Report Reveals Apple News Brings Publishers Much Higher Traffic But a Lot Less Ad Revenue

[bkaus]

Ads are out of control on the "news" sites. How many can they shove on a page? Too many of them totally take over and tell me I won a free ... whatever.

The worst part is my 3 year old computer bogs down with all the junk - and the real content is simply text.

I pay a few subscriptions for quality press and I'm starting to use apple news.

 

[unlinked]

500k views earns more than 54 million views?! Come on Apple!

That isn't true. Slate wrote an article about itself and still managed to get the facts wrong. It should say 6 million.
Given the state of modern journalism I think maybe the valuation Apple gives is more accurate.

 

[Naimfan]

Adblock plus and ghostery, running at the same time, seem to do a good job blocking ads and adware. And turning off autoplay in Safari's developer menu helps as well.

I subscribe to the NYT and WP, but am not willing to watch video ads, etc. To those folks attempting to defend the indefensible, improve your content to where it's worth paying for, and we can talk. Otherwise, ****.

 

[redneckitengineer]

So you're saying that you whitelist sites like this one for instance from your ad blocker? You do into every site with the blocker turned off and only enable it for that site if you find that the ads are intrusive?

Yes. I start clean slate for sites and only block ones that peev me off with over-advertising or nuisance. I believe in giving the content writers a fair chance while still protecting my privacy and self health.

 

[curtvaughan]

The difference here is how ads are presented.

AppleNews:
1. Banner only
2. Hard to accidentally click

Direct website:
1. Higher quantity of ads
2. Full screen unavoidable ads
3. Scrolling ads
4. Cross site tracking
5. Auto play video ads
6. Deceiving layout to encourage accidental clicking on ads disguised as fake news articles

It’s not about the ads, it’s how they present them and force them upon the user as to why they aren’t making enough.

Exactly! The ads, while never welcome even when sprinkled through hardcopy print media and slightly irritating as banners on electronic media, are easy to skip over and at least passively ignore. Even the Sunday print versions of major newspaper dailies, which were always at least double the bulk of the weekday editions due to heavy advertising, were only mildly irritating. The current website ads in your points 2 through 6 above have crossed the threshold of being minor nuisances to becoming offensive, time consuming, and in some cases generate malware. Advertisers and the websites who use these intrusive techniques need to realize that people enduring this stuff come away with negative views on the advertised products, and also eventually become so annoyed with the offending websites that they stop using them as a news and information source. If, after using ad blockers, the offending websites proffer messages laying guilt trips on the users to convince them to remove ad blockers and/or buy an ad-free subscription, I sometimes just stop using the publication. If the publication means enough to me as a news and information source, I would rather pay for an ad-free, nag-free version of it if offered. This is what I do for the New York Times and WIRED. A lot of news/magazine sites offer the ad-free versions, but most aren't of enough value to me as a reader/consumer to go that route, and rather than be nagged or cajoled to subscribe or turn off ad-blockers, I just stop reading their services.

 

[gnipgnop]

This is obviously a significant problem that Apple needs to address going forward. The News app no longer qualifies as an experiment on Apple's part. It qualifies as a mature platform now. They need to figure out a way for publisher's participation to pay off.

 

[aka777]

Just use Adblock, like 1BlockerX. Surf the websites ad-free. I’m sorry but banner ads are about all I can stand. The stupid rolling ads, and the full page ads are a nuisance. Vote with your wallet, block them until they get reasonable.

Ublock and ghostery for the pros. Ghostery is actually fantastic. What's alarming is just how much data mining is occurring when you visit websites and use apps.

This is obviously a significant problem that Apple needs to address going forward. The News app no longer qualifies as an experiment on Apple's part. It qualifies as a mature platform now. They need to figure out a way for publisher's participation to pay off.

I applaud Apple for not taking the google route and peddling anything goes advertising. Worse off is the total breach of our privacy.

Heck, has anyone ever noticed how you say stuff while Instagram is open and then ads appear regading that very product. They claim it's because their algorithms can predict your thoughts. Bull ----, it's because they are listening to us via the app.

