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

231–240 of 472 posts

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

#231

Post by greenleafjacob »

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.

> has well demonstrated ROI

Actually, that is not as clear cut as one might expect [1].

[1]: http://justinmrao.com/lewis_rao_nearimpossibility.pdf

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

#232

Post by sinatra »

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 remember reading somewhere that 44% people think ads don't work on them.

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

#233

Post by bduerst »

Nursie wrote: post #163
olegious wrote: post #145

Earlier 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.

The problem is that you, specifically, are only remembering the intrusive ads that have at one point negatively affected you.

Whenever there is a good branding ad, you're not thinking about or remembering how great of an ad experience you're having. There are exceptions, like Superbowl commercials, but it's still a cognitive bias.

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

#234

Post by kbenson »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #198
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.

I feel the same as Nursie and can give at least one concrete example - I purposefully avoided buying any Groupon ever only because once upon a time they spammed living shit out of the Internet with pink animated ads.

Are you sure it didn't also have to do with the slew of bad press they received for a while, especially here? Do you actually have a memory of avoiding groupon and at that time remembering the ads, or are you now remembering avoiding groupon because you disliked them and now remembering the ads? (I ask because I find perceptions of past actions interesting, not because I specifically doubt you).

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

#235

Post by zaphar »

anon1385 wrote: post #142
hsod wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's BS to cast "people who respond to GET requests" as mobsters. If you want them to leave you alone just stop asking them for things.

Well yes, that's what an ad blocker does. But a lot of people believe ad blockers are unethical.

Pretend there is a Museum. It's free to the public with a suggested donation. You go there every weekend because of it's interesting collection of $thing. You never pay the suggested donation.

Is this ethical? It's not illegal. But that isn't the question.

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

#236

Post by Nursie »

ssully wrote: post #227
Nursie wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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. And this sort of brain-hacking is precisely the reason I find advertising unacceptable and will not allow my computer to render ads.

How do you avoid that brain hackery when it comes to commercials(TV, radio, etc), billboards, ads in magazine's/newspapers, and hundreds of other sources? I get being uncomfortable with trackers, but the mind of paranoia associated with the passive and active effects of ads is a joke considering this shit has been a common part of modern society for a long time.

>> commercials(TV, radio, etc),

I don't watch them, at all. I have streaming services. My tv isn't actually even attached to an aerial at the moment. And I mostly listen to BBC radio stations (I'm in the UK).

>> billboards

We don't have quite so many of those in the UK as there are in the US, but yes, they are hard to avoid.

>> ads in magazine's/newspapers

I don't really read paper ads any more

>> but the mind of paranoia associated with the passive and active effects of ads is a joke considering this shit has been a common part of modern society for a long time.

It's not really paranoia, I just prefer to avoid being manipulated.

It's genuinely possible to avoid nearly all advertising now. I like this and I find life without the constant commercial intrusion and associated information overload quite good.

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

#237

Post by piyush_soni »

kbenson wrote: post #135
WorldWideWayne wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

I wouldn't consume their contents if they are at a subscription fee. Most of the content creators on the internet know that their content wouldn't earn them a subscription, so they choose the advertisement model. If you make something worth paying money for, people will pay.

I mean, they're not making me sign a contract saying I wouldn't consume their content if the ads are off, so it's up to me to choose what I see on MY computer. There are also websites which detect adblockers and don't show their content at all. I'd just close their website not caring about their content, so at least I don't find it worth paying for.

Even I have blogs, videos which earn me ad money. I know had it not been ads, no one give a dime to see them :), and it's perfectly fine for me.

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

#238

Post by Nursie »

bduerst wrote: post #233
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.

The problem is that you, specifically, are only remembering the intrusive ads that have at one point negatively affected you. Whenever there is a good branding ad, you're not thinking about or remembering how great of an ad experience you're having. There are exceptions, like Superbowl commercials, but it's still a cognitive bias.

Well, I don't really watch ads so it's true I'm not thinking about how great an ad experience I'm having, because I'm not having them.

As a result I find nearly all advertising, when I do come across it, to be intrusive and annoying.

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

#239

Post by pnathan »

Hey! This is kind of cool! I didn't know about this. It's like micropayments-in-a-box. I think I might do this (but have to think about the system).

However, I do have one thought. Google ads initially were incredibly popular because they weren't in your face asking for the monkey to be punched. Which is still pretty much the case.

The worst ads aren't being served by Google, they're being served by Tabooleh and the other bad-content farms.

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

#240

Post by pnathan »

Hey! This is kind of cool! I didn't know about this. It's like micropayments-in-a-box. I think I might do this (but have to think about the system).

However, I do have one thought. Google ads initially were incredibly popular because they weren't in your face asking for the monkey to be punched. Which is still pretty much the case.

The worst ads aren't being served by Google, they're being served by Tabooleh and the other bad-content farms.

Post reply on HN