Could AdBlockers signal the end of the free Internet?
Apple’s decision to side with the content blockers by enabling their apps to run on IOS 9 has ruffled a few feathers. Depending on which side you sit it is either a much needed stance that will improve the user experience for everybody or it is a damaging plan that will force smaller content providers into bankruptcy. It is probably worth saying that the effect so far has been minimal. While the iPhone represents an important demographic it is still only a small percentage of the total smart phone market and so far it is only the iPhone 6 that this will effect. We are continually told that mobile has overtaken desktop as the number one device but it is important to recognize that we are also using desktop more than ever before. We are just spending considerable more time on all digital channels. For publishers Adblockers represent two significant concerns. The most obvious is that it threatens the primary way they are compensated for the content they create. The second which gets less attention is that it blocks tracking cookies which publishers need to find out how content is performing. This effects ROI and their ability to target content to users.
Apple’s stance appears to be as much about derailing Google’s gravy train and boosting their own app revenue than an ethical stance on user experience. They would hope that AdBlockers incentivize marketers to create apps as a way to control the user experience and explore new ways to monetize content. While this may be a solution for the larger content providers it could be a costly exercise for the smaller independent publishers. A billion downloads from the app store and spending up to 2 hours per day on mobile apps would suggest that this is the preferred mobile experience for the user. However this stat is somewhat misleading. Around 80% of the time spent on apps is on Facebook and Youtube which both support the same ads that adblockers are trying to remove.
Facebook and YouTube could be seen as "facilitator" apps as they allow publishers to syndicate content and sell directly from a single third party login and payment gateway. These apps could be the salvation for smaller companies who could use them as publishing partners on a revenue share agreement. Facebook have already tested out showing full articles in return for a split in advertising profits. YouTube are tipped to roll out a subscription based channel within the next few months where users will be able to watch TV shows and live streamed sports without leaving the App. As smaller publishers see the value of this they could decide against a native app in favour of a partnership with a facilitator apps as they offer a greater reach, lower expenses, potentially high ROI and they are already set up for revenue share (subscription or native ad). It is for this reason that I am not in complete agreement with Apple’s statement that the future of TV is apps.
Most of the discussions around adblockers use the term "content" as if it is one entity. Content comes in all shapes and sizes and even ads can be classed as content. Paid content often serves a purpose in helping users find products and services and yes even apps from the app store. Most facilitator sites have realized this and provide a different experience depending on the intent behind the search. Google for example provides a different experience if you search for a product rather than news or information based content. Unfortunately Adblockers don’t make the distinction between the "I want to read", the "I want to buy" and the"I want to find" moments.
A search through your phone should provide an instant solution whether that is through the web or an installed app. The interesting thing is what happens after the initial search. The "buy now", "listen" or "watch now" moment. From the user perspective why signup to several newspaper, tv and film subscription apps when you could curate the best of them into a personalized feed and only pay for the ones you read. Newspaper sites have been forced to hide content behind paywalls in order protect their product which has led to a reduction in readers. While the New York Times size publishers can absorb this it could be a disaster the smaller independent content providers. The pay-as-you-play style agreement with the facilitator apps could provide a way for smaller publishers to get their content out to a larger audience and would align the goals of the publisher with the user. The priority being quality and relevancy of content. For the most part, marketers, publishers and facilitators are in complete agreement on this. However content costs money and publishers need to be compensated or they could decide to strike back by formatting their content so that it is also blocked by adblockers. Rather than taking this adversarial approach I think it is more likely that we will see a two tier subscription model with free ad supported content vs paid ad free subscriptions.
Post A Comment:
0 comments: