Content is dead • Hacker News Board

Re: Content is dead

#31

Post by untog » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 10:36 PM UTC

logicallee wrote: post #29

kukx wrote: post #18

Let's be honest, why they shouldn't block adblock? The ads bring them money. And they need money to survive and, if they lucky, develop. The writers have families or plan to have ones, they need to be rewarded for their work. It may be their main or only source of income. Now, if they also provide a valuable information for you, I think that trying to trick them into giving it for free (ad free) is wrong. I think and…

it's kind of like what I do at my local bakery/patisserie. I hate that I have to ask for something from behind the counter, and the person wants to handle my extremely dirty cash with the same fingers that they use to take out and give me what I ask for. It's disgusting. So I just reach behind the counter (technically quite easy) and take it out, without bringing cash into the equation. It's not my fault they make it…

Seems telling that you're getting downvotes but no replies explaining how your comparison is wrong...

Re: Content is dead

#32

Post by pcmaffey » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 10:36 PM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #16

Animats wrote: post #10

We'll know that ad supported content is dead when AOL, or "Aol.", or whatever, and Demand Media, go bust. They will not be missed. Micropayments are going nowhere. As I've pointed out before, the enthusiasm for micropayments comes from people who want to collect them. There's very little consumer demand for the ability to send somebody a dime. Subscriptions work only for very high quality content. The Economist, yes;…

Just a small point about micropayments. The current system is not micro. Micro is hundredths of a cent or less. At that price point it might be possible to use them. Sadly not even bitcoin (afaik) can handle such transactions. Transaction costs are too high under every system. Even IBM's research- a few years ago, bottomed out at 25 cents.

Seems awkward (and pricey, as mentioned) to handle an actual transaction each time. Why not just have a browser extension that aggregates and bills monthly? Like the opposite of an ad-blocker, an ad-unlocker.

This has probably been discussed somewhere...

Re: Content is dead

#33

Post by nemothekid » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 10:37 PM UTC

return0 wrote: post #23

Animats wrote: post #10

We'll know that ad supported content is dead when AOL, or "Aol.", or whatever, and Demand Media, go bust. They will not be missed. Micropayments are going nowhere. As I've pointed out before, the enthusiasm for micropayments comes from people who want to collect them. There's very little consumer demand for the ability to send somebody a dime. Subscriptions work only for very high quality content. The Economist, yes;…

I always thought the adsense content network was just a way for google to avoid paying publishers directly for listing their pages in their results. All content, including "bottom feeders" is valuable to Google. I believe it will come to a point that google will start paying publishers directly by a portion of the money they made by having their content in their results. As for facebook, I think it is overselling its…

Overselling how? I'm interested what you mean by this - that's a pretty hand-wavey response for the main business model of the 5th most valuable company.

Re: Content is dead

#34

Post by qrv3w » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 10:37 PM UTC

pier25 wrote: post #17

We need a Netflix for content. You pay a (reasonable) monthly subscription and they pay each content provider depending on number of views.

https://blendle.com/ is attempting just this. They have a beta service available now, and its rather nice. You pay a few cents per article and you can easily get refunds if you don't like the article or if it isn't what you expected.

Re: Content is dead

#35

Post by ebbv » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 10:38 PM UTC

Wired has always been garbage. You're just getting old enough to realize it.

There's always going to be garbage content sources that are more popular than the quality content sources. If you appreciate quality content, your duty is not to bitch about the garbage content but to support quality content.

Re: Content is dead

#36

Post by seizethecheese » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 10:38 PM UTC

intrasight wrote: post #22

kukx wrote: post #18

Let's be honest, why they shouldn't block adblock? The ads bring them money. And they need money to survive and, if they lucky, develop. The writers have families or plan to have ones, they need to be rewarded for their work. It may be their main or only source of income. Now, if they also provide a valuable information for you, I think that trying to trick them into giving it for free (ad free) is wrong. I think and…

Just remember that "adblock" doesn't block ads - it blocks ad networks. If publications ran their own ads (like they do in print) the ads would likely a)be of much higher quality, and b) not be blocked by "adblock"

c) targeted more poorly (albeit without the privacy concerns.) d) expensive for the publisher (they have to do their own sales.)

And therefore only feasible for very large sites.

Re: Content is dead

#37

Post by pcmaffey » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 10:40 PM UTC

logicallee wrote: post #29

kukx wrote: post #18

Let's be honest, why they shouldn't block adblock? The ads bring them money. And they need money to survive and, if they lucky, develop. The writers have families or plan to have ones, they need to be rewarded for their work. It may be their main or only source of income. Now, if they also provide a valuable information for you, I think that trying to trick them into giving it for free (ad free) is wrong. I think and…

it's kind of like what I do at my local bakery/patisserie. I hate that I have to ask for something from behind the counter, and the person wants to handle my extremely dirty cash with the same fingers that they use to take out and give me what I ask for. It's disgusting. So I just reach behind the counter (technically quite easy) and take it out, without bringing cash into the equation. It's not my fault they make it…

An advertisement is not a transactional fee.

I don't have to look at your ads when you're giving away free pastries.

Re: Content is dead

#38

Post by zem » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 10:40 PM UTC

takno wrote: post #12

This +1000. The guardian, a paper I used to buy regularly, has transformed itself comprehensively into a hell of lazy ill informed clickbait, uncritically repeating unsupported conclusions from nonsense science and refusing to differentiate their serious analysis from crappy user generated content. Now I can't even bring myself to pay the 3 quid a month subscription even though the crossword alone would probably be w…

off-topic, but the guardian crossword went back to being free a while ago (and there was much rejoicing).

Re: Content is dead

#39

Post by gheeohm » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 10:40 PM UTC

takno wrote: post #12

This +1000. The guardian, a paper I used to buy regularly, has transformed itself comprehensively into a hell of lazy ill informed clickbait, uncritically repeating unsupported conclusions from nonsense science and refusing to differentiate their serious analysis from crappy user generated content. Now I can't even bring myself to pay the 3 quid a month subscription even though the crossword alone would probably be w…

I agree very much, and think that a lot of the problem comes from the fact that as a society, we are not taught enough about how to think (and especially read) critically. In combination with floods of data coming in 24/7, people's compasses start getting out of whack, and online journalism becomes a marketer's dream. I'm guilty of it too, even though I try to make a conscious effort to pick my sources more carefully now.

Re: Content is dead

#40

Post by danso » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 10:45 PM UTC

I know these anti-ad posts are a dime a dozen here, but this is one of the more self-entitled pieces of dreck in the genre. She spends the first part of her essay slagging on WIRED ("Wired has dabbled in and eventually succumbed to the technology it once skewered and analyzed. Its latest efforts inevitably include pandering to the Instagram crowd."), implying that she's too good for their lowbrow content, and then the rest of it is about how dare they have the temerity to make her resort to using cURL to read their content. Or is this post supposed to be a sly retelling of the joke in Annie Hall? [1]

What's so difficult about just opening an incognito window and suffering the couple of seconds it takes for a computer halfway across the world to deliver you content while you sit at your desk? The WIRED thing annoys me too but when they've got a good story, I'm willing to give them the adnetwork revenue. Forbes, on the other hand...that whole thing with their infected ad network, I've just stopped going to Forbes articles, period, even when they're posted here. It's been a long time since I can remember Forbes exclusively breaking a story...most of the time, it seems their articles are from their "contributor" network just blogspamming someone else's story.

[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075686/quotes?item=qt0373261