News - Strong growth for UK online display advertising market

[HEXUS]

The latest figures from comScore reveal a healthy return to form for online advertising.

Read more.

[pollaxe]

Whilst I understand ad revenue is necessary and I welcome any sign of economic growth I am also so heartily sick of advertising. Online, on the tv, on the radio. Open up a magazine and a cascade of advertising bilge splurges forth like a waterfall.

It seems that life is turning into a constant barrage of people trying to get me to buy stuff I neither want nor need.

I suppose I should live in a cave really.

[Scott B]

Whilst I understand ad revenue is necessary and I welcome any sign of economic growth I am also so heartily sick of advertising. Online, on the tv, on the radio. Open up a magazine and a cascade of advertising bilge splurges forth like a waterfall.

It seems that life is turning into a constant barrage of people trying to get me to buy stuff I neither want nor need.

I suppose I should live in a cave really.

...or pay for the media you consume.

[jimbouk]

...or pay for the media you consume.

Which is why I enjoy the BBC. Aside from the couple of newspaper pay-walls there isn't that option for much on the internet though.

[pollaxe]

...or pay for the media you consume.

But I do.

I'm a PC Pro subscriber (I have been for years) and that's full of adverts.
I'm also a Sky subscriber and have to endure advertising up the swanny on that too.

[Scott B]

Which is why I enjoy the BBC. Aside from the couple of newspaper pay-walls there isn't that option for much on the internet though.

But I do.

I'm a PC Pro subscriber (I have been for years) and that's full of adverts.
I'm also a Sky subscriber and have to endure advertising up the swanny on that too.

Fair points.

Just emphasising that content costs money to produce and that has to be recovered somehow.

I'm not a Sky subscriber but I imagine it's pretty annoying to pay £40 per month for something and still get bombarded with ads. It will be interesting to see what the optimum model for extracting revenue from content ends up being, although I suspect it will constantly evolve.

[aidanjt]

Advertising is a by-product of profiteering. Ads don't pay for content, they pay for big fat exec bonuses. While I accept that advertising on the internet is a necessary evil, since indirect revenue is the only realistic way to keep a website running with current economic practices. But for mobile, TV, magazines, etc, it's totally not.

[TheAnimus]

Erm Ads do pay for content ask Channel4.

Sponsership stuff pays an awful lot too because so many people use PVRs to timeshift having your brand as the thing they are looking for to hit play means big monies.

As most content producers are not charities, they will ultimately make a profit but funily enough its not really that much considering all the risk attached.

[crossy]

Whilst I understand ad revenue is necessary and I welcome any sign of economic growth I am also so heartily sick of advertising. Online, on the tv, on the radio. Open up a magazine and a cascade of advertising bilge splurges forth like a waterfall. It seems that life is turning into a constant barrage of people trying to get me to buy stuff I neither want nor need.

Kind of agree with you - I kind of inured to the barrage of ads that we get in paper media and tv. Although I find the constant Sky ads on Virgin annoying, and don't get me started on GoCompare ...

On the other hand I'm finding the online ads more and more intrusive. On some websites it's like a mouse-minefield, you've got to be real careful or MouseOver-driven crap pops up all over the shop. AdBlockPlus is your friend ...

And to pick up on Scott B's point () yes, you've got to be careful - to much ad-blockery and the websites revenue stream starts to dry up. On the flipside, I'm quite content to pay a reasonable amount for genuinely useful stuff. For example, if Hexus wanted to offer a £15-25pa "ad-free" option, running alongside the current ad-supported one, then I'd probably sign up.

On the other hand sites like The Register, I wouldn't want to pay for. There's my point in a nutshell - I'd pay for Hexus and perhaps the Times, but not for trash like The Register, Sun, etc.

Like "pollaxe" says - we already pay for magazine subscriptions (in my case I was a long-term subscriber of the now-defunct PCW magazine :'( and these days pretty much any magazine I buy more than five issues a year I'll take on subscription). So where's the harm in the same thinking for websites?

[Saracen]

....
Like "pollaxe" says - we already pay for magazine subscriptions (in my case I was a long-term subscriber of the now-defunct PCW magazine :'( and these days pretty much any magazine I buy more than five issues a year I'll take on subscription). So where's the harm in the same thinking for websites?

No harm maybe, but a psychological problem, perhaps .... we're all used to paying for magazines, but with a few rare exceptions, used to getting websites for nothing. And the real issue is competition. As PCW columnist and contributer Guy Kewney used to stress (and I'm paraphrasing)

If people have to come to you for their content, they will. If they can go elsewhere, they will.

Charging for content people can get elsewhere is a dodgy proposition, even if you are the best. The prevalence of software, music and video piracy tells us that an awfully large number of people won't pay for something they can get for free, even if there are aspects of it that are inferior.

Given those expectations and perceptions, would some people pay for an ad-free website? Some, undoubtedly .... but how many?

If you have a paid-for ad-free version, what does that do to the relationship with advertisers paying for ad placements? I don't know, but I'd bet they won't be happy, because it'd chip away at those that may well be the core of the demographic they're targeting.

The above is a personal view. I have no involvement in the financial or advertising aspects of Hexus, or indeed in the website other than forums, so it's purely a personal view and not a HEXUS one.