[chris_wot]

"The IAB Annual Leadership Meeting is for serious conversation among important digital industry stakeholders."

Evidently those who prevent any ads from being served by their oh-so "important digital industry stakeholders" won't be part of any "serious conversation".

Adblock, and the many others on the market, will continue to do the non-serious work of blocking ads.

[cerlone]

I would do the same as IAB.

What adblock says to companies is "We feel your advertising is no good so we will blanket block it for millions of viewers a day"

HOWEVER, if you contact, let us review your advert and then WE decide it's not a bad add, we'll let it be shown to the millions of visitors that were supposed to see it anyway...

We'll just take a percentage of the money.

There's certainly a need for this sort of adblocking service on some level but from a money-making side of thing, their business model is just downright dirty.

Just imagine if I stood in the middle of the road at the end of your street and said "NO cars are coming down here because the residents said so"

"However, give me a few bucks because I decided you look like a decent person and you can come through"

In a real world situation, this would be classed as blackmailing and you'd be arrested for something.

[coldpie]

Reviewing whether an ad network meets their Acceptable Ads policy takes time. Are you suggesting they should not charge for their time? Or that they should not have an Acceptable Ads policy at all?

[cerlone]

You have a valid point that it takes time.

However, the cost to time ratio isn't sensible.

It's "reported" that Google and some other companies have been paying Ad Block Plus in the region of $120 million per year for their ads to be whitelisted.

Secondly, their taking 30% of revenue for the whole period the networks ad's are approved. If they stop paying, their adverts get blocked.

The main issue is that they go into it with a blanket statement of all ads are evil and are blocked for the "users sake" but we'll make a decision on behalf of users if we think your paying enough to get the adverts showing.

As a user myself, I hate bad adverts but how do they know what I think is an acceptable? They've never asked me.

If I said to you, you're not allowed to reply to any thread on Ycombinator until I've decided you can on behalf of the community, oh, and you need to pay me 30% of your wages so I can keep "reviewing" the situation... you'd tell me to bugger off.

[tyingq]

I suspect it's the pricing model. Reportedly, the charge is "30% of your ad revenue". There's also no concrete definition of why some sites are whitelisted for free, and others have to pay.