Ad blocking

Two parts of this post, one on AdBlock, the product. 

The other part with my thoughts on the potential implications of online ad blocking. 

I installed the popular AdBlock extension to my Chrome browser and realised how much difference it makes to the browsing experience on some sites. 

The extension seamlessly removes ads off any websites you browse, reducing the clutter significantly. It also does the same for video ads, so YouTube pre-roll ads are skipped and it removes the in-video text ads too. 

It comes with a simple but good-enough set of options, including which sites to apply ad-blocking, temporary pause ad blocking and lets you edit and add advertisement filter lists.

For Firefox users, there's Adblock Plus.

For Safari users, there's Safari AdBlock.

For IE (why are you using this??) , there's Simple Adblock. 

Here's an example for Facebook before and after:

Here's an example for Google search. I've set it to allow ads for Google search though, since the ads tend to be quite relevant and aren't as intrusive as display ads. 

Few thoughts as I use this... 

Probably not a significant threat to the digital advertising business in the near term 

There's already over 4 million users of AdBlock for Chrome and 12 million active users for the Firefox version. However, I don't think there'll be a significant enough usage of such blockers in the near term to really threaten the industry directly, plus the folks who have ad-blockers installed are likely to be those who don't click ads anyway. 

"Independent" browsers could win in the longer run if ad-blocking becomes popular 

In the scenario where ad-blocking becomes more mainstream, the browser wars would then tip in the favour of browsers like Safari and Opera where their parent companies don't rely as much on advertising for revenues.
I'm impressed that Google has allowed this ad-blocking extension on Chrome, even though this directly threatens advertising revenues (over 98% of their 38Mn revenues last year). Still, I'm not sure they can do so if there is truly significant use of this - imagine the conversations between the Chrome product manager and the Search/Display ads product manager..

Arms-race between ad-blockers and advertisers in video ads space
The conflict between content-providers and ad-blockers could be more pronounced in the video ads space. These tend to be the ads that are more intrusive (e.g. pre-roll videos) and user would be more willing to pay to skip these. Meanwhile, for video content providers, these are the ads where number of impressions and length of engagement matter most since they're designed to build brand/product awareness for advertisers, very much in the same vein as traditional media advertisements.
This would then lead to competition to out-fox each other from technology perspective, with advertisers looking for ways to detect and prevent content delivery if blockers are found, while ad-blockers keep searching for new ways to provide the service while remaining undetected to content providers.

What Facebook is getting for 1Bn

There's already a slew of coverage on the 1Bn price paid for Instagram by Facebook, and some views on what triggered Facebook to do this - mainly focusing on Facebook panicking at the growth of a potential challenger:
- Here's why Facebook bought Instagram [GigaOm]
- Did Facebook panic? [CNNMoney]

Price aside, does this purchase make sense? What is Facebook actually buying here?
They get 13 employees who know a thing or two about social & mobile photo app development and a ~50Mn mobile installed base. I think what really makes the case though, is the 1.5Mn photos posted daily by Instagram users. While this pales in comparison to the 250Mn posted on Facebook daily, these are the types of photos that delivers the user engagement that Facebook can monetize.
1. They're current - taken and uploaded on the go
2. Instagram photos are the ones that generate the most comments and interactions on FB, much more so that, say, full album uploads from the desktop
3. In most cases, you reveal location with these photos - more data for targeting ads

If Facebook is valued at $100Bn, then Instagram is fair value at 1bn as long at it increases users' time spent on FB by over 1%

AirBNB, Wimdu and Roomorama in SE Asia

Triggered by the news of Roomorama merging with Lofty, and having a lot of time over this Easter break, I took an interest in looking at AirBNB, Roomorama and Wimdu recently to see how they are doing in South-east Asia and which would be best for a traveller to these parts. For those unfamiliar, these companies are all short-term rental platforms - allowing travellers to rent from people who are willing to rent out their rooms or homes. 

Actual traffic and users for each site are not easy to find, but it's relatively straightforward to check out how each of these sites perform from a supply perspective. 

AirBNB

AirBNB leads overall listings in major SEA markets, with ~35% more listings overall to the next site. Besides Malaysia, where they have a clear lead, they're neck for neck versus either Wimdu or Roomorama in most of the major markets (see chart). 

They have a significant lead in user reviews though, implying higher user engagement than the other two sites.

Roomorama

Despite the Roomorama's base in Singapore and its Asia-focus, Roomorama lags AirBNB in terms of inventory in SEA. It does however, lead in the main market of Thailand, and has carved out a strong lead in the niche country of Cambodia. 

The listings aren't always true 'B&B' and tends to feature budget or boutique hotels. This puts Roomorama in competition with the Expedias and Hotels.com of the world. 

Wimdu

I had expected more from Wimdu, given the big push by its parent owner, Rocket Internet into South-east Asia over the past few months. From the job listings on its site, Wimdu seems to be mainly run out of Berlin now and in the region, there is only focus on Singapore, and oddly enough, Philippines, which I can't quite explain. 

In conclusion, I'd probably use AirBNB on my next in-region vacation, but if I were to list a room, I'd list on all three sites as they all seem professionally done up, seem to have sufficient traffic, and have minimal cost differences. Roomorama is the cheapest for hosts - 0%, while the other two charge 3%.