The study isn't published yet so I withold my judgement. Given that the results are beneficial to people selling adverts caution should be exercised. (Two of their big problems are that click through rates are abysmal and many people dislike ads. They benefit if advertisers believe they achieve "additional sales".)<p>EDIT: FOLLOW UP. I had a deeper look. The article is dated, "Posted in Business on February 3, 2017". I found one copy of the paper published December 29, 2015 and another July 26, 2016. Both same I think, but one author had moved from Google to Pandora.<p>The article text seems off beam. The paper describes a method to better estimate advertising impact, not directly what that impact is. Odd.
if i am not mistaken, ads used to pay a lot more. for example, a friend of mine used to run a website and was able to pay for the hosting costs with a few adsense ads and modest traffic. apparently that is not possible anymore.<p>there are problems with ad blockers and malicious ads. i simply dont understand why these things are a problem. why do we not see simple ads, static images with no java script, implemented in such a way that ad blockers cant really block them? i mean, if your ad is some image inserted somewhere in one or all of your web pages, how could an ad blocker know which image it was out of the many which are probably going to be present on any given page? and why are people not willing to pay for such an advertising vector? people visit the website, they will see the ad like a billboard or any other traditional ad, so why is it not possible to charge traditional rates? its very confusing to me so if anyone with experience in the matter could weigh in that would be very nice.
monetization hungry websites made the sites unusable with extra and extra ads. users responded with ad blockers.<p>Instagram , snapchat and other app silos will come up as winners as you can't block their ads and open web will turn into a paid web slowly.<p>PS: I m using ad blockers