Ad Exec on Blockers: "Little Piss Ants" Threaten Freedom of Speech

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
Wow, that is just... wow. The CEO of a spam company trying to play all high and mighty with no shortage of childish language, I guess that is why they operate the way they do.

I wonder if anyone ever pointed out to him that the only reason people bothered making ad-blockers and continue to update them every single day is because ads got so damn nasty. Dug your own hole there buddy.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Halyah said:
This dude acts like a five year old who just found his first thesaurus heh.

erttheking said:
Remember when "threatening freedom of speech" wasn't tossed out every time things got inconvenient for you?
After starting to use the internet and being exposed to the many many many many -many- debates/discussions/etc where americans toss the phrase around like it was made out of candy and gold? Not really no.
Trust me, it's far more than just Americans who do it. It's pretty universal.
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
The whole ad blocking debate is an extremely tricky one. On one hand, advertising has been a necessary evil for a very long time and is the reason why certain services are able to operate at all.

But on the other hand, I think wanting to avoid ads is just one reason why people use ad blockers. I honestly think many people use ad blockers the same way they'd use firewalls or virus scanners, ads can be intrusive and potentially hazardous.
 

Czann

New member
Jan 22, 2014
317
0
0
Rottenberg? Do you really want to control what people do with their own browsers, in their own computers, Rottenberg?

Gimme a free PC and you can flood it with ads, Rottenberg, but if I bought it with my money I'll do what I want with it, Rottenberg.
 

Senare

New member
Aug 6, 2010
160
0
0
kekkres said:
Xsjadoblayde said:
Rothenberg...Rothenberg? Why does that name sound so familiar? Nevermind. Heh! This guy talks like a bad politician, trying to convince the public that something utterly shite and intrusive is totally for our own good and anybody getting in the way of it are destroying our freedoms. Denouncing them as bloody communists and socialists! Ahh, wait...Rothenberg is a politically related name i think. I must research!
how are adds intrusive really? ive never bought this argument, i mean sure sound/video adds are shit but otherwise they are just images or gives occupieing the space they payed to take up. I honestly dont unserstand how this actualy inconveniences anyone.

EndlessSporadic said:
Honestly Randall is completely out of touch. He is blaming the people who use Adblock when he should be blaming the people who load their webpages with intrusive ads. Despite common belief Adblock software did not come about as a response to ads. It came as a response to intrusive content that interfered with the user experience. If anything Randall is the unethical, immoral piss ant for not creating a set of standards to improve the ad experience. He only cares about money after all, and God forbid that he set up some standards that might limit the amount of income he gets.
you.... dont understand how advertising companies work do you, by cutting off adds are primarily hurting the site your on, as that less clicks for the add company to actually have to pay for. if the amount of 'registered' traffic gets too low the add company will just leave and the site will need to find another who will pay for low traffic, which generally pushes the standards down. And unethical? REALLY? there is nothing ethics related at all here, adds are unethical when they are deceptive, not when they are annoying, to claim that annoying adds are unethical is absurd.
I find advertising in its modern form to be unethical and immoral.

This is due to contradicting what I believe are some implicit assumptions about the benefits of our economic system. One assumption seems to be that monetary gain should bring improvement to society through better products and services (or whatever a company can do). Other assumptions would be that each customer is knowledgeable about all alternative products, will have reasonable alternatives due to competition, and always make rational and fair purchasing decisions. Modern advertising tries to subvert many of these factors.
Marketing "science" relies upon phenomena like the "familiarity effect", where customers will ostensible prefer signals (e.g. brands) that they have seen a lot before. If this influences their decision, and you use this fact, then you subvert the above assumptions. In addition, some of the resources in a company are diverted from other areas to marketing; implying that less resources can be spent on improving whatever the company does, or even paying their workers. I find this behaviour to be a highly immoral and a serious risk to the future of our societies and humankind.

As for me personally, I believe that advertising has a detrimental effect on my decision-making when it comes to purchases. It also distracts, displays things that I have a strong urge to avoid; and it angers me. I am the type of person who will hold personal grudges towards companies based on their actions. Unwanted advertising that injects itself into my everyday life is to me akin to preachers knocking on your door, propaganda and a form of stalking.

I sympathize with good companies that just have to play the advertising game to survive. Sadly, that does not detract from the attack I perceive on my person. Hopefully the manner of advertising that good companies try will differ enough that the sincerity shines through. Those advertisements can be okay.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
kekkres said:
how are adds intrusive really? ive never bought this argument, i mean sure sound/video adds are shit but otherwise they are just images or gives occupieing the space they payed to take up. I honestly dont unserstand how this actualy inconveniences anyone.
I've seen adds that used gross imagery (medical) that I'd rather not have pushed in my face and especially pop-up and scroll-over adds are a pain in the butt. The Escapist ran a Wildstar add for a while that threw a trailer in your face, taking up a portion of the screen, whenever you accidentally moved your cursor over a certain not-well-marked area. Adds like that are bandwidth whores as well. YouTube also started forcing me to watch full-length trailers in its commercials, sometimes for movies I don't want spoiled as trailers are more and more wont to do. Then there's the whole malware problem.

