down so much that long term posters are leaving in droves, leaving only the most severe of autists that do not have a life to argue among themselves like a bunch of m****s. And oh the shit-storm that ensues if you try to point out that this is false advertising.
I'm not sure if Calvin Harris personally sanctioned this, it is probably one of his 50-60K PR people who had a bright spark one night. It does not reflect well on him seeing as he is the most successful DJ in the UK at the moment, and he is effectively fucking destroying what was a really valuable resource.
It's not just Calvin Harris and his people breaking the rules though. All kinds of low-life no-marks are at it and it is tolerated.
In short, Forums are dying a death. The good people who contribute want nothing more to do with the total bullshit that is going on there, and are voting with their feet, allowing the cancer to spread further. I've lost all respect for places that I spent years of my life at, giving, making a difference. Now I'm gone. I'm not missed. And that says it all.
So it's not just people trying to sell a product, it is people trying to sell a person or a lifestyle or a 'concept'. The forum policemen there are very careful about when they stick their head above the parapet, they will condescendingly correct someone for getting a fact wrong (in good faith even) but they will not risk upsetting the sites owners by pointing out a likely troll. I'm talking 80/20 percent likelihood it is a troll. Bums on seats, darlings.
Bums on seats m'boys.
At the end of the day, there aren't enough people fighting. And I'm getting tired of being one of the few people to point this shit out.
NO ONE CARES.
Carry on, you'll get away with it.
And they will, because they will get away with it.
And you will accept it.
And they will have won.
The only thing that shocks me more about what these bastards are doing is the fact that so few people find it unacceptable. So they will get what they deserve.
I'm stopping making music, I'm giving up computers and I'm disconnecting off the net.
I want no part in humanity any further if this is what it is.
You just didn't love your freedoms enough!
"It's actually illegal to probe my system for plugins. Against the law. Yet you think it is acceptable."
One, under what law?
And two, what's to stop a server from detecting a blocker by, you know, noticing you're not calling up ads? That's entirely server-side and impossible to ban without stepping on Constitutional toes.
"I'm stopping making music, I'm giving up computers and I'm disconnecting off the net."
Then why are you still here?
"sites like the Daily Mail are now hard coding videos into their main page. This gets the whole fan whirring again like billy-o!"
It's a conspiracy perpetrated by my crack team of fifth columnists within the Daily Mail operation. The videos ensure that anyone reading that right-wing POS and its Yank-targeted clickbaiting website has their overpriced laptop's poxy graphics chip overstressed so that it fails more quickly in a can't-be-repaired-you'll-have-to-spend-thousands-on-a-new-one Apple-like manner.
The reasoning behind this being that's what you deserve for reading the Daily f****** Mail. :-P
What does Billy Ocean have to do with any of this, though?
And shitv are worst.
My wife likes a couple of their programmes, and occasionally due to scheduling changes, or too many things at once she misses them.
So power up a games console, BBC, C4, C5, and lots more but no shitv, why? They want mobile users not people on TVs.
Try computer, shows the adverts then will not show the show without UNINSTALLING adblocker from the PC, regardless of browser.
I got so ratty I reported them to various places including here and an official UK web watchdog (illegally inspecting my PC), well might as well mess them up.
Anyone have some greasemonkey scripts to sort this out?
End result has been that the last shitv programme I watched was Downton Abbey, so 1 series ina year because their channel is too painfull is ridiculous.
And yes I used to watch ATV a lot when I was younger, remember TISWAS?
I am watching less and less TV now, just annoys me too much.
"illegally inspecting my PC"
It's not illegal. It's entirely possible to detect ad-blockers completely server-side simply by seeing if the ad videos get called up or not. If they won't let you see the video without requiring the ad be served first, that's basically your problem as they've made the ad the price of admission. It's done with their equipment so their rules apply, and it's all legal. You either bend over, hope and pray for something like a torrent (and the networks know about it and can send out fake torrents), or just go without that episode.
Thing is it does show the ad videos then not show the programme, ABP was disabled on that domain.
So how come I see the ads and not the programme?
And yes torrents are the answer.
shITV help actually say you have to uninstall, good job it is only crap daytime shows which my wife could miss that normally get lost.
"And yes torrents are the answer.
shITV help actually say you have to uninstall, good job it is only crap daytime shows which my wife could miss that normally get lost."
Torrents can be poisoned or fake. If they're really serious, they'll create fake files with hash collisions to really mess things up.
As for uninstalling, they just say that on general principles. If they're showing the ads and not the program, then something in your browser is creating odd requests on the server which it then interprets as malformed requests. Probably ad-blocker-blocker tech and all that which they've set uber-restrictive. At which point, it's time to choose. And BTW, many TV shows don't make it onto torrents unless they're REALLY popular. I've looked.
Since so many people are getting skilled with channel-surfing, they synchronize breaks so that no matter which channel you turn, you see a commercial. Meanwhile, inline ads are the last bastion: embedded right into the broadcast, part and parcel and inseparable, forcing you into the ultimate "Take It or Leave It" situation: ads and all or not at all. Not even hidebound traditionalist events like Test Cricket are immune (sure the uniforms are clean, but you can't say that about the field). And since the sports themselves need the ad revenues to keep things going (otherwise they have to raise ticket prices beyond the tolerance point), you start to wonder how it will all end...
My solution is to simply repeat the practice that is already in-place on television, and apply it to the web. Which is to say: The content creator eats the price of bandwidth for the ads, and uses his own equipment to broadcast them on the same station (i.e.: domain) that the primary content comes from.
It's absolutely no different than the system they prefer anyway, and would largely circumvent ad blockers.
If they applied the system they're using on the web to television, they'd be taking over your TV, switching to an all-ad station, make you watch it for a period of time, and then switching back to the channel you originally tuned to. Pretending surprise that people might resist such a scheme is completely disingenuous. I'm sure you would find ad-blocking devices becoming available for your television that would prevent the hijack altogether or block ad-only channels' frequencies.
Problem is that the analogy doesn't work. Web sites work on much tighter margins than television networks (the majority of which belong to conglomerates who can bundle channels). The only firms that can internalize ads are places like Google with internal ad networks. Otherwise, a lot of honest hobbyist places (not to mention gaming clans) would likely disappear due to lack of funds to keep them running otherwise.
"If they applied the system they're using on the web to television, they'd be taking over your TV, switching to an all-ad station, make you watch it for a period of time, and then switching back to the channel you originally tuned to."
Don't blink. That could be next. My cable box already force-tunes to a "timed out" channel if I don't do vigilance controls.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019