[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.

irc,

Currently it's only the print and digital that contributes to the charities. But we've just discussed this further in the office and decided that we are going to include £5 from every digital sub.
We are also going to donate £2 from every non copy of issue 100 sold in our shop too. We are going to backdate the donation on digital subs and issue 100 sales to yesterday, so if anyone has bought a digital sub then you will have contributed.

As for the glitch in subscribing I've alerted our techs and they are investigating it now.

If the forum closed have a look at other forums, which I used to do anyway (but got out of the habit recently). STW seems clearly the best at the moment, but these things change. Usenet used to be good but that was ages ago. The other users would go somewhere too, like the ski story up there ^ (I'm sure there are other usenet refugees here). It's not like there would never be a good forum again. I agree that £5 is not bad value but if the otehr £10 is going to charity then I'd rather gift-aid it.

andytherocketeer, snowHeads? just clicked back there after years of not going there, it's not changed much has it? That was/is a great forum.

If the forum closed have a look at other forums

Without wanting to risk overstating things, there's a huge wealth of advice and knowledge concentrated here which would be lost, or at the least diluted, if it were scattered around multiple other forums.

BTW I only got a "P" today after a combination of reading the Jenn post and writing my first post on this thread... I've been an on-and-off buyer of the mag for years and a regular user of browser-tools-that-shall-not-be-named.

The good news is that Apple are trying to take over the world so much and manipulate industries and business streams that at some point the EU will get involved. There is no way that Apple can blocks ads on one hand and then allow ads through there own News app (whilst taking 30%) without the regulatory bodies coming down on them. Apples market share is far to big to allow an anti competitive behaviour like this to be allowed. Just remember the battles that Microsoft had with the EU just because they bundled Internet Explorer with every PC.

Apple has got itself into a position where it has far to much power over certain industries and its policies will need to change as it is now just so big.

The publishing industry has brought this on themselves somewhat by so many annoying ads and popups that in many cases just don't work on mobile devices. We the public do also have to realise that you can't have things like SIngletrack World unless it is paid for and ads pay the wages. Personally I would prefer to have ads and still have Singletrack World. It's the price you pay.

The positive side to ad blocking is all the click bait that is rife on social media will be no more. I wonder what will be done to get round it all, no doubt someone will find a way.

As for the glitch in subscribing I've alerted our techs and they are investigating it now.

Thanks Mark. Working now. Now subscribed.

There is no way that Apple can blocks ads on one hand and then allow ads through there own News app (whilst taking 30%) without the regulatory bodies coming down on them.

But Apple aren't blocking ads, unless I've very much misunderstood the situation. All Apple have done in iOS9 is allow ad-blockers that weren't previously allowed. They haven't actually delivered any ad-blocking themselves; they've simply opened up that walled garden everyone complains about so the ad-blockers can get a piece of the iOS action. If you upgrade to iOS9 you're not blocking any ads. YOU have to buy an app to do that and in that scenario YOU'RE the one blocking the ads.

The net result may be the same, but I don't know how Apple can get in trouble for it. I do have to salute their plan though.

Worth remembering that a few years ago when when the Cookie Directive came in that Adland lobbied Europe hard so that browsers could be used as a consent mechanism as to whether people want third-party tracking cookies or not. They did this on the basis that few would actually opt-out of behavioural advertising. Blocking software installed at browser level is just an expression of a consent mechanism Adland asked for.

Very interesting read: http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/17/9338963/welcome-to-hell-apple-vs-google-vs-facebook-and-the-slow-death-of-the-web not sure where this leaves site like STW but as Mark says it's going to be interesting over thenext few weeks and months.

@woody what @still says, Apple allows you to buy a third party app which blocks ads. I am going to download Peace and give it a go.

UPDATE: Peace bought £2.29 (it's the number 1 paid app in uk App Store now). One purchase allows use on multiple devices (works on my iPad and iPhone). Simple activation is Settings/General/Safari. News websites like Guardain / BBC now load almost instantly with none of the daft rendering issues with screen jumping all over the place. 🙂

Very interesting read:

You're right, it is, and I'd recommend anyone interested in this discussion go read it. Yes, now, off you go, we'll wait.