Those are the sort of things that intrude on my experience too much for my taste. I don't have something against advertisement as such (even though the 'arguments' used by this exec are ridiculous) but when it starts getting rubbed in my face it crosses a line for me.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Going to join the chorus of "you sound like a entitled jackass" toward the Ad Exec. I'm sure ad bloc probably hurts your bottom line, but given that malicious software and scripts can and do exist within those adverts, I imagine the lack of it probably hurts more people overall, to say nothing of the important distinction of those people hurt not acting like petulant namecalling children.

The world is different than before, and online people have greater control over what they want to see. some choose not to see ads or allow scripts, including adverting ones such as banners or autolinks, to run for various reasons. The marketing needs to adjust to this issue, fix the exploits that ads are growingly notorious for, and reduce the aspects of online ads that people hate (noisy, flashy, repetitive, misrepresentative, etc.) Ad block came about for a reason, and the way to deal with it is not to throw a temper tantrum, it is to address the underlying concerns that fuel the use of the programs to both ween current users off it, as well as prevent the frustration and complications in browsing that cause people to learn about the programs in the first place.

You don't solve a problem by calling it names, you solve it by actually examining the thing honestly.

I think the best way I can word this to properly communicate why I think this is utterly hilarious though would be to compare this to television advertisement, and seeing this sort of reaction from a studio exec because people got up and used the bathroom during commercial breaks instead of watching them all.
 

stormtrooper9091

New member
Jun 2, 2010
506
0
0
"Rothenberg" is a saturday morning cartoon villain name.

And the whole thing is quite fishy, just like nobody is forced to watch ads, nobody is forced to use adblock. Some people have been clever enough to provide a useful thingy.

Now, if there were an audio filter which would immediately mute everyone who utters the word "kardashian" I'd buy that in a heartbeat
 

OldNewNewOld

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,494
0
0
I didn't start using adblocker until they started making those retarded loud annoying and frustrating smiley ads. But even then I didn't outright start using it. I considered it. But after my anti-virus started blocking connection and they started making the ridiculously loud auto playing video ads, it was too much. I had a 1Mbps download speed then. Sorry but what's too much is too much.

Now I always have adblocker turned on and unblock sites that I find nice, visit regularly and want to support in some way. Except for my alone time sites. I visit them often, but adblocker is always on. I tried turning it off but the moment I did my AV started going insane. I know it hurts the site owner, but they are the ones that allow those ads to be there. If they aren't going to pressure the ad provider into cleaning up their shit, there is nothing I can do. I want a safer and faster surfing experience.

Pop-ups, whole page covered ads that pop up a new screen that aren't blocked by regular pop-up blocker, autoplaying videos, sound ads that can't be shut off and keep repeating the same shit over and over again, ads disguised as parts of an article in order to mislead you to click on them and send you somewhere completely unrelated, malware, literally scam, porn ads on supposedly child friendly sites, bandwidth sucking black hole ads... Yeah, get your shit right.

Escapists, Youtube, GitHub (never saw any ads, so kinda pointless, but still a site I support), Adsfly partially although I keep an eye on them (I download minecraft mods a lot so that's a way of supporting people that have those links) and maybe a few others are unblocked. Everything else? Blocked until proven innocent. I know, I'm a tyrant who oppresses freedom of speech.

That being said, the fact that a moron like that guy is so high up in an advertisement company is a really good explanation of why ads are so shit and are getting worse with each passing second. Can't really expect anything from an industry that's lead by people like him.
 

wildstars

New member
May 24, 2013
32
0
0
Lilani said:
Personally I work in marketing, and though my department specializes in TV ads, and things like DVR, Netflix, and even people distracting themselves during commercial breaks with smartphones and tablets and such are of great concern to us.
Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. Advertising person,

If you want your advertisements to be watched, make them exceptionally entertaining (specifically to your target audience). Its that simple. If you say "the product I advertise for can't be advertised in an entertaining way," use to google to find those Terry Crews Old Spice deodorant advertisements. I can't think of a more boring product. I watched the crap of out those ads because they entertained me. I don't even use Old Spice, but I bought some just in the hopes they would make more ads.

But, what do I know? I'm sure I am over simplifying things, and there are many many factors I am unaware of. I'm just somebody's target audience. I hate hate hate advertisements. I'm the person who watched a Subaru "They Lived" TV advertisement and immediately said "This ad tells me that Subaru owners can't drive, or at the very least are accident prone." And I used to own a Subaru. And it got totaled in a car accident, and I lived. So... maybe yeah, maybe there is some truth to all that. I'm gonna go watch me some Old Spice ads. Good luck with your industry!
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
Do ads still serve as a vehicle for malicious code? Yes. Did that Forbes thing happen where they asked people to disable their blockers and infected them with some shit? Yes. Can this guy fucking sit on it and spin? Yes.

