Ask HN: Why do companies care about adblock? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why do companies care about adblock?

4 pointsduggan7 comments

This might sound like a naive question, but hear me out.

This operates on the (perhaps inaccurate, though anecdotally appealing) assumption that people who use adblock are unlikely to ever click on an advertisement, even if they did not have adblock available. So, no direct revenue loss.

Their views still count towards your statistics though, so you have more eyeballs and potential shares - great!

Most interestingly though, you get to skip serving ads to those who never would have clicked in the first place (or only accidentally), which translates to an increased clickthrough ratio (and increased conversion). So the ad space is worth more.

So tell me, HN, why do companies invest so much time and effort into policing adblockers, when it seems that the best strategy would be to simply ignore them?

Is it that adblock usage is actually such a large percentage of users in 2015 that it necessitates dissuasive measures? The last time I worked in a company that relied almost exclusively on advertising (2010), it was relatively small and static. We decided that, due to the above reasoning, it wasn't worth pursuing.

Are there people/companies out there who've seen a measurable uptick in conversions or revenue as a result of countering adblock?

Because there is no proof that your assumption is true - people tend to believe they aren't affected by advertising when they actually are. There is plenty of science out there to show the effectiveness of advertising, even if you never click on it.

And yes - growth rates have jumped and in just 2015 it has doubled. Some sites are experiencing 50% ad block rates (in more gaming and technical verticals).

It will become a problem for advertising reliant companies very soon.

Just on the first point, I'd heard a couple of years back that CPI/CPM was on the decline due to lack of measurable impact. Does that ring true?

It does sound believable that serious saturation campaigns would work, though I'd wonder at the cost effectiveness.

Impact can be measured and quality impressions are still worth a decent CPM. Search advertising is also still very effective, as is online video.

Because there is no proof that your assumption is true - people tend to believe they aren't affected by advertising when they actually are.

Very true. You can test this by asking people about those "one weird trick" ads. People never click on them but they have been exposed to them and they do recall the message.

I certainly recall them, but is there value in that? It's not like I, or many others, I imagine, associate it with a positive purchasing intent.

I remember memes, but does that make the meme creator, or subject, powerful? Influential? Rarely.

The same could be said of catchy TV commercials. The fact that people see them and recall them makes them worth buying.

People on the left-side of the bell curve are the most impressionable to advertising and are are also the least likely to install adblock. so not a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com