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

311–320 of 472 posts

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

#311

Post by Nursie »

kbenson wrote: post #308
Nursie wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If you stopped the advertising and didn't view the content they offered in exchange, it would be quieter, calmer and a lot more boring. Not really, I already pay for my tv, music and radio directly (tv license, streaming services etc) so I don't have to be advertised at, and I'm seriously considering signing up for these various no-ad services for the web. It doesn't have to be more boring without advertising, in…

> It doesn't have to be more boring without advertising, in nearly all media now there are ways to enjoy great content without letting the sales pitch in. I hope we find good ways with the web too. My point was that it's more boring if you forego the content that has ads, and I think your use of an ad-blocker to access this content supports this position. I also hope we find good mechanisms to pay for content without…

>> My point was that it's more boring if you forego the content that has ads,

I dunno, I might get more done actually and have a more interesting life, but that's something of a philosophical point.

>> I think your use of an ad-blocker to access this content supports this position.

I think that if I didn't have one I would use the web much less, as I do find advertising that intrusive and awful now.

>> I also don't want advertising paid services to go away

I honestly don't care about them, I'd rather not have ads or the service and would be more than happy to see a model develop that blocks people like me from content if the advertising is that important to the site.

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

#312

Post by austenallred »

yq wrote: post #291
brwnll wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pu…

I am +1 with Nursie. Ad's never work for me, I occasionally turn off ad-blocking to see how google looks like with ADs. None of those advertising will work for fit what I am really looking for. If I want something, I probably know what, where, how, when already. If someone need 24 4tb SSD to setup a Raid, the chance they will get it from an advertiser instead of someone who has well established a logistics channel, r…

Yet I bet you know who Ford, Geicko, Chevrolet, Coca Cola and McDonalds are, regardless of how much you like their products.

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

#313

Post by kbenson »

Nursie wrote: post #301
kbenson wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an easy decision to make when you stop letting them make the sales pitches, but still take what they offer in exchange for those sales pitches. If you stopped the advertising and didn't view the content they offered in exchange, it would be quieter, calmer and a lot more boring .

I mean, that's kind of the root of it for me, this implied bargain - you get this stuff for free, just let us pitch our stuff to you for x% of the time - that's over, I reject it entirely. Happily for me I no longer have the to make the choice of either putting up with it or not funding the content when it comes to most media.

> that's over, I reject it entirely.

The root of this for me is that you don't reject it entirely, you just reject the portion you don't like. You (like most of us, let's be clear) reject the pitch, but take the stuff. I don't really think that's right, but many of us do it anyway. I do object to casting it as positive for the ad companies and the content producers though. I think it's very clear it's not, and making that more clear to more people would make update of alternate content payment schemes more likely.

Otherwise, if you don't owe the content producers anything after consuming the content, why bother paying for something like Google Contributor? Just to help support artists, patron style? I don't think the uptake due to that will be enough.

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

#314

Post by Nursie »

smtddr wrote: post #310
Nursie wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>>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. I think you're very wrong here. I suspect only a small part of the echo-chamber techies might think this way. The general public only hates ads when they're shown as those crazy multiple pop-up windows + auto-playing flash ads with audio. Otherwise, people do click... or tune them o…

I'm pretty sure it's growing, at least on the web, if it were not we wouldn't see stories about adblockers hurting revenues.

The general public in the USA may be more inured to constant ads, I'm not sure that holds everywhere, and as ad-free services like netflix grow I think we'll see more people start to become more conscious of advertising.

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

#315

Post by Spivak »

brwnll wrote: post #214
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 pu…

For people that dislike ads the statement, "I have never ever been positively influenced in any way every by one" is literally a definition because if you purchase anything because of an ad you've been made worse off.

If you were going to buy it anyway then the ad did nothing, if you weren't then you are now worse off as you bought something you wouldn't have otherwise -- you've been manipulated.

From this there is no such thing as a positive ad.

Also, he didn't say that ads don't work on him, they certainly do but they're not having the desired effect which makes them worthless to the advertiser. Sure, they get brand recognition but if you consciously make an effort to avoid brands which advertise to you and recommend that others avoid the brand too then you've actually cost the advertiser money, making the ad worthless.

