Ads are really annoying when we are browsing. If not, there would not be such a large number of users who use various services to block ads. If there are, it is obvious that it is because they seem annoying, or at least they would prefer that these were not there. This is how services like AdBlock Plus have become so famous. So much so that Google even removed the app from its official Android app store, and later introduced a change to Android that made it difficult for users to use AdBlock. However, none of that was enough.
“Google, Microsoft and Amazon”
According to the Financial Times, and always according to this medium, these three companies, Google, Microsoft and Amazon, and also Taboola, would have paid Eyeo, the company behind AdBlock Plus, so that their ads were not blocked. Nor is there much to explain, because we already explained it at the time. These companies do not want their ads to be blocked, because a lot of their income depends on it, and they are willing to pay to avoid blocking. How do you avoid blocking? AdBlock Plus has a white list of supposed websites or companies that have non-invasive advertising. Any small website can be added to this list for free, while large companies have to pay a figure that is not public. The white list is configured by default in AdBlock Plus, and although it is possible to deactivate it, the truth is that the users who do it are the minority.
How much do you pay? The Financial Times claims that there are companies that say Eyeo has offered them to get on that white list in exchange for 30% of the advertising revenue of those different companies, websites or media. Obviously, it is a figure that cannot be allowed in many cases.
In turn, this generates a problem, because while Google, Amazon and Microsoft have an amount of money that perhaps does allow them to be on that white list, other companies or media do not, which leads them to be in a disadvantageous position, and somehow Google, Amazon, and Microsoft could even benefit from this. While others are blocked, they are not. To go further, in its day it was said that companies like Google seemed to have become Eyeo shareholders, which in turn would make a lot of logic with this approach. In any case, this information is now coming from the Financial Times, and it could be so relevant, that it is almost better not to make outright assertions about something we do not know at all.
Source: Financial times