AddThis SmartLayers

Trinity Mirror boss declares ‘war’ on ad-blocking industry

Simon FoxTrinity Mirror chief executive Simon Fox has declared that his company is now “at war” with the ad-blocking industry.

Simon, left,  described the ad-blocking business model as “extremely unhealthy” and “pretty unsavoury” at a conference held by media research service Enders Analysis.

His comments come the week after culture secretary John Whittingdale warned ad-blocking software could kill journalism, telling the Oxford Media Convention that ad-blocking companies are “depriving many websites and platforms of legitimate revenue.”

Mr Whittingdale further described ad-blockers as a “modern day protection racket.”

Simon told Tuesday’s conference: “The business model of ad-blocking is a pretty unsavoury one.

“They offer software for free [to consumers] and then come to us and say ‘your site’s OK so if you pay us we will ensure ads on your sites get through’. There is something extremely unhealthy about this business model.”

He added: “It is also becoming a war of technology. As we come up with ways to detect ad-blocking software they come up with other way. It is a war, you have to be constantly updating.”

Regional publisher Newsquest is currently trialling a system whereby visitors to some of its websites cannot view stories if they are using ad blockers.

The trial means people using the software, which removes advertising links from web pages, are unable to view individual stories on some of its websites.

Instead, readers are confronted with a message explaining that the revenue from advertising funds local journalism and a guide to removing ad blockers.

13 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • March 11, 2016 at 8:44 am
    Permalink

    So the danger to the local press comes from consumers freely choosing to block advertising from sites they are presumably accessing for news? No ads, no news? Have I got this right? I need Oliver or someone digital (I am an ancient 18th century quill-flexer, after all) to explain this properly. In other words, in my limited understanding, people must not be allowed to exercise freedom of choice if they want to enjoy a free press. I’m open to critics and all-comers here.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(24)
  • March 11, 2016 at 9:16 am
    Permalink

    I think the best thing I’ve ever read on this issue was the quote below from a comment on the Guardian

    “Advertising providers have caused this situation for themselves by allowing their ads to contain phishing links, malware, pornographic images, irritations such as flashing colours and sound, stealing data and draining data allowances. I use an adblocker because I don’t trust advertising providers to offer safe content on websites I visit. Companies should be blaming advertising networks for the reputation they have given themselves instead of blaming the end users who are just trying to stay safe.”

    It says it all for me.

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/10/why-we-use-adblockers-control-exposed-intrusive-advertising

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(23)
  • March 11, 2016 at 9:34 am
    Permalink

    Simon Fox is doubtless a very busy man. Does he like having his precious time wasted being forced to watch an ad in which he has interest before he can view a video on YouTube? I guess not. That’s why I and many others use an ad blocker.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(7)
  • March 11, 2016 at 10:00 am
    Permalink

    Whoops, I saw ‘ad blocking’ and ‘Trinity Mirror’ and thought this was about the intrusive adverts that block readable content on TM sites?

    Yesterday I had an auto play, one that briefly took up the top third (does the advertiser know it goes very quickly!?) plus a central pop up block covering the text.

    The ‘article’ was a couple of rehashed tweets and a very short video with a pre-roll ad longer than the UGC clip.

    Yeah, blame ad blockers Mr Fox.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(7)
  • March 11, 2016 at 10:06 am
    Permalink

    Not that other media firms are immune (JP, notably) to talking bilge, but Trinity Mirror really is the market-leader. No sooner has it finally dropped its absurd attempt to link the no of hits which a reporter achieves to their pay, than Fox blames consumers for wishing to read content without being assailed by a raft of pop-ups, flashing images and the like. ‘Extremely unhealthy’ are words best applied to TM’s ever-changing digital business model. Clearly Fox and co have failed to realise from the destruction which Sly Bailey inflicted on TM’s share price and its asset value that relentless top-down strategies do not work. Perhaps he might deign to talk to his dwindling no of staff, the NUJ and others before it’s too late.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(6)
  • March 11, 2016 at 10:06 am
    Permalink

