Those who make a living from producing journalism ought not to approve of “adblocking” software, in the same way that chickens do not hold investment portfolios of shares in Paxo and Bisto. So it was theoretically good news for publishers (including the Guardian, probably) that culture secretary John Whittingdale announced at last week’s Oxford Media Convention that he sees adblocking as akin to a “protection racket” and would be urgently convening a round table to look into it, which doesn’t exactly suggest the resounding smack of firm government.
There are several layers of irony here to excavate before getting to the heart of the matter. Firstly, Brexit-tastic Whittingdale is campaigning against one very helpful solution to adblocking - Europe. There are laws currently being enacted in Europe to protect net neutrality which would almost certainly make the scary prospect of mobile operators like 3 blocking all advertising at network level illegal. Furthermore, you don’t have to spend very much time talking to policy staff of the larger platform and telco companies to know that potential European regulation is taken far more seriously than a Whittingdale round table.
Secondly, adblockers are used by people (voters AND readers) who don’t wish to harm the news industry, but do wish to halve their mobile phone data bills; in other words adblocking thrives because of a failure towards consumers. Forcing people to consume advertising that strips their data and costs them money is hardly a vote-winning strategy. And finally the Conservative government has, through the BBC charter process, expended massive amounts of hot air and other renewable energy sources in trying to undermine and dismantle the one British media institution which cannot be weakened by adblocking.
By using a major policy speech to raise this question, Whittingdale has at least performed the service of putting several previously undiscussed, critical questions about the future of the UK’s media industry on the table. How he solves them is going to say a lot about the government’s real views on protecting the interests of a strong and independent press.
Adblocking is alarming for publishers, because their business models have become overly reliant on intrusive advertising carrying heaps of tracking code which upsets users and, more importantly, costs them more money (data) on their mobile phones. Seeing annoying ads is essentially a bearable irritation; having to pay for something you haven’t asked for is enough to motivate people to download adblocking software. If adblocking becomes routine at network level as Israeli company Shine’s deal with 3 would make it, then only publishers with special exemption status would ever be able to show ads (hence Whittingdale’s protection racket analogy).
The right of consumers not to look at advertising has run straight into the right of companies to advertise, and publishers to make money. Whittingdale has said he wishes to convene a group including telecom companies and social media platforms as well as publishers and advertisers. If he manages this, it would be an opportunity to ask much bigger questions about control and access around media.
In the US certain publishers, such as the Washington Post, have experimented with blocking people who use adblockers from the rest of their site. The other options to avoid adblocking include publishers putting their pages carrying advertising through major platforms such as Facebook’s Instant Articles (Facebook, incidentally, received significant pre-flotation funding from Horizon Ventures, the Li Ka-shing vehicle which, having profited hugely from its Facebook investment, is now funding Shine).
Adblocking may be a pressing issue for publishers, but it is only a small piece of a much larger puzzle about who controls news, information and access to the mobile web, and therefore all publishing, revenue and audience on mobile platforms. Last week I gave a talk in Cambridge, as a Humanitas visiting lecturer, on why the increase in mobile use calls for a re-examination of the whole media regulatory environment. In researching it I was surprised to find almost no central policy work which has addressed what is a fundamental shift in power in the media, not just in part of the market but across all of it.
Ensuring we have informed democracies has always trailed some way behind squaring the press as a political aim in formulating media policy. It is not really possible to have a coherent view on adblocking without examining the broader dynamics of information on the mobile web, or the part that companies who lie outside telecoms carrier regulation, such as Apple, Google and Facebook, might play in it.
And a point for publishers to remember could be this: if your business model is totally reliant on something your readers and viewers abhor, then it might be time to think about the sagacity of dismantling it, rather than getting John Whittingdale to protect it.