Ad blockers are popular, but I don't dislike the information I get from ads... Am I in the minority?

Yes. To conclude, the feeling that "I don't dislike getting information from ads themselves" is by no means a minority opinion.

However, the reality is likely that this sentiment is currently difficult to visualize and rarely surfaces as a vocal opinion.

The true nature of the ad blocker trend is not "ad aversion"

First, a point to keep in mind is that the spread of ad blockers does not necessarily mean that "the existence of ads themselves is hated." In many cases, what people are rejecting is:

・Ads that interrupt regardless of content
・Ads that interfere with operation
・Excessive tracking
・Being shown the same content over and over

This is what is meant by "unpleasantness as an experience." In other words, what is being rejected is not the ads themselves, but the "aggressive delivery" and "lack of moderation in design"; it is not that everyone is denying ads as a source of information.

People who enjoy ads as information have always existed

The feeling of receiving ads as a source of information is by no means new.

• Newspaper ads

• Magazine ads

• TV commercials

These have long played an informational role, such as:

• Learning about new products

• Feeling the trends of the world

• Reading a company's stance

These have long played an informational role. Especially for those interested in:

• New technology

• New services

• New values

there is a history of people viewing ads not as "noise" but as "objects of observation." This demographic has not suddenly disappeared.

The modern advertising environment is silencing the 'audience that enjoys it'

So why does the feeling that 'I don't dislike getting information from ads' seem like a minority view? The reason is simple: people who feel that way have no motivation to speak up.

• Ads are seen normally

• Learning about new things from ads

• Not being bothered by them

In this state, there is no need to make a special point of asserting it. On the other hand, people who feel strong discomfort with ads are more likely to take actions such as:

• Installing a blocker

• Criticizing them with strong words

• Sharing their experience

And those voices are the only ones that stand out. As a result, the impression that 'ads are hated' is amplified more than necessary.

Characteristics of people who can enjoy ads

There are several common tendencies among people who can accept ads as information.

・Their areas of interest are relatively clear
・They can separate ads from their own decision-making
・They can read them with the premise of exaggeration and staging

For such people, ads are closer to 'material' than 'commands.' Regardless of whether they buy the product or not, they become objects of observation for:

• What angle they are trying to sell from

• What they want to sell right now

• What kind of values are circulating

This attitude is by no means special, but it has a nature that is difficult to talk about loudly.

The real reason why ad aversion has spread

The problem in the modern age is not the existence of ads, but the fact that ads have become 'pressure' rather than 'signals'.

・Requiring a close action
・Forcing you to watch
・Optimized based on personal information

In this state, ads are not information but interference. As a result, a disconnect in experience is merely being created between the group that enjoys the room to view ads and the group that wants to block them at all costs.

Summary as a conclusion

The feeling that "I don't dislike the information gained from ads" is by no means a minority view. However, currently,

• only the voices of those who strongly dislike them are made visible,

• those who receive them quietly do not speak up,

• and as a result, a biased impression remains.

This is the current state of affairs. The attitude of reading ads as information certainly still exists today. It is just becoming harder to see because it does not generate enough dissatisfaction or conflict to become a "claim."

Yes. To start with the conclusion, that understanding is generally correct; it is more accurate to say that "ad displays that are established at the cost of user discomfort have increased" rather than "ads have increased."

The problem is not the quantity, but the "design based on discomfort"

First, what is important is that the current problem is not a simple increase in the amount of advertising. Ads have been a part of

• newspapers,

• magazines,

• television,

• and the dawn of the web.

They have always existed in every era, and the very fact that "ads exist" has been accepted for many years. However, what is increasing now is,

• ad formats that are designed with the assumption that users will find them unpleasant

• but are still judged to be worth displaying

This is not a matter of quantity, but a matter of design philosophy.

A structure that treats unpleasantness as a "cost"

In modern ad delivery, user discomfort is clearly calculated as a cost.

・A certain number of people will see it even if it interrupts them
・There are people who will not leave even if it takes effort to close
・Short-term results are achieved even if it is disliked

As long as this premise holds, "whether or not it is disliked" is excluded from optimization targets. In other words,

• ads that are liked

• ads that are useful

• ads that leave a good impression

instead of these, there is a structure where

• ads that catch the eye even for a moment

• ads that force contact

remain as a rational choice.

Transformation from "information" to "interruption"

Ads in the past were placed as information.

