Instagram's unskippable ads test causes outrage among users

midian182

midian182

Posts: 9,857   +125
Staff member
A hot potato: Instagram has long been accused of stealing features from platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat, and Twitter/X. It appears that the company has looked to YouTube for its latest idea: unskippable ads that you have to watch for a period of time before being able to scroll further.

A Redditor posted images of the Instagram ad breaks. FireCubX writes that users will suddenly find they have hit the bottom of their feed, so to speak, and can't scroll down any further. An "ad break" icon will appear with a countdown timer that prevents users from browsing through more content until they view an ad, at which point the counter starts running down.

NEW GARBAGE FEATURE IS BEING TESTED
byu/FireCubX inInstagram

Tapping the icon brings up more information about the new feature. It shows a message that reads, "Ad breaks are a new way of seeing ads on Instagram. Sometimes you may need to view an ad before you can keep browsing."

Instagram owner Meta has confirmed that it is testing the unskippable ads. "We're always testing formats that can drive value for advertisers," a company spokesperson told TechCrunch. "As we test and learn, we will provide updates should this test result in any formal product changes," they added.

Instagram is already packed with sponsored posts and ads on the home feed and Stories. The introduction of unskippable content is going down about as well as one would expect on social media, with several users warning it could harm Instagram due to so many people simply closing the app once one of these ads appears. Many say they would stop using the app entirely if the ads become widespread.

Unskippable ads are a major element of YouTube, which introduced 30-second commercials that can't be skipped last year. But most viewers are willing to sit through an ad on the platform if it means seeing a video they want to watch. It's unlikely that many will endure them just to continue doomscrolling on Instagram.

Instagram generated advertising revenues of $11.3 billion in 2018, $17.9 billion in 2019, $22 billion in 2020, $32.4 billion in 2021, and $16.5 billion in the first half of 2022 – more than what YouTube brings in from ads.

The unskippable Instagram ads are still just a test, so Meta might decide that rolling them out to all users isn't worth the backlash – but don't hold your breath.

Permalink to story:

Instagram's unskippable ads test causes outrage among users

 
When are advertisers going to learn that after decades of ads that they no longer work, atleast not how they've been implemented in recent years. The constant chase to "add value for advertisers" has made people angry at ads.

This isn't our fault as consumers either. The same race to the bottom has occurred in other industries, including advertising. Advertising costs have gone down between competing platforms which drastically increased not only the number of ads, but the number of LOW QUALITY ads. It's also gotten cheaper to make ads longer. So instead of a 5 second ad, we now have multiple 30 second ads.

Ads were "okay" when they were a run along side a platform but now we have a business model where they create a user experience designed around selling advertising. YouTube isn't about making videos, it's about advertising. Instagram isn't about "doom scrolling" it's about advertising.

You could use the internet for nearly 2 decades without an adblocker but now it's necessary to even look something up online. I did a google search yesterday for help with an HP printer and the entire first page of links were ads
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Karlos95, Phylop, Gixser and 2 others
Sadly in an era where corporations keep pushing more ads and more inconvenience to consumers somehow people will still defend it and keep using it.

Sheep will always be sheep.
 
I think companies will pay big bucks to have their ads be intrusive and obnoxious and social media like Meta will oblige. Meta probably offered this service.
 
RudyBob said:
I would like to see data on the effectiveness of ads. I don't see how they could possibly work like the purchasers think.
Click to expand...
And their algorithms are dumb as. For example, I decided I needed to buy something, so I googled it, found the best product for the best price and bought it, now I get ads for said product I no longer need!

Ads should be random and enticing, not directed, chances are, if they are directed, that product has already been bought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RudyBob
Karlos95 said:
And their algorithms are dumb as. For example, I decided I needed to buy something, so I googled it, found the best product for the best price and bought it, now I get ads for said product I no longer need!

Ads should be random and enticing, not directed, chances are, if they are directed, that product has already been bought.
Click to expand...

