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

211–220 of 472 posts

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

#211

Post by cheald »

sqrt17 wrote: post #95
fatjokes wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bo…

> ads stopped being pay-per-impression around 2001 or so.

This is flatly false. CPM models are alive and well. You don't need to look any further than AdSense for proof of that.

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

#212

Post by TheGRS »

minimaxir wrote: post #18

In terms of generating-revenue-without-running-ads, I do think Patreon is still a better option, as it both provides a consistent , nonseasonal revenue source for the author and content guarantees for the user; a win-win in both cases. Google Contributor is more of a charitable option which might be too subtle.

I'm going to second Patreon as a good revenue source. Those of us that consume the web want quality content, but that content does not come cheaply (think big production, high quality videos with sets, actors, scripts, editing and visual effects). Money needs to flow somehow in some way for these things to be made, but the current model rewards lots of cheap, small effort content to make money by scaling the amount of it.

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

#213

Post by kbenson »

supercanuck wrote: post #155
kbenson wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, you could block ads and try not consume the content of creators who have advertising. There seems to be an underlying assumption in your statement that you deserve access to their content, and well, if the mechanisms they put in place to monetize it are too onerous, you should feel fine just taking it.

You sound like a cable company bitching about netflix or Tivo.

Just because we don't like those companies doesn't mean there isn't some truth to their arguments (regarding Tivo at least, I'm not sure what they bitch at Netflix about).

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

#214

Post by brwnll »

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'm pretty tired of one of these personalities that appear to be a loud voice in the ad blocking conversation.

"Ad's don't work on me and I have never ever been positively influenced in any way every by one"

This simply makes you, at best, look naive in your believe that your conscious self is responsible for all (or even a majority) of your actions, and at worst, wrong/lying (who remembers everything they've ever purchased and how they came to know about it?)

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

#215

Post by cheald »

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…

> Lastly, we hate tracking. I can't overstate that. They kill profiling we kill ad blocking. Simple as that.

As a nerdy guy, I'd much rather see video game ads than tampon ads. I get the ideological argument against targeted advertising, but the practical arguments for it are pretty compelling, too.

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

#216

Post by sologoub »

Nursie wrote: post #167
mlinsey wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In fact for any ad that's beyond static text I am more likely to remember your brand and deliberately not buy your stuff in future." I believe you when you say you don't click on things, but if it were possible to somehow objectively test this particular claim, I'd bet against it.

It's a hard one, but I really do hate advertising and visual clutter that much, and if I remember that I have been advertised at, particularly intrusive ads, I will try to avoid that brand. These days as I don't read paper news and don't watch broadcast tv (I subscribe to netflix, prime and nowtv instead), I actually find ads in the cinema most offensive, because I can't escape easily. --edit-- I'm not going to try t…

Unfortunately, most marketers that focus on brand awareness would say that eliciting any reaction to a brand is better than not eliciting the reaction at all.

I don't have any studies on hand, but it would be interesting to test whether, on average, the initial negative reaction is better for long term brand recognition than no reaction and whether the negative nature persists, or if it shifts into familiarity territory and eventually becomes more positive than negative, as something familiar usually feels safer.

If anyone has any studies to this effect, would love to read them.

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

#217

Post by Nursie »

kbenson wrote: post #207
Nursie wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Your first mistake is assuming the only usefulness they get from you is when you click on an ad to buy something. To the advertisers? No I'm sure they think that 'brand awareness' is useful too, only it's not, if you annoy me into noticing your brand I will deliberately not buy it.

I think what you think you'll do, what you swear you'll do, and what you actually do aren't necessarily always aligned. But that's also irrelevant. If they are paying to have pictures put in front of you for brand awareness, then that's what they are paying for,not ad-clicks. Assuming you can completely understand their business, strategies and intentions to the point that you can accurately judge what is best for th…

The fact that advertisers will use things like 'brand awareness' and other subtle ways to try to get into my brain against my wishes is, IMHO, an excellent reason for blocking.

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

#218

Post by enlightenedfool »

onion2k wrote: post #36
xbryanx wrote: post #9

For the ~price of Netflix subscription, I only get 25-50% fewer ads? Nah...too expensive.

If it was any cheaper then people would believe ads have very little value which leads to thinking an ad-blocker isn't really harming anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if this product is really, at least in part, a PR move to get people to think seeing adverts is the equivalent of 'saving' $20/month for web content.

Ad blockers are NOT harming anyone. I don't want ads. Content providers need to decide whether they want to provide content for free or charge. If I like their content enough to pay, I might pay. If they provide free content with ads, I'll block them.

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

#219

Post by supercanuck »

kbenson wrote: post #213
supercanuck wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like a cable company bitching about netflix or Tivo.

Just because we don't like those companies doesn't mean there isn't some truth to their arguments (regarding Tivo at least, I'm not sure what they bitch at Netflix about).

Just because a company has something to sell, doesn't obligate people to buy it. if you can't get someone to buy it, displaying it for free then griping because people STILL don't want to pay for it, is just frankly ridiculous to me.

To answer your question above, they gripe because they are being disrupted by technology and cannot charge what they want to charge for their product.

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

#220

Post by bduerst »

jdjb wrote: post #147
abootstrapper wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not your website. It's someone else's. Someone who created the content and pays to keep it online for you to consume.

As soon as their content hits my client though, they don't have any right to control what my client does with it.

They still have copyright on their content and how you use it.
Post reply on HN