 

[RickInHouston]

What an entitled point of view.

Call me entitled, too.

 

[redneckitengineer]

Ublock and ghostery for the pros. Ghostery is actually fantastic.

I had to give up ghostery when I moved to iOS only. I sure miss it. That was more about privacy and safety than ads and it’s unreal how much tracking sites do.

 

[willentrekin]

Apple has also reportedly urged major U.S. newspapers about adding their content to the Texture magazine app that Apple purchased in March, with a view to eventually integrating the subscription-based service into Apple News.

This right here seems like a great idea, and the best way around ads overall. I've noticed some properties in Apple News that are also in Texture (GQ, VF, a few others), so it seems like Apple News and Texture could combine to become one overall subscription-based reading service for all those properties. I think it would be great if publishers came to rely less heavily on ad revenue to function, and more on making money from the quality of the content itself.

 

[aka777]

I had to give up ghostery when I moved to iOS only. I sure miss it. That was more about privacy and safety than ads and it’s unreal how much tracking sites do.

Yeah. I just don't understand how they have convinced so many banks, stores and so forth, to track your every move. Probably lying that it will help them make better sales. In reality, they are logging your every move to share with advertisers, who pay them $1 to $3 cpm for this data.

The worst is when ecommerce sites are so adamant about tracking you, that their sites don't even load if you have any blocker enabled. Like how stupid can you be where the tracking is more important than the sale.

 

[curtvaughan]

It's sure horrid the websites you enjoy great content from would want to make money for their hard work. I get that you might hate ads but this is how they pay the bills. Don't be surprised if they shut down or start charging a subscription. You expect to get paid for the work you do at your job, they do too.

Block them until they get reasonable? Really? You think showing a few unobtrusive ads isn't reasonable? What would you consider reasonable (keeping in mind that they need to be able to make enough to justify putting in the time and effort to create this content)?

In the old hardcopy print days, an obtrusive ad was one that took up a whole page forcing you to make extra page turns to get to real content. You paid a subscription price or bought a daily newspaper - which didn't cover the whole cost of production. But the resulting ads didn't jump off the page, play sounds and other noise, and grab your personal information and data in the process. When advertising becomes that obtrusive, the "great content" provided is no longer worth the hassle to read, so yeah, they should either shut down or convince you that their content is worth your money. In my case, I subscribe to the NYT. They have quality enough content to be worth it, especially ad-free.

 

[BigMcGuire]

Why not pay for a subscription? Ads gone.
And read public service, guaranteed ad free

I tried this. I paid for WSJ and Economist. Do you think that got rid of ads? Nope. Still tons of ads. Same thing for LA Times and NYT. If this were the case, I'd be all over paying subscriptions. Last news subscription I had was 3+ years ago. They advertised themselves out of my wallet.

Last few years I've found a lot of happiness in books. No ads, able to concentrate, the president of the USA doesn't come up every other (or every) article, and I can enjoy what I read for days/weeks.

 

[curtvaughan]

Do you guys not get ads in your Apple News in your region???

I’m in Australia and Apple has had GIANT ads sprinkled among stories you read inside Apple News for many months now. I suspect they haven’t turned on the “feature” in North America yet. Not only are they plastering huge ads inside the story, but they automatically playing video ads!! Thankfully no audio though.

Apple News app was enjoyable to use in the past before they started inserting this large video ads. Ironically even the Google News app hasn’t resorted to such large advertising inside it..

With the iOS version of "News" I get mostly banner ads occasionally in a corner of the page, with a full page ad (not always) between news stories. I seem to get a lot less of the ads in the new MacOS "News" application which just got released with Mohave. So far, at least, I'm impressed with the Mac version of the News app. Banner ads, though still irritating, are less so with the increased real estate available for presentation on a Mac. Interactive and video/sound ads would still be awful, so I hope they don't start doing those.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Yes. I start clean slate for sites and only block ones that peev me off with over-advertising or nuisance. I believe in giving the content writers a fair chance while still protecting my privacy and self health.

