Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by eli » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 5:28 PM UTC

ksk wrote: post #35

eli wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are facilitating the entire process, processing the credit cards, cutting checks, sending tax forms... Even bitcoin transactions have fees.

According to you, what should be the fees? Google's primary job is to make billions of dollars of profit. I believe an organization like that has all the more incentive to inflate the fees and pocket as much as possible.

I'm not sure I understand the question. It's up to each publisher to decide if they make enough on AdSense to justify putting its ads on their site. The success of Google's ad business suggests that even net of fees, many people still think it's worth it.

Now, personally, I don't think Google pays me enough to run AdSense on any of my sites. It's frankly not even close, so the fee isn't the issue -- it's just a bad fit for the volume and type of content I produce. I can see why it's great for many other publishers though.

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

#182

Post by damontal » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 5:29 PM UTC

wnevets wrote: post #143

jowiar wrote: post #66

"Make 25% of your ads go away" feels a whole lot like the "cable TV will have less ads" promise of old. We all know how that turned out. The outcome of this is going to be "publishers run extra ads, you pay to make the extra ads go away".

wasn't the promise of cable no ads rather than less?

yep. satellite radio too.

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

#183

Post by untog » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 5:29 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #128

I find these things interesting, but not so much I won't use an adblocker. Perhaps I can buy into this and allow google ads, and then block the resulting 'thanks' text. I don't need that either. I find the whole thing odd though. I never click ads when I do see them, I literally have never, ever bought anything through advertising links. Even without an adblocker, the only reason the site would be getting money from…

I am literally a worthless view to them

Maybe that's true, but I'll bet you're influenced by it more than you think. When you consciously notice an ad and get irritated by it you won't buy, but there will be times when you subconsciously notice an ad and do nothing about it. Many advertisers are smarter than people give them credit for.

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

#184

Post by lotsoflumens » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 5:30 PM UTC

There's another way ... it may sound a bit crazy at first, but I think it's the only approach that will work.

* Advertisers must start paying visitors to view their ads *

Not just for clicking on ads, but simply for loading them into your browser and looking at them or listening to them.

I read somewhere yesterday that the ad business is $40 billion/year. None of that money goes to the people who are being abused daily by the onslaught of mental pollution that this "industry" produces.

What should be troubling to all advertisers, is that almost all of this stuff is displayed to people who will never buy their products.

Luckily, we have the mechanisms now to efficiently do this: Bitcoin etc. I foresee a payment system, probably mostly run by Google since they are the most connected to the current system, to mediate between ad-viewers and ad-producers.

There's the problem of detecting bots vs. people, but that already exists.

This system would also be good for website owners (content creators). A website owner would benefit by providing a reason for people to visit, thereby also gaining a percentage of the ad revenue. People visiting a website would be, in a sense, qualified-buyers of the products that could be advertised there, resulting in more targeted ads, perhaps by using the bitcoin addresses and the associated browsing history (something that's also already tracked but without consent).

I think it's the only way out of this mess. I don't have all the details worked out, I'm sure someone out there knows how to make it work.

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

#185

Post by LeoNatan25 » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 5:31 PM UTC

eachro wrote: post #111

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…

I don't know who this "we" is. But certainly a significant portion of the young adult demographic loves Buzzfeed and their like.

I'll join elorant. There, there's a "we".

But I'd go a step further than "BuzzFeed". Any of the "[something] via [somesite]" web sites are in the offending category. They literally make money from the content of others by (sometimes) rewording the original title and giving it a slightly more clickbait title so that their 'via' "articles" look more inviting. Often, this is a chain of evil. I do not want to support that chain, even if it is just for the one visit. I would like to support the original writer, but none of the reworders. Now, the sad part is, there is only a very small list of real content creators.

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

#186

Post by Nursie » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 5:31 PM UTC

throwaway342526 wrote: post #176

Nursie wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sure it does work across populations, but I'm also pretty sure I'm part of a growing demographic who are finding every way they can to opt out of it because they're sick of it.

As I say, I do find this and patreon interesting, and may sign up. I already get most of my tv and movies through subscriptions to streaming services where I don't have to see any ads.

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

#187

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 5:31 PM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #177

dragonwriter wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 be…

> If the price of advertising goes up, Google will be incentivised to water down Contributor.

The Contributor model, as I understand it, intrinsically scales costs (or effects) to the cost of advertising, with participants effectively bidding against advertisers for their own views. So, no, they wouldn't be incentivized to water it down if the price of advertising goes up, rather, the fact of Contributors success would drive the market-clearing price of advertising up while driving up Google's revenues from its ad networks, simply by increasing the market for its ad networks from "advertisers" to "advertisers + contributors".

> An equilibrium might form, but in the long run it probably won't be "ad free".

It will probably be ad free for the users willing to pay the most money to avoid ads, and less so for those willing to pay less.

Which, ultimately, is a pretty reasonable market-based solution. You choose the content you wish to consume, and you choose the degree to which you'd prefer to pay money vs. viewing ads.

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

#188

Post by Nursie » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 5:32 PM UTC

rokhayakebe wrote: post #160

Nursie wrote: post #128

I find these things interesting, but not so much I won't use an adblocker. Perhaps I can buy into this and allow google ads, and then block the resulting 'thanks' text. I don't need that either. I find the whole thing odd though. I never click ads when I do see them, I literally have never, ever bought anything through advertising links. Even without an adblocker, the only reason the site would be getting money from…

You sound too confident about what you think drives your purchasing behavior.

Usually it's hunger and restlessness. I'm pretty sure most of my disposable income is disposed of on food, drink and travel. I don't aspire to own vast amounts of stuff, quite the opposite.

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

#189

Post by lucideer » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 5:33 PM UTC

While I do find ads very mildly annoying, I don't tend to visit too many sites that have very intrusive advertising. My primary reason for using an adblocker (I don't use an adblocker actually, I use uBlock which is more general) is to reduce tracking and increase privacy.

I would previously have assumed that this was the same motivation most technically proficient adblocker users, but the comments here on HN seem to bely that assumption completely.

Are people really that bothered by ads that they would pay Google to continue to track their every move on the web silently???

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

#190

Post by lucideer » Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 5:34 PM UTC

While I do find ads very mildly annoying, I don't tend to visit too many sites that have very intrusive advertising. My primary reason for using an adblocker (I don't use an adblocker actually, I use uBlock which is more general) is to reduce tracking and increase privacy.

I would previously have assumed that this was the same motivation most technically proficient adblocker users, but the comments here on HN seem to bely that assumption completely. Are people really that bothered by ads that they would pay Google to continue to track their every move on the web without visible Google-run ads???