[deleted]
Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
171–180 of 472 posts
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#172I'd pay to remove the ad makers.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#173the interesting part is that he says you basically bid on the placement yourself. Lots of publishers are paid via CPC, so only when clicks are made. I'm guessing this has to be CPM bid then, in which case to be effective you're going to burn through you $2 per month awfully fast.
Another thing - if you're actually taking part in the bidding process this is a trojan horse to jack up the bid prices (they work in an auction format roughly) for everyone else.
Well played, evil Google.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#174This 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…
i actually view it more like the standard age old pricing model for goods with massive supply. "Content" is drastically higher in supply than demand, you are simply paying your market price for content. Ads would of course exist, but largely yahoo and early portals acted as print media companies selling advertising instead of content because 1) it was a new dist model, 2) there was nothing close to the ecomnerce and payment tools.
So basically, you are just paying for the goods you use, you set your price and this is beneficial to companies because the marginal cost of serving a webpage is almost nothing so if you opt to pay anything it is profit.
Unfortunately, taking time to pay for something has more friction than just not paying for it as well as being cheaper.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#175I'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,…
thewirecutter.com also has ads
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point of some types of advertising. There are typically 2 types of goals that an advertiser can be interested in- 1. Branding, 2. Direct Response. With "Branding" campaigns an advertiser just wants to get their name out there and very often, associated with a specific publisher (say Mercedes wants to be associated with The Economist)- the metrics that these types of campaigns are judged by are impr…
As I said, particularly with web advertising, if you've made me notice your brand then I will actively try to remember not to buy from you - I dislike advertising that much. By viewing the ad I'm not ripping anyone off, no, but a page taking money for me viewing an ad would be, as the outcome for the advertiser is getting a best neutral and likely actually negative.
Most people do not behave as you claim to. Advertising really does work. It's rational and has well-demonstrated ROI.
You're either an outlier in terms of behavior, or you're not offering an honest representation of how you react to ads.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#177Google Contributor can't work, for two reasons. 1. As soon as it becomes too widespread, Google will nerf it. They rely almost entirely on advertising for their revenues. There's just too much money for them to not water the scheme down in future. Remember when cable TV was going to be ad-free? 2. It only works inside Google's semi-walled garden. This is true of every microsubscription scheme so far built (Spotify, A…
> As soon as it becomes too widespread, Google will nerf it. They rely almost entirely on advertising for their revenues. Contributor directly replaces advertising revenue; if it provides a better UX for end-users, sites that use exclusively traditional advertising rather than Google's model with Contributor will suffer reduced traffic (and thus, won't get money from advertising.) If Contributor gets widespread, its…
If the price of advertising goes up, Google will be incentivised to water down Contributor. An equilibrium might form, but in the long run it probably won't be "ad free". Google can't get away from the contradiction.
> I'm not sure that's a "walled garden" in any meaningful sense.
Hence "semi-walled". It's walled in the sense that only Google's ads are affected. They can somewhat reliably track users on sites that belong to Google's network. They can't do so otherwise. I imagine they solve fraud with their existing tools.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#178I don't like the current proposition: you pay for seeing less ads, but there's no tier guaranteeing no ads. Even if they guarantee 99% less ads, I still wouldn't sign for it.
Paying for seeing less ads does not change the incentives for tracking and targeting, and may even worsen them: surely Google will start by cutting the less targeted ads and will keep the most targeted ones. The more I cut the ads, the more targeted the remaining ads will be, and stronger will be their incentive to track and analyze my behavior.
Only by a policy of no ads and no other revenue stream besides my money would avoid some of these perverse incentives.
Of course, Google Contributor would still have to track the sites I visit, so I wouldn't be able to prevent tracking with a technical tool if I signed for it. This adds even more to the argument that Contributor is only an option if no ads are allowed, so that he incentives for targeting and analysis are now removed.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#179I've been trialing Contributor for the past month and there's two reasons I'm going to continue...
1. It works anywhere I can log into Google, which means I see less ads on my mobile device or in browsers where I might not have been able to install an ad blocking extension.
2. You can configure what you see in place of most ads. Thus my browsing now has more cats: http://imgur.com/fqF0YJb
The only reason I'm thinking about ditching Contributor at this point is because I'm more of a dog lover.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
It works anywhere a Google ad works.
But how does it know that I'm me? My Google login? I don't think I'm logged in to Google everywhere. Just curious as to how this thing works, basically.
More importantly to me: I don't want to login to a Google account. $10 - $15 is a fair price, but I don't want to login.
I feel that if I pay for something and it now requires me to have an account I'm getting a worse experience. This is especially true in this case where a free product like uBlock will yield a better result.