• next to articles

• between programs

• in the margins of pages

The rhythm of browsing and viewing was designed on the premise that ads would be there. On the other hand, current ads that tend to cause discomfort are designed on the premise of "breaking the flow" through methods such as:

• interrupting during operation

• covering the screen unintentionally

• stealing attention with sound or video

At this point, ads are no longer information, but factors that destroy the experience.

Why has this format increased?

The reason is clear: the evaluation criteria for ads have changed. In the past, elements such as:

• brand value

• long-term impression

• trust

were considered important. However, today, short-term and easily measurable metrics such as:

• clicks

• viewing duration

• immediate conversion

are prioritized. Under these evaluation criteria, whether something is:

• unpleasant

• hated

becomes secondary. As a result, "ads that tolerate unpleasantness to achieve short-term results" continue to be rationally chosen.

Users have not come to hate ads themselves

What we must not misunderstand here is that many users,

• The very existence of advertisements

• Corporate information dissemination

• Opportunities to learn about products

It is in the sense that I do not completely reject these things. What is hated is,

• being interrupted in an irrelevant context

• being deprived of the right to choose

• being forced to consume attention

In other words, it is a design that deprives one of the 'freedom to read as information'.

Organizing the reality

Therefore, if we are to accurately verbalize the current situation,

• rather than ads having increased,

• ads that are established with user discomfort already factored in have increased,

• and ad blockers have become widespread as a defensive action against that.

Understanding it in this flow is the most natural. It is not that the number of people who hate ads has surged, but rather,

• ad designs that assume they will be hated have been structurally chosen repeatedly,

• and as a result, the user experience has exceeded its limits.

It is more in line with reality to perceive it that way.

To start with the conclusion,a design that considers "having been shown even a little" as an effect may produce numbers in the short term, but it is clearly a negative in the long term.

And in reality, many ad deliveries are still operated while being bound by those short-term metrics.

The history of how the definition of advertising effectiveness became distorted

Originally, the role of advertising was intended to follow a flow like the following:

・Knowing it exists
・Having an impression
・Recalling it when necessary
・Being considered as an option

However, many internet advertisements gradually became unable to measure this. The reason is simple: "impressions" and "memory" are difficult to quantify, while only "number of impressions" and "number of clicks" were measurable. As a result,

・Whether it was displayed on the screen
・How many seconds it was displayed
・Whether it was clicked, even if by mistake

These came to be called "effects." In other words,metrics disconnected from the user's emotions and intentionsbecame the success conditions for advertising.

The true nature of the idea that "if you show it, you win, even if it's unpleasant"

• Articles that cannot be viewed unless ad blockers are disabled

• Full-page ads that block scrolling

• Video ads with extremely small close buttons

These are all based on the same philosophy.

"It's okay to be hated, as long as it's displayed, it's a result"

The reason this idea holds up is that the evaluation axes of advertisers and media are divided as follows:

・Advertisers look at reports on the number of impressions and clicks
・Media earn revenue from the fact that it was displayed, even if the user never returns

In this structure, the future loss of "never being accessed again" is not directly reflected in anyone's evaluation. As a result,user churn is not treated as a cost.

Is "having been seen even a little" really an effect?

This is the important point: both psychologically and from a marketing perspective,

information associated with discomfort is unlikely to lead to a purchase

This has been known for a very long time.

・The memory of being interrupted remains, but no goodwill is left
・Even if the brand name is remembered, it is removed from the list of options
・When seen next time, it is unconsciously avoided

In other words, the fact of being 'seen' and the result of being 'chosen' are two different things. Even if it looks like a success in short-term numbers, in the medium to long term, it definitely creates an unrecoverable loss in the form of 'brand value erosion'.

The reason why this method continues

The reason why this type of advertising still does not decrease is clear.

・Short-term KPIs are the evaluation criteria
・Neither advertising agencies nor media outlets bear long-term responsibility
・The deterioration of user experience is not quantified and is ignored

As a result, a perversion where 'the more hated an ad is, the more successful it looks in the numbers' is occurring. It is more accurate to say that the advertising side has shifted to a 'design that doesn't care if it's hated' rather than the user having come to hate ads.

The reality as a conclusion

Regarding your question,

it is considered 'good' in terms of measurement, but 'bad' in reality

This is the frank answer from the industry today. The popularity of ad blockers is inevitable, and it is most realistic to think that ad designs that disregard the user are being rejected rather than ads themselves being hated.

This distortion has not yet been corrected. That is why the same discussion is repeated over and over again.

[PR] Dragon Quest VII Reimagined - Switch

AI-generated, for reference only.