Content is dead • Hacker News Board

Re: Content is dead

#61

Post by saumil13 » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 11:03 PM UTC

zem wrote: post #20

the possibly naive pr{e,o}mise of the early web was that it would be a place for people who created content for the joy of creating it to share said content with people who would discover the delights of gatekeeper-free media consumption. "premium" content, that people were trying to make a living from selling, could go behind a paywall or into subscriber-only emails, the way books and magazines worked pre-web. sadly…

@zwm so i partially agree with you. there are few other reasons why both the content and ad industry is in a funk.

Married to Business model not their consumer: most of the content producer (music, video, tv, books, news etc) were trying to hold out with their old business model (think: buying album only or newspaper subscriptions). As new platforms emerged consumption patterns changed yet the model did not changed. In a leaked email by Jobs to Murdoch regarding e-books publishing, Jobs clearly warned that if books were not made available at price points, delivery methods and platforms to today's consumer behavior, we shouldn't be surprised to see a Napster moment in publishing industry. Those who have held stedfast in their old ways have suffered. Only now we can see some revival of music thru subscription via Apple Music and Spotify--but it took years and a lot of failed startups to get here.

Ads: Head in the sand moment: Having worked in this industry i see a few common occurrences: 1_ ad agencies have made it a point not to learn about emerging tech, actively invest in them or be the agent of innovation. Just like content industry they are happy to pick u 15% of cut from the buyer and the seller of ads, just b/c they can 2_ over last 20 years there is a steady increase in marketing budgets as a % of revenue by everyone in some cases up to 20%. Obviously CEOs will expect the CMOs to be accountable and present a ROI model vs the traditional 'sunk marketing costs'. Thats where data came into play. However, in actuality data is really being applied with very little thought.

Combination of laziness and apathy are some of the reasons for shitty ads.

What i find it intriguing if the quality of ad content is good and delivered in a meaningful ways then people wouldn't mind it (eg: Super Bowl ads).

But then again it takes a lot effort and thinking. I'm however, hopeful.

Re: Content is dead

#62

Post by darpa_escapee » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 11:04 PM UTC

I can't remember the last time I read an article and thought it was worth paying for.

Even a fraction of a penny. That's the sad truth.

Re: Content is dead

#63

Post by pier25 » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 11:05 PM UTC

qq66 wrote: post #26

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.

It would be incredibly bold for a major subscription content vendor, such as the NYTimes, to set up such a program. You sign into your NYTimes account, and sites around the web either become available to you, hide their advertising for you, or offer extra premium content just for NYTimes subscribers. Basically, the app store model built upon the NYTimes, where you get the basic news from the New York Times and the ni…

> Basically like Prime video, just for text.

Or Netflix...

Re: Content is dead

#64

Post by ebola1717 » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 11:05 PM UTC

qrv3w wrote: post #34

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.

I think the pay-per-article model is still worse than a single flat fee. Because there's a marginal cost per article, each time you have an article link you have to ask yourself "do i definitely want to read this?" Even if there are refunds and stuff, this has a psychological cost. It makes sharing content harder too. It also might be weird to say even more directly that "this article produced exactly X dollars of profit," or "this journalist's articles produce X dollars of profit on average."

Also, one of the best things about the Internet & the ad model is that it made content available to everyone. Someone from a relatively poor background, or someone who's just strapped for cash at a certain time, will still have equal access to information.

Re: Content is dead

#65

Post by pcmaffey » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 11:07 PM UTC

logicallee wrote: post #52

pcmaffey wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An advertisement is not a transactional fee. I don't have to look at your ads when you're giving away free pastries.

You're objectively mistaken that an advertisement is not a transactional fee. As in, you're wrong epistemically, and if you were to get a doctoral in whatever field it belongs to you would be more correct and would no longer believe what you do today. But out of curiosity, given your belief today, what if the TOS of the site states that you agree to look at ads in exchange for requesting content from the server (whic…

Given that's not what most sites' TOS say, viewing advertisements is not a transactional agreement in 99% of applicable cases.

Re: Content is dead

#66

Post by derriz » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 11:07 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…

It's gotten to stage where I go straight to the comments on HN rather than to the story when I see that the source is the Gaurdian. You know it's going to be some ill informed opinion piece rather than any actual journalism. Like you, I used to buy the physical paper back in the day - and felt the paper represented a continuation of the institution so admired by Orwell. I'm not sure which is more depressing - that it's so rubbish now or that it's become so commercially successful with its current approach to content.

Re: Content is dead

#67

Post by pcmaffey » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 11:08 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #55

pcmaffey wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

How would you do that without needing a way to deal with many of the same issues: to authorize every pageview, track account balances, deal with fraud, and correct errors? You definitely couldn't afford to interact with the financial system (ACH, credit cards, or even Bitcoin) for every pageview, but you'd have the same challenges to solve.

It's all done client side? Except auth.

Re: Content is dead

#68

Post by eric_the_read » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 11:11 PM UTC

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 know it's not truly micropayments, but a number of podcasts I listen to support themselves via Patreon, and most of those are from people I'd qualify as pundits.

Re: Content is dead

#69

Post by leereeves » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 11:12 PM UTC

pcmaffey wrote: post #67

leereeves wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you do that without needing a way to deal with many of the same issues: to authorize every pageview, track account balances, deal with fraud, and correct errors? You definitely couldn't afford to interact with the financial system (ACH, credit cards, or even Bitcoin) for every pageview, but you'd have the same challenges to solve.

It's all done client side? Except auth.

The client can't be trusted.

Re: Content is dead

#70

Post by misterbwong » Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 11:14 PM UTC

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Adblock is going to cause ads to become MORE invasive, not less. Native ads, native content, and other "partnerships" are going to drive revenue-all of which are much worse that what we have now, privacy-wise. Adblock is only fueling an arms race between consumer and publisher.

In the future, we might see a viable micropayment solution but there are some fundamental problems with this approach.