The difference between newspaper and online ads


News advertWith online mags like The Verge claiming “the mobile web sucks” and others showing that no, it’s the The Verge website that sucks because it’s so plastered with ads and trackers, technology journalist Charles Arthur has hit the nail right on the head:

In all the years I’ve viewed print adverts, I’ve never had one that:

  • filled the page I was trying to read and insisted I either wait or click on a particular point on the page to read the article I came for;
  • moved up from off the page to insert itself in front of the article I was reading and ask me to sign up for a mailing list;
  • started automatically playing a video advert while I was reading some text;
  • infected my computer with malware inserted in the ad;
  • ran a Javascript script that pretended I need to pay a ransom, or otherwise blocked any interaction unless I pressed a button saying “OK”;
  • turned me away from the page I was reading to a completely different one demanding I download an unrelated app.

And then there’s tracking as well, of course. :(

It’s no wonder that so many people have installed ad blockers like Ad Block Plus on their desktop and laptop browsers, and we’re going to see more blocking of ads on mobile devices once iOS 9 has been released.

Want to see what a difference ad-blocking can make to surfing on an iOS device? Check out this sneak preview of Purify, one of the ad blockers that will be coming out later this year for iPhones and iPads:

Make sure to read Charles Arthur’s thoughtful piece on web advertising and blocking, and its potential implications to big players like Google, on his website.

Earlier today I ran a poll on this page asking folks if they ran ad-blocking software. Here are the results of that poll:

Do you run ad-blocking software?

- Yes… 83.4%
- No… 4.6%
- No, but I’m thinking about it… 12%

(Insert usual caveat about poll not being scientific, blah blah, here.)

What do you think? Do you run an ad blocker? Leave a comment below.

Tags: , , , ,

Share this article:

   Join thousands of others and sign up to our free "GCHQ" newsletter.

Smashing Security podcast
Check out "Smashing Security", the award-winning weekly audio podcast, with Graham Cluley, Carole Theriault, and special guests from the world of information security.

"It's brilliant!" • "Three people having fun in an industry often focused on bad news" • Winner of the Best Security Podcast 2018

Latest episodes:
Listen on Apple Podcasts Listen on Google Podcasts

, , , ,

9 Responses

  1. Coyote

    July 31, 2015 at 5:47 pm #

    Well blocking ads (and other scripts) isn’t new, is it (neither is ignoring ads in newspapers.. I have always and always will skip over them - if I want a specific service/shop/whatever, I’ll look for it myself)? So I see no problem here at all. And if they want adverts to be displayed, perhaps they should have the decency to be basic and not animated/graphical, sound, scripted, etc. If they want to set the rules and disregard others, then why should anyone play by their rules? Without supposed (and/or would-be) customers, they wouldn’t be in business, so treat them with respect (and be grateful) if you expect them to stay (customer service is everything, after all) or respect you.

    The fact that some use iframes is even worse.

    In short, if they feel too many are being dismissive of them, maybe they should evaluate whether they can change any of it (i.e. maybe it is partially or wholly their fault). This isn’t like bullying where they do it just because they can (and it makes them feel better because they can make someone else miserable). As such, they might consider that they could make things better. But it might be too late by that point. It is their choice and we’re all responsible for our actions.

  2. R. Dale Barrow

    July 31, 2015 at 9:33 pm #

    I’ve noticed a few sites that detect ad-blockers and do their best to make you feel guilty. I wonder if the next step is going to be “enable our ads or you won’t be served our content”. I haven’t seen or heard about sites doing that. Yet.

    And by the way, the Emperor has no clothes: while I was reading this article an ad for your newsletter popped up. Tsk tsk tsk.

    • Graham Cluley in reply to R. Dale Barrow.

      July 31, 2015 at 10:51 pm #

      It’s a fair cop guv, and I put my hands up to it.

      The silver lining is that you should only see that request to sign-up for my newsletter once every 30 days, and (hopefully) never again if you do choose to join the mailing list. Hopefully it’s not too irritating and it doesn’t actually require any additional keypresses/clicks to continue about your browsing… although I am sure some folks may find it off-putting.

      I also use Google Analytics and Gravatar on my site (and some pages have a an embedded Twitter button) which some folks may not like. Analytics helps me determine how many people come to my site (which is helpful information to convince sponsors to cough up some cash), and Gravatar makes the comments section slightly less bland.

      Some time ago I decided to drop all display ads, and move to a weekly sponsorship model which I hope most readers find preferable. Certainly I prefer things that way.

      • Coyote in reply to Graham Cluley.

        August 1, 2015 at 7:13 pm #

        It isn’t all that irritating. Some websites do it every page every time. Now that is annoying. Here it is mostly a minor nuisance but every 30 days is hardly an issue, and in any case, all things have a reason behind them (and your reason is reasonable). Your newsletter is mostly an extension to this site, I think (I don’t subscribe because I have too much many mailboxes to worry about as it is and I have a backlog of mail in some of those mailboxes). That would be your reason behind it, of course, and it is fair enough. And at least you don’t have adverts (granted, I ignore ads anyway, but less to load and less clutter). I’d much rather the way it is here, than elsewhere.

        I never noticed the Twitter button you refer to, but maybe it is because I only have a whitelist (by domain) of scripts allowed. Or I’m simply ignoring it because it doesn’t concern me (and I could see this being the case too).

  3. Martin

    July 31, 2015 at 11:00 pm #

    What poll?

  4. drsolly

    August 1, 2015 at 6:00 pm #

    The only time I lost control of a computer I was using, was in 2004, after I accessed, and one of the served ads included an iframe exploit that installed something on my computer that resisted all my efforts to get rid of it … until I reformatted the hard disk, and replaced Windows with Linux.

    You bet your bum I run an ad blocker. And a java disabler.

  5. Phil J

    August 2, 2015 at 12:32 pm #

    I do run an ad blocker, mostly to stop the autorun videos. I appreciate that I’m getting a free ride on the backs of those that don’t have the technical wherewithal to instal a blocker.

    The problem with newspapers is that it is the content that is corrupted. For instance the Telegraph is edited by HSBC and News International titles run stories to further their political campaigns.

    On balance I think I would prefer honest content and obtrusive adverts.

  6. Jean

    August 2, 2015 at 12:46 pm #

    It’s a shame that it will be only possible in iOS9.

    I use adblock and also Noosfeer, the best advantage it’s that it doesn’t need an app to run on the phone, everything is browser based.

    • David L in reply to Jean.

      August 3, 2015 at 2:40 pm #


      On Android, Firefox has add-ons just like desktop,with all major blockers. That said,this website is one of the very few I whitelisted. Like Grahams explanation above, I see no harm in helping his site because of the conscientious steps he has taken. Too bad more don’t think that way about ads.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.