Things that would be useful in the "turn off your ad blocker" beg: * Will your ads not be clickbait zergnet style bullshit? * Can I see a list of your ad providers and how they're using my info? * Do you know what malvertising is, and can explain what you're doing about it?
And then your readership has to trust the agency, who you've likely given at least some degree of editorial control over your site, and likely the ability to inject malicious code. Adtech all over again.
-
-
Only if everyone does it. Monopoly is the real problem here.
-
Rather only if anyone does it, since once they do, they have competitive advantages (and disadvantages, but the advantages will outweigh, as adtech has shown us).
-
Possibly, but in a healthy market the immediate reputation loss should kill off anyone who tries it.
-
Markets are not healthy. They're inherently toxic.
-
That definitely isn't true in general. You could argue though that the online advertising market is beyond repair.
-
Reputable media was not the early adopter of adtech. It was no-name sites who quickly sprung up as big players by letting advertisers put malware on their sites and made it the norm. Reputable sites then had pressure to follow. This is the market working exactly how markets work.
-
But this all hinged on the customers' inability to tell good product from bad. That isn't normal or usual. (Though as I said, it probably still is when it comes to online marketing.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sounds like some kind of policing aspect is necessary. How do you create a system where negative advertising behaviors are immediately punished/not lucrative?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.