    I buy newspapers for news. I look at the ads for special wants.
    I look at websites, I see ads I don’t want flashing before my eyes.
    I have adblockers installed at home and office and phone and tablet.
    I stopped buying my local Trinity Mirror paper because it’s so dire.
    Make it better, put some news in it and I may buy it again, and look at some ads I want.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(7)
  • March 11, 2016 at 10:10 am
    Permalink

    I think many will agree that you require an ad blocker to actually READ their content – especially on some of the old Local World sites. The Nottingham Post site is terrible.I tried to click on a story and was confronted constantly by a pop-up of a giant chicken. TM are clueless and won’t win this war as tech companies are miles ahead.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(9)
  • March 11, 2016 at 10:33 am
    Permalink

    If, as a recent social media video showed, someone slammed their hand down on your paper as you were trying to read it, you’d want to make that hand go away, wouldn’t you?
    Nobody buys a newspaper OR READS A NEWS WEBSITE for the ads. In print, the ads clustered around the story, hoping to attract your attention, and that was OK, because you didn’t have to look at them. These days they jump up in the middle of what you’re trying to read, (sometimes, in areas of poor broadband speed, freezing the page entirely so you have to shut it down) and shout “look at me!”. Now that is just plain rude, and no-one likes rudeness.
    This story shows just how far the money men have taken over the asylum, and how stupid they are. They regard their ads as more important than not only the editorial but the reader, forgetting that the reader didn’t click on the page to read their lousy commercial anyway and also forgetting that the reader will just go away if they don’t like it. And what’s their answer? No, they don’t make their ads less intrusive, they try to stop us, the readers, avoiding them. It doesn’t work. Find another route, boys.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(11)
  • March 11, 2016 at 12:32 pm
    Permalink

    Ad blockers are there for a very good reason : to block ads.
    In a newspaper I can see the ads unobtrusively placed and choose whether to glance at one and read it or not, online I’m bombarded with pop ups, Xs I need to click to get to the piece I was halfway through reading as well as being frustrated at how slow a page loads in an attempt to read something I might want to read. With all those annoying obstacles to put up with is it any wonder so many people install ad blockers or don’t bother visiting or reading sites infested with unwanted adverts?

    Sell adverts on their own merits in designated places where people can choose to read and click on them then you might have sites you can monetise and attract advertisers to,until then all you’re doing is alienating potential readers of your content and turning away those people advertisers want to reach.
    No one likes a pushy sales man and that’s all pop up ads are.
    If the ad reps sold the benefits and filled their web inventory and the site was worth viewing there’d be no need to ad block

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(13)
  • March 12, 2016 at 12:54 pm
    Permalink

    I didn’t know about ad blockers so thank you, Mr Fox. I shall be getting one as soon as possible.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • March 13, 2016 at 11:48 pm
    Permalink

    In the rush to have a go, most of the comments have missed the main point of Fox’s comments.
    He’s not blaming the public.
    What he’s attacking is what the extortion practised by some ad blockers, whereby for a fee they will ‘whitelist’ a site and still show ads on it, regardless of the reader’s wishes.
    This is effectively a protection racket, where the ad blockers only let a site carry out its business model if they cough up the cash.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(2)
  • March 14, 2016 at 11:11 am
    Permalink

    This guff about whitelists is a red herring. Adblock, for example, probably the biggest adblocking firm, specifies that ads it deems acceptable (based on negotations with advertisers and users) mustn’t interrupt the flow of reading, ie. be placed above, below or to the side of content, must take up no more than a certain percentage of the page and must be text-only, among other stringent criteria. And even then, its users can still toggle these ‘acceptable’ ads off if they choose. It doesn’t take bribes to allow through awful ads of the type we see on LW/TM sites. This is all about lazy, greedy, ill-mannered, desperate (or all four) advertising agencies and newspaper web bosses trying to uninvent the wheel.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)