Are ‘Acceptable Ads’ an Acceptable Compromise to Ad Blocking Software?

Users of the world wide web are waging a not-so-subtle war on web page advertising.  

Website users have become adept at ignoring online advertisements and click-through rates on advertisements continue to decline. In an effort to gain more click-throughs, publishers are allowing advertisers to use more intrusive advertising formats that block content or use disruptive audio, video and animation gimmicks to attract readers’ attention.

The use of irritating advertising placement and attraction devices has prompted more consumers to install ad blocking software within their web browsers. Already popular, ad blockers may become pervasive since Apple’s new iOS 9 operating system allows users to easily install them from its app store. That further depresses click-through rates, creating a vicious cycle.

As online ad blocking software becomes more popular and easier to install, publishers worry that ad blockers threaten the viability of the online publishing model. That economic model uses income from advertising to provide free access to editorial content. Without advertising, publishers lack income to support content development, especially since users usually also reject publishers’ attempts to implement paid subscriptions.

Can so-called “acceptable ads” be the solution to the online ad blocking dilemma?

Eyeo, the Germany-based developer of open source Adblock Plus software, believes that acceptable ads are a compromise that will end the vicious cycle. With over 300 million downloads, the Adblocker Plus app is the most popular ad blocker available for Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, Android and Internet Explorer.

The Acceptable Ads Manifesto

1. Acceptable ads are not annoying.

2. Acceptable ads do not disrupt or distort the page content we’re trying to read.

3. Acceptable ads are transparent with us about being an ad.

4. Acceptable ads are effective without shouting at us.

5. Acceptable ads are appropriate to the site that we are on.

Eyeo’s free Adblock Plus app allows websites to have its ads whitelisted and not blocked if the ads conform to strict guidelines virtually identical to those in the Acceptable Ads Manifesto. Whitelisting is free for small and medium websites and blogs, and larger publishers pay a fee.

The whitelisting feature in Adblocker Plus is enabled by default, but users who hate all ads can disable it at any time. Eyeo’s user survey shows that only 25% of its users are against all advertising. Most are willing to accept some advertising if it helps websites. Some request to permit ads only for certain websites.

The concept seems at least a good start to resolving the issue, but it faces questions and challenges regarding transparency, governance and privacy, says Dave Carroll, an associate professor of media design at Parsons School of Design, in a Medium blog post.

Unresolved Issues

How can we be sure advertisers are properly screened? The whitelist is growing quickly and has limited transparency. Some questionable advertisers have already been approved. How can we be sure bad actors don’t spoil the whitelist?

Reaching agreement on what users and advertisers find mutually acceptable is difficult. It’s based on the premise that an advisory board of industry leaders will set guidelines. In reality, the online advertising industry will have adapt to users’ preferences.

Privacy advocates may not accept the ads. Google is whitelisted, meaning that the largest advertising company in the world isn’t typically ad blocked. Google’s privacy practices are “highly problematic,” he says, citing a paper by Timothy Libert of the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania. Twenty percent of the one million websites surveyed load ad software susceptible to NSA surveillance techniques.

Reaching agreements through shared governance involving input from different groups is extremely difficult. Usually, a strong leader is required to prompt meaningful change

“If whitelists will be managed by such a committee, it’s difficult to imagine how it wouldn’t eventually become corrupt, dysfunctional, or ineffectual to manage future disruptions,” Carroll warns. “When asked about governance issues, Eyeo doesn’t respond to suggestions of forming a non-profit or B-corp structure that could resolve its obvious conflicts of interest, but would it then have a profit incentive to even bother? They’re blocking that discussion and it hasn’t been whitelisted yet.”

Difficult issues are seldom resolved via edict or one-sided approaches. Acceptable website advertising formats will eventually have to be decided by agreement of advertisers, publishers and user groups. Even then, individual users will no doubt require the ability to block certain types of “approved” advertisements on their devices.

Just let’s hope the warring sides can find a solution before the issue attracts the attention of government regulators.

Bottom Line: An initiative for “acceptable ads” may be a step in the right direction to reach a compromise between publishers, digital advertisers and the website viewers. However, issues about governance, transparency and privacy remain unresolved.