DOW JONES, A NEWS CORP COMPANY
Sections
Aim higher, reach further.
Get the Wall Street Journal $12 for 12 weeks. Subscribe Now

Adblock Plus Chief Till Faida Says Consumers Are Fed Up With Current Online Ads

CEO of ad blocker speaks out on WSJ Media Mix podcast

Adblock Plus Chief Till Faida.
Adblock Plus Chief Till Faida. Photo: Getty Images

Toll-booth collectors. Highway robbers. Little pissants. These are just some of the choice words members of the Web publishing community have for companies that make “ad blockers,” software that scrubs websites of advertising.

But Till Faida, chief of Adblock Plus, says that ad blocking is here to stay, since consumers these days are tired of pesky ads slowing down their Web pages and tracking them across the Internet. Mr. Faida, whose service boasts 100 million active users, joined The Wall Street Journal for the second episode of the WSJ Media Mix podcast.

“Consumers are speaking loudly that they are fed up with the current system of how online advertising works, and they are seeking out better alternatives,” Mr. Faida said. “It sounds scary to some publishers at first, but I think there’s a huge opportunity in this to win consumers back.”

Mr. Faida’s firm has faced fierce criticism in the industry, since its “acceptable ads” policy lets ads from hundreds of companies pass through its filters provided they aren’t too disruptive. Some 70 of those companies, like Google, Microsoft MSFT 1.47 % and Taboola, pay Adblock Plus parent Eyeo to be included in “acceptable ads.”

Recently, Adblock Plus announced a new program along with content-funding startup Flattr to let consumers pay websites directly for content (while taking a cut, of course). Mr. Faida says the goal is to have 10 million subscribers paying $5 per month on average by the end of next year, meaning Adblock Plus can send about half a billion dollars in revenue to publishers.

That’s a lofty goal. And it’s still an open question whether publishers will want to cooperate with a service many see as the enemy.

Check out the full conversation and subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, Google Play Music, Stitcher or Spotify.

Write to Steven Perlberg at [email protected]

7 comments
Joe Hunt
Joe Hunt subscriber

While I don't want to be inundated by advertisements that have zero relevance to my searches, purchases, and interests, I don't particularly mind targeted advertising.

K. Oliver Anttila
K. Oliver Anttila user

As I'm typing this post, uBlock Origin (a Chrome extension) has blocked 25 ads from WSJ. Previous to that I used ABP, but their decision to let some ads through prompted me to look for a better solution (a decision my tech savvy kids validated...). The end result is a wonderful WSJ reading experience devoid of ads!


A WSJ reader since 1978



Eric Bruskin
Eric Bruskin subscriber

@K. Oliver Anttila I use ABP on Firefox, using the option to "allow acceptable ads". I don't see any ads when I read WSJ online. I draw two conclusions from this:

1. You don't have to "allow acceptable ads" with ABP - you can refuse to check the box.

2. None of the ads on WSJ.com are "acceptable", apparently.

Timothy Connor
Timothy Connor subscriber

@K. Oliver Anttila Even as a paid read subscriber I'm willing to support some advertizing on the WSJ.  But the WSJ is most certainly a symptom of the disease.  My uBlock extension is currently indicating 26 blocked elements.  So 'll add a literal +1 to your comments!

Jerry Stevens
Jerry Stevens user

The worst sites for junk ads also have junk content. The sites I read are such that I don't even go to the trouble to install ad blockers. I did when they were a novelty but it wore off. 

The market will sort this out. Either publishers will have a technical solution (prevent browsers running ad blockers from viewing content), publishers will become revenue starved and some will shut down, or we will see more pay-for-content. 

STUART WILIAMS
STUART WILIAMS subscriber

Adblock should have a chilling effect on content specific apps.  I often use Safari to go to a site even if I have an app for the same service.  The apps allow flashing, obnoxious ads whereas on Safari I use Adblock to avoid these attention seeking advertisements. 


Perhaps the advertising agencies should recognize that when I am analyzing at stock purchase or reading the news, I really do not want to be distracted by some flashing orgasmic display of a laundry detergent.

David Ecale
David Ecale user

@STUART WILIAMS  It's worse then that! Those ads also suck bandwidth. And, worse, dog down the whole computer. And, I for one, refuse to buy a faster computer just to play obnoxious ads!

AdBlock+/NoScript/FlagFox work quite well on Firefox!

Show More Archives
Advertisement

Popular on WSJ

Editors’ Picks