The issue is that 99.9% of those using ad blockers do the opposite. They block everything, including the sites they enjoy. Then they wonder why they start producing lower quality content because they can't pay their staff.

 

[redneckitengineer]

Here where I live you have the choice to put a sticker on your mailbox so you don't get advertisements or non addressed mail, it works 99.9% of the time, no more full boxes of paper waste, something similar should be in place for the internet, how, don't know, maybe pay a yearly fee.

I’ve always wanted to build a mailbox that is a 55gal drum with a metal mailbox on top, cut out the bottom of the mailbox, drill a few holes on the sides at the top. I’d insert a lit match and few ounces of charcoal fluid monthly.

 

[BigMcGuire]

The issue is that 99.9% of those using ad blockers do the opposite. They block everything, including the sites they enjoy. Then they wonder why they start producing lower quality content because they can't pay their staff.

I used to be completely anti-ad blocker. That and my Chromebook slowed down with them so I didn't use them. But when I finally got a nice computer, ads just disgusted me, especially the full screen ones. So I went with a paid version of AdGuard and couldn't be happier. I do make sure to white list sites I enjoy and want them to have my ad money.

But you are right, I don't think most adblock users do this. You get nothing for free. I would GLADLY pay for no ads and I often do on my iOS apps, here on Macrumors, etc... Just pisses me off to no end that I can pay $300/year for WSJ, Economist, NY Times, LA Times, etc... and STILL get ads on their website and this goes for most subscriptions today.

 

[78Bandit]

Just use Adblock, like 1BlockerX. Surf the websites ad-free. I’m sorry but banner ads are about all I can stand. The stupid rolling ads, and the full page ads are a nuisance. Vote with your wallet, block them until they get reasonable.

Same here. I allow unobtrusive ads because I do want to support the content providers, but I also want to send a point by blocking all the popups, autoplay videos, and other ads that detract from the reading experience. Why can't these content providers understand they need to work with Google, Microsoft, Apple, Firefox, etc. to come up with reasonable, acceptable advertising standards so consumers won't have to resort to full-on ad blockers.

 

[curtvaughan]

This is obviously a significant problem that Apple needs to address going forward. The News app no longer qualifies as an experiment on Apple's part. It qualifies as a mature platform now. They need to figure out a way for publisher's participation to pay off.

The Apple News app is primarily a conduit for the various content publishers, many of whom I would never visit or even know about without the News app. I would say that it's less about Apple's responsibility to figure out how to make publishers profitable, and more about how the individual publishers offer a product that can be ultimately self-supporting. With high enough content quality and reliability for news, most people who bother to read news at all will pay for it. There is a threshold beyond which ads become more of a readership deterrent than a positive source of funds - for either the advertisers or the publisher hosting them. Since the advent of the web and high bandwidth access since the late 90s, the profitability paradigm for content providers - whether in print media or product offerings of brick-and-mortar businesses - is a continuing issue. Publishers need to determine just how valuable an aggregator of electronic information such as Apple News can be to them, and the aggregators need to work out a balance between their "gatekeeper" function and profitability for their clients. My guess is that in the big picture some sort of paradigm will arise which will ultimately only be profitable for major players, with companies such as Apple, Google, and Amazon providing conduit services to major players such as the NYT, WP, WSJ, Sports networks, and other major news services and magazines. An interesting historical example might be with the advent of the telephone 100 years ago. When the first technology appeared, hundreds of small startup telco's appeared. Most went out of business over a few decades due to intense competition and infrastructure issues. I see something similar happening with electronic media and content providers over time.
[doublepost=1537971366][/doublepost]

I used to be completely anti-ad blocker. That and my Chromebook slowed down with them so I didn't use them. But when I finally got a nice computer, ads just disgusted me, especially the full screen ones. So I went with a paid version of AdGuard and couldn't be happier. I do make sure to white list sites I enjoy and want them to have my ad money.

