Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 217 posts

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#111

Post by burkaman »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #100

People question how we'll support content without ads, but I have to take a step back and wonder - is content that needs to be supported really that valuable? Might the world be a better place without it? People who are passionate about the subject they are writing on are going to publish regardless of ad revenue, assuming they get hits (writing stuff nobody reads is a fast track to burnout). Right now, in many cases…

No, it will not be filled by people with "passion", it will be filled by people with free time and economic security. We don't yet live in a world where passion is enough to motivate free content.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#112

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

eli wrote: post #85
nulbyte wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you hit the nail on the head: greed. This was my tipping point. When sites got so greedy that they stopped caring if anyone read their content, I stopped caring if they got paid for obtrusive ads. Even Google has designed some horrendous ads, especially the Nexus ad that grabs swipes on mobile, keeping you from scrolling past it. If the ads stuck to the meatverse-equivalent style of static but attractive, I…

Is it fair to call it "greed" if these sites aren't making much money, even with all the aggressive ad units? You need to have an extremely popular site with uncommonly low overhead to be very profitable just off of banner ads.

You do now. It was easier before the ad industry fell into the classic Tragedy of the Commons trap.

"Reinvent your industry with this one weird old tip."

Yes, it was greed, and yes, of course it led to a predictable outcome.

The smart thing for the industry to do would be to create a code of practice and do a deal with the ad blockers to allow - not force - people to view ads that add value to their lives. Print publishing used to make this work fairly well.

But the industry seems incapable of acting with anything that passes for strategic intelligence. If it didn't treat customers like exploitable prey, it wouldn't be in the situation it's in now.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#113

Post by kuschku »

klunger wrote: post #102
CuriouslyC wrote: post #100

People question how we'll support content without ads, but I have to take a step back and wonder - is content that needs to be supported really that valuable? Might the world be a better place without it? People who are passionate about the subject they are writing on are going to publish regardless of ad revenue, assuming they get hits (writing stuff nobody reads is a fast track to burnout). Right now, in many cases…

No. You are basically saying that people should work for free if they are passionate about it. Professional writers cannot pay their bills with passion. Same with artists, musicians etc, and every other underpaid profession. Just because they (hopefully) like what they do, does not mean it is not work or does not have value.

> Professional writers cannot pay their bills with passion

Professional writers aren’t ad-financed.

Look at Panama Papers.

Not a single of the involved newspapers and broadcasters is ad financed: All are either tax or subscription financed.

Btw, for just 19.99€ you can get full access to all articles about Panama Papers in the Süddeutsche if you don’t want to enter a 12-month subscription for the whole newspaper.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#114

Post by phineastcat »

amelius wrote: post #4
chopin wrote: post #2

Malware is the #1 reason for me to use ad-blocking...

For me, #1 is tracking, #2 is malware.

For me, #1 is the extra bandwidth cost (I have a crappy internet connection), #2 is malware, and #3 is tracking.

My crappy internet connection is what originally pushed me to block ads. Everything's a lot more speedy when you're not loading all those extra scripts, images, and videos.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#115

Post by jamespo »

tremon wrote: post #89
jamespo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of the arguments about not letting in any refugees as some of them may commit a crime.

Except that we do not have a humanitarian obligation towards javascriptlets.

and that is definitely the aspect that reminded me

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#116

Post by RodericDay »

zanny wrote: post #105
wslh wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Businesses have to come up with better monetization strategies. I don't like Ads but possibly there is no general way to monetize content and this is the problem. With lot of freely available value on Internet it is really difficult to convert it to $$$.

Sure there is. I have a creative skill to make information. If anyone in the world wants that information, they can pay me to make it, and then after that I've already been paid, I can release it CC0 and let the world go nuts with it. The problems of online DRM / ad ridden websites / etc are all attempts to after the fact monetize information using obsolete IP policy while acting like there is any scarcity to it at a…

Is the word for this relationship "patronage"?

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#117

Post by milesvp »

Tyr42 wrote: post #106
daemin wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like in some of those fancy fashion magazines where the ads are actually part of the content that people buy. Yes that would be good for websites to do, but it also requires a dedicated ad department to organise it all, and consumers of that content that would want to buy the goods that are being sold.

Penney Arcade had good ads. They actually play the games that were advertised and it was also a stamp of approval.

This. It's the only website I've found that actually has ads relevant to the site, ads I want to see and am receptive for. My understanding from what I've gleaned from their blog, is that this really worked out for them (though PAX revenue now dwarfs their site revenue).

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#118

Post by beisner »

SeanDav wrote: post #103

OT: > "...advertisers use to convince us to buy shit." Am I just an old fuddy duddy, or does the use of the word "shit" here jar with anyone else? I understand that many people talk this way, but feel that the written word should hold itself to a higher standard of grammar and vocabulary.

You are just an old fuddy duddy. If I was reading this as prose, maybe I'd agree that an author could have been more creative with word choice. But in this kind of post, the message is vastly more important than the medium, and the use of the word 'shit' doesn't obscure the message.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#119

Post by wnevets »

The content that accompanies the worst kind of advertising tends to be the worst kind of content. If adblocking kills that kind of content I'm all for it. For example the number of sites that scrap stackoverflow and cram 30 different ads onto the page.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#120

Post by team_doom »

yoo1I wrote: post #99
team_doom wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do, actually. I listen to commercials on the radio all the time. It's how they pay for the content I'm listening to and they are often targeted enough that I hear about a business/offer that is pertinent to me. I don't think it's "utter nonsense". I feel like I'm supporting the continued existence of something that I care enough about to listen to. If they can't monetize the service, how can it be expected to conti…

There's the difference: you seem to be getting something out of the ads. For me it's 100% irrelevant. If I need something I will go look for it. If what I need is so special that it can't be found by an internet search, rest assured no-one would make an ad for it. I am not sure why you use the term "cognitive dissonance" for referring to a situation where I consume without paying for something, and I don't feel entit…

It's pretty simple. The great content is created because the site can afford to pay for it. The "something else" I'm forcing you to look at is keeping the servers on. They HAVE figured out how to make it profitable, and you've figured out how to avoid paying for it. Just because you feel that the moral obligation is manufactured doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Paywalls are not the answer in all cases, and I do think there are moral as well as technical questions here.

I call it entitlement because you want, and are getting, a free lunch. I call it cognitive dissonance because as an adult with bills to pay you must understand that you are hurting a business by consuming content that costs them money to create and host without paying for it, be it with your time or your money.

Post reply on HN