I had the same experience long time ago after buying something online through probably Amazon. The ad banners on were the same product line that I no longer needed. Even the last car dealership I got my car from did that. Months after buying my car, they sent me ads to buy a car. I was thinking, I don't need a car for another 5y minimum. Turned out to be 12y.

Here is how a marketing campaign works. They send you: direct email, secured messages (if you have an account), and direct mailers (typically multiple as the second one gets a big uptick in responses). Each communication includes a personal ID number and a link. They track engagement from each. Direct mailers get far and away the most responses and it's the second one that has much more than the first. This is why your mailbox is full of junk mail every week and a lot of it from the same place. Typically I write "return to sender" and put it back in the mailbox but post office won't let you return junk mail once it's been delivered. You have to deny delivery before they put it in the mailbox but who stands out in front of their mailbox all day? Some places have unsubscribe directions on the catalogs, some have them on their websites, and some you have to email or even call/write to them. Who's going to call/write to companies they never did business with?

What annoys me the most, and I must be in the minority as all companies do that, is when I check out as guest, they still put me on their mailing list. Don't they get when a person didn't create an account at checkout, they don't want their information saved? An account for you is still created. You just can't see it.

Microcenter annoys me every time at checkout for my info. They even have the balls to try to guess who I am by the last 4 of my CC that's shown on Apple pay check out. I get some random customer name on my receipt. Never use your actual CC because then they get your full name and an account will be created for you. I always use Apple pay or cash in places that don't take NFC payments. No one respects your privacy that you don't want an account or their junk mail.
 
It's really convenient to use the Youtube app on my AppleTV but can't do these 30 second ads, sometimes 2 ads. Such a waste of time to watch a 5-10min video. Now, I'm streaming from a browser on my Ipad with content blockers and cookies disabled to stop ads. All the browers in the US are still based on WebKit but EU passed a law to allow others for EU customers. That will help with adblocking as WebKit doesn't have extensions like NoScript and Ublock Origin. Just have to somehow make Apple believe you live in EU to get access.
 
yRaz said:
When are advertisers going to learn that after decades of ads that they no longer work
Click to expand...
Probably because they DO work. Online firms which purchase online ads tend to do well. Online firms which don't -- well, they don't exist.

What I find irritating is the lack of rational thought in those who oppose this. Services like Google, Youtube, Instagram cost money to operate, money which must come from somewhere. Yet they rail against both ad-supported variants and premium paid options. These 60-IQ mouth-breathers simply want to whine and stamp their feet like six year olds. If they have a solution that's both palatable to consumers and keeps the lights on, let's hear it. Otherwise, start acting like adults. Please.
 
Endymio said:
Probably because they DO work. Online firms which purchase online ads tend to do well. Online firms which don't -- well, they don't exist.

What I find irritating is the lack of rational thought in those who oppose this. Services like Google, Youtube, Instagram cost money to operate, money which must come from somewhere. Yet they rail against both ad-supported variants and premium paid options. These 60-IQ mouth-breathers simply want to whine and stamp their feet like six year olds. If they have a solution that's both palatable to consumers and keeps the lights on, let's hear it. Otherwise, start acting like adults. Please.
Click to expand...
I'd like to meet the person who needs to see an advertisement to buy toilet paper. There is a growing trend where people stop buying products from companies they repeatedly see advertisements from.

So it's only gonna be a matter of time before these platforms need to find new ways of funding themselves because advertisements are starting to become counter productive to sales
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

midian182
YouTube escalates battle against ad blockers, rolls out site slowdown (update)
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
Benny26
Benny26
midian182
  • Locked
Russia sentences Meta's communications director to six years in prison over "terrorism" charges
2
Replies
35
Views
602
Endymio
Endymio
midian182
Meta will blur images containing nudity in Instagram messages to under 18s
Replies
6
Views
207
Nobina
Nobina

Latest posts

Back