TLDR: We're so used to the absolutist claims and obfuscatory language of "digital advertising" that things that are full-blown scandals from a civil rights perspective don't even stand out anymore. And then along comes such an industry note. You read, pause, and see more clearly again. "Adblocker traffic is valuable," someone says, referring to something that could also be called digital trespass. Time for regulation.
We found a new word in this month's Horizont. It's about new possibilities in the technical systems for digital advertising management, widely referred to, even by us, only as "AdTech". "Adblocker traffic, on the other hand, is something we've never heard of. We, too, first had to explain this to ourselves. The article helped quickly and clearly.
"Adblocker traffic" is delivery of advertising against the stated will of the users
It's about a test. "Around 40 percent ... of a user group ... has adblockers installed. Last year, ...( an advertiser with a technology provider)... played ads anyway."
Aha, so there is a new weapon. And what is being talked about here is technical warfare against users. And the weapon not only works. It also generates economic benefits, it is claimed: "The results were ... significantly higher than those of standard display campaigns"... and... "the costs were lower, the users were of higher quality for it".
What is said here indirectly about the devaluation of the display genre is not important. The more important point is the political classification of the campaign method - the devaluation of the private decision to install an adblocker. Advertisers, publishers and technology providers are deliberately overriding the right to self-determination. Is this what we really want?
The "advertisers" themselves also see that this procedure is more than questionable, otherwise they would not feel compelled to justify themselves. A person in charge of a large, formerly opinion-forming publishing house in Hamburg then sounds like this:
"There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothes". In other words: circumstances are to blame, I bear no responsibility. A campaign by his company, which uses similar methods, then sums it up: "You have adblockers. We have adblockers-blockers. Life is bitter.
Using the same logic and tone of voice, a burglar can also say, "Well. You had a door. I got a hammer. That's just life." Stupidly, burglary is forbidden in our country. Why is that? Ask in Hamburg.
Persuasion is indeed necessary - but a different one than Adtech thinks.
"The providers, ...have to convince advertisers and agencies". That's what the article says, and we can understand it well. Who wants to couple their brand with harassment? Who wants to link their company with the breaking of self-determination?
We have three questions for the future:
1. "What advertiser could theoretically "create value" in this way at all?"
- Answer: not a single one who really wants to ADVERTISE. This business model is only applicable to SELLERS, to digital pushers, to es to express restrainedor, as Thomas Koch once called it, even more reservedly, on Digital
MarketingSaleseting. What do these salespeople actually do when they "unblock adblockers"? Can't it also be called "breaking down doors"?
2. where is actually a viable business case for anyone here?
- Answer: Nowhere - not even for the technology provider.
3. what actually has to happen so that the users' will, explicitly declared by adblocker installation, is respected? What so that it is enforceable?
- Response: As things stand, statutory regulation of providers seems to be the only way to balance user will against economic interests.
Regulation of AdTech is good for everyone - especially AdTech.
Even if it's hard to think, ad tech providers and "programmatic rockstars" should see legal regulation primarily as an opportunity. Because the future of their market is acutely threatened.
Facebook and Google hijacked COMPLETE US growth in digital advertising in 2016. In fact, it's true.
And in Germany? Without a change in the general conditions, AdTech in Germany will have no choice but to grow into, let's put it politely, the semi-legal "dark web. So: Macedonia model. Against this backdrop, the ad tech industry must discuss its own future.
There is much to be said for considering the regulation of ad tech and platform providers as the last remaining "game changer" for digital advertising. Standards and rules for publishers, carriers and brokers. It goes without saying that they must first apply to Facebook and Google and only secondarily to all other ad tech providers.
Regulation is sometimes necessary. It can also be helpful for ad tech and the digital media industry.
Think about it.
Here go to the article
