Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

mattcutts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 472 posts

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#91

Post by austenallred »

Justsignedup wrote: post #81
austenallred wrote: post #46

I've been a contributor member for several months now, because I firmly believe in two things: 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. 2. Life without ads is much better. So here's what people need to know about Google contributor: 1. I pay for the highest level available. 2. I love not seeing ads. 3. This only works for Google-based ads, which are certainly common…

I must argue a few points. - Sites like thewirecutter.com make their money from affiliate links - To try this experiment, I need to turn adblocking off. Which I am not willing to. - Ads are not the answer. In fact, an interesting thing happened when a city banned the use of outdoor ads. http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-... -- people are happier since less information assaults their brains,…

> Sites like thewirecutter.com make their money from affiliate links

Yes, there are multiple ways to monetize things on the Internet. Affiliate links work very well for Wirecutter, because it is based around people trying to buy things. If you're forbes.com however, affiliate links don't really work.

> Ads are not the answer. In fact, an interesting thing happened when a city banned the use of outdoor ads...

If the problem we're trying to solve is, "How can we pay content creators what they need in order to continue producing content?" then an anecdote about outdoor advertising and billboards is largely irrelevant.

Of course, your proposed solution may be, "No one gets paid for content and the content ceases to exist because I don't like ads," and that may be what happens to some degree, but I personally wouldn't like that solution very much.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#92

Post by coldpie »

fatjokes wrote: post #67
vitd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also be seen as acting like the mob. "It'd be a shame if your nice clean web page suddenly got ruined with ads. You know, we can keep that from happening for a price." No thanks. I'll continue to block ads and not be tracked and have my internet load faster.

Go for it, but you're only able to have your cake and eat it too because of people who view ads. If I were you, I'd keep quiet and encourage others to view ads, otherwise content creators will have to either quit or throw up paywalls.

This is a false dichotomy. There are other business models, and many people enjoy sharing things for free.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#93

Post by Karunamon »

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #90
austenallred wrote: post #46

I've been a contributor member for several months now, because I firmly believe in two things: 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. 2. Life without ads is much better. So here's what people need to know about Google contributor: 1. I pay for the highest level available. 2. I love not seeing ads. 3. This only works for Google-based ads, which are certainly common…

And I'm going to continue using an adblocker out of principle - because to me, the principle that my computer should remain free of malware is stronger than the principle that content creators should get paid.

Sadly, this. It doesn't come down to not wanting to look at ads (though that's a big part), it comes down to exploits being served through massive ad networks that no human has the time to vet.

I'll start unblocking ads the moment site creators start taking responsibility for what they display. My hourly rate for machine fixing is many times more than the few tenths of a penny you got for my ad impression.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#94

Post by dingaling »

fatjokes wrote: post #67
vitd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also be seen as acting like the mob. "It'd be a shame if your nice clean web page suddenly got ruined with ads. You know, we can keep that from happening for a price." No thanks. I'll continue to block ads and not be tracked and have my internet load faster.

Go for it, but you're only able to have your cake and eat it too because of people who view ads. If I were you, I'd keep quiet and encourage others to view ads, otherwise content creators will have to either quit or throw up paywalls.

> otherwise content creators will have to either quit or throw up paywalls

There are other categories of content creators who don't expect payment.

For example I contribute data to Flightradar24. In return they provide me with an ad-less experience because, like forum websites, their very existence depends on user contributions.

Other people just run websites for fun and education and pay for it willingly out of their pocket. I had to step-up to a 200GB package from my ISP for that reason. No-one paid towards my costs and I don't expect anyone to do so.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#95

Post by sqrt17 »

fatjokes wrote: post #67
vitd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also be seen as acting like the mob. "It'd be a shame if your nice clean web page suddenly got ruined with ads. You know, we can keep that from happening for a price." No thanks. I'll continue to block ads and not be tracked and have my internet load faster.

Go for it, but you're only able to have your cake and eat it too because of people who view ads. If I were you, I'd keep quiet and encourage others to view ads, otherwise content creators will have to either quit or throw up paywalls.

ads stopped being pay-per-impression around 2001 or so. For actual money to flow, people need to click on ads. For the advertisers to want to spend money, people need to not just click on the ads but also convert (aka, go to the site and order something).

Why does this matter? If the total ad space expands, and therefore the number of ad views increases, people will still buy about the same amount of products they bought before, which means the total advertising revenue of all the sites will also still be the same.

What we'd need would be an ad blocker that allows us, at regular times, to go to a special page, get a list of all the ads, and click on some of them in a quiet moment where they don't interfere with site content. And of course all of these clicks would have to count as "organic" non-fraudulent clicks.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#96

Post by toast0 »

abootstrapper wrote: post #78
elorant wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We hate shitty content creators (like Buzzfeed) who replicate content from other sources or even worse disguise ads with content (i.e. native advertising) . We also hate paying for the whole site just to read a couple of articles every now and then. How about a pay-by-article model with widespread adoption from the industry? I'd gladly go for it. Lastly, we hate tracking. I can't overstate that. They kill profiling w…

Tracking is weird. One hand it's gross and I don't like it. I think because who knows who is looking at what you're looking at. On the other hand, as a consumer I actually find the ads more valuable, and I sometimes buy items advertised to me. And as a content creator, they generate much more revenue.

I think there's a line that's often crossed. If there's no (or light) personalization, the ad shown will be relevant to the content it's next to, and maybe not relevant to me. If there's too much personalization, the ad shown will be relevant to me (or my browsing history), but not really relevant to the content it's next to. I would be less creeped out by personalization if the ads fit on the page; so when I view a news article about the Pope's visit, probably don't show me retargeting ads for a service provider whose API docs I was looking at yesterday; but if it's a technology site, then go ahead. Also take a lesson from Target; just because you can figure out I'm pregnant, don't make it obvious you know, put some deliberately mistargeted things in there too, so it looks more random.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#98

Post by bandicity »

asimilator wrote: post #31
bkanber wrote: post #16

This is fascinating. Business model: annoy people so much that they pay you to stop annoying them. Everybody's been talking about the death of display ads, and it looks like Google's paying attention and trying to figure out how to marginalize the ad itself, but still take money on the transaction. Eventually, Google could probably marginalize the ad so much that there are only a rare few display ads left online, and…

> Google has cleverly tricked us into keeping that industry aloft, essentially paying to keep something we hate alive. We hate content creators?

If I want content from content creators, I pay for it.

Ads is the old print way of getting paid.

Now, just restrict access and require a subscription. Have trial periods.

Why are you so focused on ads when it 1. Doesn't make sense if users can just block it and 2. There are better options for me to pay content creators?

If you aren't interested in my 'preference' you lose out. The customer is just trying to have a normal relationship here... Abusive forced ads are not normal... IMHO.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#99

Post by magicalist »

elorant wrote: post #51
asimilator wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google has cleverly tricked us into keeping that industry aloft, essentially paying to keep something we hate alive. We hate content creators?

We hate shitty content creators (like Buzzfeed) who replicate content from other sources or even worse disguise ads with content (i.e. native advertising) . We also hate paying for the whole site just to read a couple of articles every now and then. How about a pay-by-article model with widespread adoption from the industry? I'd gladly go for it. Lastly, we hate tracking. I can't overstate that. They kill profiling w…

> We hate shitty content creators (like Buzzfeed) who replicate content from other sources or even worse disguise ads with content (i.e. native advertising)

So why on earth are you going to those sites?

> We also hate paying for the whole site just to read a couple of articles every now and then. How about a pay-by-article model with widespread adoption from the industry?

That's literally what this is.

Post reply on HN