As advertisers, an increasing number of the media briefs we are working on are citing viewability as a KPI; and in some cases it is given a higher priority than the actual conversion which we focus on and measure success by. As a result, have we started to fuel another problem? In order to deliver against these 'new' metrics, our industry has hugely increased its use of higher impact creatives such as Pushdowns, Billboards, Roadblocks, Pop Ups etc. They look great, but also have another effect - which is to annoy a portion of the audience that we're trying to get to.
As a consequence, adblocking is definitely on the rise (regardless of the source of the stats you read e.g. PageFair, IAB, GWI) and maybe we as advertisers aren't helping the cause by placing larger volumes of these "higher impact" creatives in front our audiences. As an industry we're trying to get around this by utilising more "in content" placements - including Native advertising formats among others.
So what's the solution? Publishers who give content for free could potentially have adblocking software banned from their sites as part of their T's and C's, and simply force their audience to accept that if they're not paying for the content then they'll have to accept the advertising. Advertisers could potentially switch more and more placements to Native based media, which potentially loses the visual impact that is desired / required. Alternatively, do we as advertisers need to realign the balance of our creative placements and also the KPIs?
Digital ads are more prevalent, frustrating, disruptive and annoying than they were even two years ago, and that is why people turn to ad blockers, according to a new study by HubSpot and Adblock Plus. The study surveyed online 1,055 ad blocker users and non-users in the US, UK, Germany and France in May and June 2016.