Just read that, interesting. IMO the issue is that current iteration of online ads are so intrusive and degrade the "experience" that I've been happy to pay £2.29 to be able to ignore them. The industry could have gone down a path to ensure they where not so but they have not. The industry is able to adapt rapidly and it will.

UPDATE: Peace bought £2.29 (it's the number 1 paid app in uk App Store now). One purchase allows use on multiple devices (works on my iPad and iPhone). Simple activation is Settings/General/Safari. News websites like Guardain / BBC now load almost instantly with none of the daft rendering issues with screen jumping all over the place.

What adverts does the BBC site have !?

Lots, if viewing from a non-UK IP address. (I think 😉 )

Out of interest, I got the Peace app

I browsed on my phone to the local news rag website. As usual there were adverts a plenty, mainly getting in the way of what little actual news content there was.

Then I turned on Ad blocking and reloaded. result = no ads and no news!! Appears that the ad blocker is blocking all the news content as well!

@STATO what @andy says, I'm in France at the moment. BBC has loads of ads when abroad, not as annoying as the Guardain with the rendering though.

browser-tools-that-shall-not-be-named.

Mine has made browsing so much more pleasurable. It was becoming a real pain on certain sites.

Hope STW lower the subs cost. I know it's not loads but I reckon it needs to be lower to attract and keep users.

Lower?

AND while ad revenue goes through the floor? Our subs are amazing value for what you get. Right now all our share is going to charity for the next month.

Anyhow, back to the topic. That article above does nail the current situation. 2016 will be the year of distributed content. Websites as a means of content distribution are so last year. We've been preparing for this for the last 6 months and we sill don't yet know how it's going to affect us financially in the end. As users you are going to get a lot less ads in your face. The big three are providing revenue streams for publishers in the new app delivered content world but right now we just have no idea how much it's going to be worth. Will that one single ad you see on a page be worth what the 4 or 5 that exist on this page currently pay? No one knows. Most of the ad market is programatic, which means rates paid for ads go up and down almost on an hourly basis. Two weeks ago I watched the Chinese stock market crash knock the crap out of our ad revenue for 3 days. There was a big spike in rates on tuesday as campaigns rushed to deliver all their inventory before iOS 9 was released.

The only revenue we can count on and budget for is subs revenue. If we make a good mag we sell more. If we make a bad mag we sell less. It's in our control in other words. The ad revenue market is not in our control and yet it forms a chunk of our revenue equivalent to all our subscription revenues and retail mag sales combined.

And publishing runs on a typical profit margin of under 5%

So I'm nervous.

And I won't be reducing subs prices anytime soon.

And I won't be reducing subs prices anytime soon.

I get this, I really do. I sympathise.
But I still reckon that subs across many websites will have to be very low in order to compete.

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 Telegraph is free to read the whole paper every day, just delete it's cookie every 15 articles, or just only allow session cookies and open a new tab every 15 articles.....

The Telegrapgh is so easy to get free it's embarrassing, you do wonder why they bother !

Internet revenue is fascinating and bizarre, the lad with the games YouTube channel where he commentates on games he's playing makes $4.8m pa. The Brit girl who plays minecraft makes millions also. Can't imagine Russel Brand isn't making very good money too.

I hope the Apple News channel and similar works for STW as I'd hate to see it wither and disappear, easily the best MTB magazine since I saw my first copy at the Glencorrig cafe after a ride,

Ya, so I bought a .99p adblocker app from da store innit. Yo'a blocked da adz., I finkz....

Shall take a glance at some rather "special" sites to see if it's working, like Ya.

Peace has been pulled!

http://www.marco.org/2015/09/18/just-doesnt-feel-good

The Telegraph is free to read the whole paper every day, just delete it's cookie every 15 articles, or just only allow session cookies and open a new tab every 15 articles.

Or in windows Firefox open a private window. Actually I still buy a real paper almost every day. If online versions were pay only I'd stick to the paper version and BBC news which I pay for by licence fee. I did subscribe to Times online and the paper but found I didn't
want to read the same paper every day.

Crazyguyonabike has an interesting funding model. Voluntary donations. I use it a lot and have donated a fair bit over the years. But I think that would only work for a one man operation with user generated content.

