Man Trying to Smash “All the Ad Blockers” After Google Loses $6.6 Billion in Advertising



/ 3 years ago

adblocker

Google has lost $6.6 billion in advertising revenue due to third-party ad-blocking software, such as AdBlock Plus. In an effort to tackle the problem and help companies like Google reclaim some of its lost advertising revenue, former Google employee Ben Barokas has set up a new company to smash “all the ad blockers”.

Barokas sold his advertising optimisation company Admeld to Google for $400 million in 2011, subsequently becoming its General Manager of Marketplace Development. He has now left the search engine giant, though, in favour of his new startup, Sourcepoint, which claims to have the technology bypass all ad blockers.

In an interview with Business Insider, Barokas lamented the practice of many ad blocking firms for charging companies to whitelist adverts, saying, “It’s blackmail. It’s extortion. It’s not fair.”

“That being said, [ad blocking] is not against the law, it’s legal in Germany, the US, the UK … but at the end of the day it’s also legal for publishers to give people messages and say you can choose ads. It’s not fair for journalists like you not to have food at your table, it’s not fair not to have a roof over your head. It goes back to transparency and fairness … if users opt-in to having advertising subsidizing the experience, we can serve that ad, [and if an ad blocker continues to block the ads] then that would be illegal.”

SEE ALSO:  ASUS Announces Google Hangouts Meet Hardware Kit

Barokas’ Sourcepoint will make the websites of its customers essentially ad block-proof, and even present visitors with ad-based browsing incentives, such as clicking on an ad to unlock an article or section of the site, turning ads into a kind of pseudo-paywall.

Thank you BGR for providing us with this information.


Topics: , , ,

Comments

20 Responses to “Man Trying to Smash “All the Ad Blockers” After Google Loses $6.6 Billion in Advertising”
  1. Ryan Airth says:

    Since when are we given a choice to not having ads?

    If it’s in the ToS then that’s bullshit, seeing as it’s either agree to the ToS or not be able to use it, or in a very limited capability.

    And to claim that they “have the technology bypass all ad blockers” sounds a bit stupid as well. People will find a way around it, one side will make progress, the other side will catch up and over-take and vice versa.

  2. Wilder says:

    “We losing money guys. So from now on, we have decided adblockers to be illegal.”

  3. ZomBie says:

    It’s their own fault, ad’s became increasingly annoying.

    popups,
    Moving things that discract.
    SOUND !!!!

    I would be okay with allowing ads, if they went back to simple non sound non moving adds in on the page, not in a popup.

    Their choice

  4. Migotsi says:

    HAS LOST HOW??? DID THEY STEAL THEY MONEY??? USE THE RIGHT WORDS NOOBS.

  5. Migotsi says:

    ” It’s not fair for journalists like you not to have food at your table” it’s 100% fair. That’s how the life is for people like you.

  6. Kishin Ro says:

    If I want an ad, I’ll try to find it.

  7. Fer says:

    The first thing I do on any computer I get is to install an ad block, ads have become way too intrusive, and if it hurts Google in the process then much better, I’m not very keen on them, and I try not to use any of their services.

  8. Bob Brello says:

    i dont have ads.. i understand it gets profit to google etc but i find them intrusive and en-cumbersome .. let google have an ads/no ads option in their program/browser and give people the choice… no ads means no ads.. not lets sneak 1 or 2 in.. see how they fair then.. i am seriously sick of chrome now and am searching for one with less advertising and one more user friendly and considerate

    • Incognito Jay says:

      Yep, and Task Manager doesn’t even show flash but instead a bunch of Chrome applications, so you could close what you actually want to see instead. Firefox is much better on that front but I strongly disapprove of their new options page.

  9. Bob Brello says:

    i dont have ads.. i understand it gets profit to google etc but i find them intrusive and en-cumbersome .. let google have an ads/no ads option in their program/browser and give people the choice… no ads means no ads.. not lets sneak 1 or 2 in.. see how they fair then.. i am seriously sick of chrome now and am searching for one with less advertising and one more user friendly and considerate

  10. Steve Kerry says:

    See that? It took less than 10 minutes to block 532 adverts the other night, and while I was taking the screenshot and cropping it down, the total went up by another 16. THAT is why everybody uses ABP. Not fair? Make adverts interesting and engaging, and people might let them through the blockers. Adverts in a sidebar were acceptable, we could live with that, but then they started jumping out and popping up and blocking our view of the content. They began hijacking our browsers. The advertisers became TOO GREEDY and now they are paying the price. The users have finally been given a choice and they have made their decision clear – the advertisers DO NOT own the internet.

  11. Hurts scroogle? Excellent!

  12. All ads are always sucks big time. Reason why ads had hidden virus, spyware, malware, etc and infect everyone’s computer without warning. That is why ads are very bad and evil to steal people’s info.

    Ad block plus and ghostery are way to go!

  13. Incognito Jay says:

    There’s a word for unwanted attention: harassment. If you take steps to deliberately avoid something and bypass those steps you’re just engaging in predatory behavior. I didn’t visit a certain page to view an obnoxious ad. If Google really wants to make up that lost revenue then why not expand Google Fiber to more locations? Comcast and Time Warner could really use the competition.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!