If I feel the need to go out of my way to use a program to protect myself from your shit, the problem lies not with me nor the program, but with your shit. Fix your shit.

infohippie said:
Bertinan said:
Speaking theoretically, I would use an ad-block after the third time an ad, on a reputable site no less, gave me malware.

Theoretically speaking, of course.
THIRD time? I would use it IMMEDIATELY after the FIRST time a site tried to give me malware. In fact, I just use it to begin with as the default starting point, then when a site (such as the Escapist) shows me that it is worth supporting I whitelist them in my blocker.
I started using them the first time I heard you could deliver unwanted programs through ads, screw waiting around for an exposure my anti-virus software may not catch.
 

Elfgore

Your friendly local nihilist
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,655
23
13
How about we try making ads less obnoxious ,device destroying, and malware infested first? I'm sure people will then stop using ad-block then. But hey, that request is far to reasonable. It might mean this CEO has to purchase a Porsche instead of a Lamborghini this year.
 

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
Lilani said:
I think this guy could have begun a civil and insightful discussion on the effect of adblock on marketing firms, if he had approached the topic in a civil and insightful way. Personally I work in marketing, and though my department specializes in TV ads, and things like DVR, Netflix, and even people distracting themselves during commercial breaks with smartphones and tablets and such are of great concern to us. So I imagine adblock is a similar concern to people who specialize in web marketing.

As it stands he's done neither of these things, and so the response he's going to get (and quite frankly deserves) is not going to be civil or insightful.
If he approached the topic in a civil and insightful way, it wouldn't be news, and no-one would even hear it, never-mind discuss it.

Besides, in a purely practical sense even a non-civil internet argument on the subject is probably a (minor) victory for the anti-adblock cause. Even coming out and debating in favour of adblockers implicitly concedes the point that there is a debate to be had, that there are two sides lining up on an issue and points in each side's favour. That alone will influence people who see it, who might not have otherwise have considered that adblockers could be an issue at all.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
If ads didn't use up so much bandwidth, and completely dominate a webpage, all while exposing your computer to malware threats, then people wouldn't feel the need to use them.

He says ad blockers diminish free speech, I say he is advocating cyber terrorism.
 

Pseudonym

Regular Member
Legacy
Nov 4, 2020
802
8
13
Country
Nederland
First off, can the escapist mods or whoever makes these decisions decide how they want to handle the discussion of ads? Right now, there are topics every now and again, often featured topics, bringing up the subject and making it extremely likely that people accidentily break the CoC. You have to risk a warning pretty much by participating in the discussion as the content provider intended, it seems. If discussing ad-block is that much of a problem for the escapist, then it'd be better if its content providers would not bring up the subject. In this case at least one mod has already commented

OT: It doesn't surprise me that advertising executives are painfully lacking in charisma themselves, choosing to hurl insults like a troll in an online game, rather than say something of value. Because most ads I see these days aren't even meant to reasonably convince me anymore to buy a product (telling me it is cheap, or of good quality) or alert me to its existance in a not wholly obnoxious way. That's regular ads. Now most ads I see on the internet are even worse and are quite open in their utter contempt for me, choosing to grab my attention by lying about me having won prices, pretending to be a download button, flashing brightly, etc. And than there is the fact that the guy who sold me my computer advised adblock because it apparently significantly reduces my chances for malware. Ads, as they exist on the internet today are a scummy business, I don't respect it much more than I respect the business of arms trade. It is bad for privacy, bad for the product it is around, and open in its complete disrespect for me. Even if some ads are legal and done decently, they have only my temporary appreciation and still my permanent distrust.

Add to that, that I was never told I was making any kind of transaction to watch set amount of commercial to watch other content. I wasn't aware I had to browse the internet in a certain way so as not to disturb how the content providers organised it. An advertiser and another company made a deal, and I become aware of the deal, when I see their ads. Good for them, but I was never asked what I thought about it. If you want to monetise me directly, you can ask for my money for the product you are offering, like what netflix and many game publishers do, or like how I get my food, for that matter. Then I will decide whether I will pay for your product and if I won't, I won't steal or pirate your stuff. Ads, though, that are just kind of there on content that is freely available. Well, I don't bear ill will to the concept, I wouldn't block it if the ads wheren't mostly vile themselves. But in any case, you can't seriously get mad at me for not going allong with the deal, you made with another company about me.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
See here's where I think you're off the mark champ: the use of an ad-blocker is down to the individual level. Ergo by my reckoning I'm not repressing your right to talk, I'm just reminding you I'm not obliged to listen to you. It's more like I'm closing my front door in your face: not gonna stop you from going next door, but get off my fucking lawn.
 

Starik20X6

New member
Oct 28, 2009
1,685
0
0
If you don't want people using AdBlock and the like, the solution still seems really obvious to me- make ads that we don't want to block. Make sure your ads aren't hampering the end user's experience, and people will have no reason to block them. Hell, make a really good ad and people will be glad to see it!

And if you so much as think about making a video ad that autoplays with sound enabled? I will personally hunt you down and fill your rectum with angry hornets, one at a time, until they start coming out of your mouth.