Peace has been pulled!

Blimey! The app was almost instantly number 1 in the Top Grossing chart.
That guy could have made his fortune but chose to pull it instead in the interests of fairness. 😯

Actually I still buy a real paper almost every day.

I'd love to get one delivered, but the market has collapsed in Cambridge and my local newsagents gone bust and become yet another take away joint, so I just make do and read online during the week (buy the Saturday Telegraph and Sunday Times at the WE).

Blimey! The app was almost instantly number 1 in the Top Grossing chart.
That guy could have made his fortune but chose to pull it instead in the interests of fairness.

Completely pointless move, it won't make the slightest difference as the other Ad blockers will take his market share.

But I still reckon that subs across many websites will have to be very low in order to compete.

You're probably right, but there also needs to be a paradigm shift in people's expectations. People don't want to pay, don't want adverts, and yet expect quality content to just keep appearing (and indeed, stay alive at all). I'm all for a 'free web' but ultimately STW and every other provider on the web isn't a charity, something's got to give.

TBH, it baffles me that people will cheerfully pay £500 for the latest and greatest phone just to throw in a drawer in two years and repeat the process, yet baulk at paying 69p for an app or the price of a pint for a website they use daily. Not that I'm a poster-boy for this either of course, I'm a monumental hypocrite; but when you take a step back it's definitely broken logic. Maybe we're entering an era where "contract renewal" doesn't equate to 'new "free" phone' in people's heads but rather freeing up that expenditure to feed and fuel the bugger?

TBH, it baffles me that people will cheerfully pay £500 for the latest and greatest phone just to throw in a drawer in two years and repeat the process, yet baulk at paying 69p for an app or the price of a pint for a website they use daily.

Capex vs Opex, it's the same in business, people will do anything to reduce Opex, often spending more on capex.

There is an interesting potential upside to all this in that ad blocking and content delivered via apps is not conducive to click bait journalism. Clickbait websites make their money from maximising ad exposure around a single bounced visit. That's not a business model I'd be investing in right now.

It could be that if publishers earn reasonable money from that single ad exposure in each app story that the race for website page impressions to maximise ad impressions will become less of a motivating factor in the publishing world. That could make way for better, long form journalism to shine through.

In the Apple news app you select your favourite 'channels' and these channels are displayed on your favourites screen in order of preference. Your favourites will be in the top 6 as that is what fits neatly on your screen. Channels that you don;t like will be a scroll away or you just won't bother favouriting them at all. The quality channels will 'float' to the top. If your user experience of that channel is poor you won't read it again.

Publishers are going to come under pressure to keep readers engaged with quality content that is updated frequently. That's the only way they will get that single ad to be displayed and it's the only way we are going to get you to keep coming back.

So I think there's hope for us all here 🙂

EDIT: I hoisted by my own petard up there 🙂

You naughty boys changing the word " adblocker" for "freeloader"

Some would call you cynical, I'm a subscriber and wouldn't think of calling you that.

And again...

Why exactly?

It happens automatically bikebouy - via the swear filter.

I suspect it is related to the [url= http://singletrackmag.com/terms-and-conditions/ ]Forum Rule[/url]:
"In addition you agree not to promote the use of a d blocking on our site in either story comments or forum posts."

It could be that if publishers earn reasonable money from that single ad exposure in each app story that the race for website page impressions to maximise ad impressions will become less of a motivating factor in the publishing world. That could make way for better, long form journalism to shine through.

This makes me think of the podcast ad model used at present - vastly higher ad rates (per-audience member) but generally delivered by the host, ads selected and vetted by them, perhaps with some of their input to tailor to their audience.

I can totally see (or at least hope for!) high quality written journalism, with thoughtful more carefully selected ads yet getting better rates for them.

To give an example from this site - the mountain journal articles:

http://singletrackmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/mountain-journal-no-1-helvellyn/

Interesting well produced long form writing with embedded Ads relevant to the reader - and I'd hope you got better Ad rates for it.

That guy could have made his fortune but chose to pull it instead in the interests of fairness.

I smell a rat, he's pulled the app as he's been paid off / the app bought. Think about it Google would pay $50, $100m, $200m ?