But you are right, I don't think most adblock users do this. You get nothing for free. I would GLADLY pay for no ads and I often do on my iOS apps, here on Macrumors, etc... Just pisses me off to no end that I can pay $300/year for WSJ, Economist, NY Times, LA Times, etc... and STILL get ads on their website and this goes for most subscriptions today.

I guess that's because even the subscription service doesn't provide enough money for operations. I guess there would be a point where sufficient subscription readership would allow for complete removal of ads, but for most, that situation still hasn't been accomplished. I, too, subscribe to NYT and WIRED. There are a few ads, but not enough to annoy me - so far, mostly just some banners sprinkled about. Old fashioned newsprint also had ads that came with the paid for content - some of that was ameliorated by placing the ads into different sections of the paper from the content. That was especially the case with Sunday newspapers - hard news was separated from ads and entertainment stuff, which had their own dedicated sections.

 

[TallManNY]

So you're saying that you whitelist sites like this one for instance from your ad blocker? You do into every site with the blocker turned off and only enable it for that site if you find that the ads are intrusive?
[doublepost=1537962853][/doublepost]

Publishers have to opt into Apple News in the same way they opt to put their stories on Facebook Instant Articles.

When doing so, they need to make adjustments for the new medium. This means inserting ads that are supported by the platform.

I publish my content to both Apple News and Facebook Instant Articles. On my normal website, Google Ads show on the left side column. When you publish to Apple News and Facebook, this aren't present. So in my code submission to them, the ads are instead inserted in-line with the article, placed between column at H2 breaks. This can be setup fairly easily to be done automatically during article submission to either platform before pushing it to their API or it can even be inserted manually when the publisher pushes the article.

In both cases, it's really up to the publisher to understand the limitations of these platforms, decide if they want their content seen there (do you want these large additional potential audiences or not), and is the change of revenue model (from what they may enjoy on their own website) worth the tradeoff.

Thanks for the break down. I know about the opt in, but didn't know as much detail about how it is implemented.
I do think that for media publishers, these are "deals with the Devil" and they have to resist them. They can't give away their content for free and they definitely can't give their content to someone else for free so that they give away the content for free and then expect long to survive doing that. The ad based model is obviously here to stay, but I think media needs to better control that revenue and keep the content associated with their brand. I use Apple News because it is there and it is good. But I also have some subscription media apps.

Struggling businesses can't go down dramatically lower revenue paths and just hope to make it up in volume. At least that is my thought.

Good luck to you though. Maybe your overhead and business model is such that Apple News and Facebook works.

 

[sw1tcher]

Just use Adblock, like 1BlockerX. Surf the websites ad-free. I’m sorry but banner ads are about all I can stand. The stupid rolling ads, and the full page ads are a nuisance. Vote with your wallet, block them until they get reasonable.

That's not how voting with your wallet works. If you were voting with your wallet, you would be avoiding those websites.

And people who visit sites with an adblocker are rarely going to turn their adblocker off if the offending site later reduces the number of annoying ads. How would they even know there are less annoying ads? Do people every now and again turn their adblockers off to check?

 

[redneckitengineer]

That's not how voting with your wallet works. If you were voting with your wallet, you would be avoiding those websites.

And people who visit sites with an adblocker are rarely going to turn their adblocker off if the offending site later reduces the number of annoying ads. How would they even know there are less annoying ads?

Pssst...read the above 50 comments thread.

 

[sw1tcher]

Why not pay for a subscription? Ads gone.

I guess you don't subscribe to the Wall St Journal. They show ads to everyone.

 

[dogslobber]

Is there a way to block the ads in the Apple News web page?

 

[TooDarkPark]

Just use Adblock, like 1BlockerX. Surf the websites ad-free. I’m sorry but banner ads are about all I can stand. The stupid rolling ads, and the full page ads are a nuisance. Vote with your wallet, block them until they get reasonable.

I go further and use an adblocker that blocks ads in my browser as well as ads in any App. Too many years of video ads in loud obnoxious audio in my face to where I just don't care anymore. There are a few sites that now have javascript to prevent me from viewing their site until I turn off my adblocker. I just disable javascript and reload the page and I'm now on their site viewing the article I came to see.