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

#316

Post by manigandham »

a3n wrote: post #249
lighthawk wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist I get what you are saying, but I don't buy it. Much of the web is noise and regurgitation. The reason that publications have started to churn out poorly thought out crap is that they have to get their pagerank up and stay relevant. The reason they have to do that is because if they don't do it, there are ad revenue dependent content generators out there that wi…

> Much of the web is noise and regurgitation. The reason that publications have started to churn out poorly thought out crap is ... ad revenue .... If you get rid of the ad revenue, you reduce the velocity of the crap engine, and then good content can again be successful on a subscription model. That's one of the best good for all, social arguments against ads/for blockers that I've seen.

Except it's not because it's completely subjective.

The reason why people continue to visit all those sites and click all those links? - Because they like it.

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

#317

Post by Nursie »

kbenson wrote: post #313
Nursie wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, that's kind of the root of it for me, this implied bargain - you get this stuff for free, just let us pitch our stuff to you for x% of the time - that's over, I reject it entirely. Happily for me I no longer have the to make the choice of either putting up with it or not funding the content when it comes to most media.

> that's over, I reject it entirely. The root of this for me is that you don't reject it entirely , you just reject the portion you don't like. You (like most of us, let's be clear) reject the pitch, but take the stuff. I don't really think that's right, but many of us do it anyway. I do object to casting it as positive for the ad companies and the content producers though. I think it's very clear it's not, and makin…

>> The root of this for me is that you don't reject it entirely, you just reject the portion you don't like. You (like most of us, let's be clear) reject the pitch, but take the stuff.

There are sites now that block access if you block ads. I am happy for them to do this. But to get technical - on the web I request content and it is sent to me, I make no promises about rendering anything.

>> I do object to casting it as positive for the ad companies and the content producers though.

I didn't say it was positive for the producers, it's clearly not. It's positive for the advertisers because they don't have to pay for a 'view' that is useless to them though.

>> Otherwise, if you don't owe the content producers anything after consuming the content, why bother paying for something like Google Contributor?

I don't actually owe them anything as at the moment they don't charge, except in an implied way. They can charge, either by insisting I look at their ads, in which case I won't use their service, or by insisting on something like Google contributor or Patreon before I get the content. I'll say again, if sites make it clear I'm not welcome without viewing their ads, I won't go. It's OK with me. I don't think I find any online content or service compelling enough to change my mind on that, with the possible exception of Google's stuff.

>> I don't think the uptake due to that will be enough.

To be honest I don't think the uptake will be very high anyway because people are used to the current model and most don't object as strongly as me. Just as I think the number of people who use streaming services for the convenience probably vastly outweighs the number who even care that they enable ad-free viewing.

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

#318

Post by manigandham »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #255
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…

> 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. YMMV, I suppose we may be browsing different parts of the Internet, but I know content I love would mostly stay intact. From my personal and subjective experience, nearly everything that is actually worth anything on the Internet is made by unpaid volunteers for whom creating content is an end in itself, and not a way to ea…

It's not your call to make on what's harmful to society. So you don't want to read the "bad" stuff? Ok that's fine, just don't go to those sites.

But dont impose your ideals on everyone else who is reading that content voluntarily because they clearly enjoy it.

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

#319

Post by manigandham »

a3n wrote: post #269
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…

If viewing contents without viewing ads is damaging to a site, they can block. Or they can provide N free views per X days, and then block. And provide a subscription mechanism. I think I must have been turned away from a site once or twice, but I really can't remember specifically. So they don't block. Which means, they get something out of the visit. Exposure, at least. The hope of an eventual subscription, as I su…

Blocking adblock users is not as easy as it sounds. Many of the adblockers also maintain rules and filters to actively get around this.

Paywalls are the only sure fire way to keep people out.

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

#320

Post by asuffield »

greenleafjacob wrote: post #231
throwaway342526 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Having worked at and with small companies that rely on advertising to overcome obscurity and get business to their products - modern analytics tools have pretty much got this problem solved, the marketing people knew and actively tracked their ROI on a daily basis and were shuffling limited funding around between various forms of advertising to optimise sales.

Every time I see somebody claiming that advertising doesn't work, I just think that there's another person who has never tried to run a small online business.

Post reply on HN