Live data from Hacker News

We’re dropping Google Ads

groundup.org.za

251–260 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#251

For smaller websites (also referred to the democratization of the internet), I am sure many people may (or have) feel (felt) guilty for using an ad-blocker. Then you see all those shitty ads for: - finding a russian bride - getting rich through some millionaires secret - anti-aging remedies - adware and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is los…

I probably forgive those idiot bad image ads way more than i do the fact that there are still websites autoplaying video and audio in The Year of Our Lord 2017

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#252
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have to waste your bandwidth in order to pay for the content you came to read. If you’re not happy with that, don’t read it .

They don't have to . There are plethora of monetizing options and content gating possible (subscriptions , apps, etc). When one chooses the cheapest to implement approach, one can't really complain that the cheapest ad blocking technique counters it.

Again: if they choose one you’re not happy with, you’re free to decide not to read the content. Otherwise I don’t see how the situation is different from not paying for a meal in a restaurant if you’re not happy with the payment methods offered.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even about the bits/bytes/data to me. My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. I'm perfectly fine with paywalls - that's the 'correct' approach as far as I'm concerned. You can decide to conceal the information you know; if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't), then hey, you have a sale. But if you don't, don't expect your deals with third parties to hold up on some…

> if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't), then hey, you have a sale. Which means now we need to have some kind of legal, international safeguard to protect against content thieves, who copy paywalled content and publish it themselves. Everyone loses in that scenario.

I completely agree with the principle of being paid for my time to create content. If I choose the publish it for free, that is my choice. If I need to charge for it to feed my kids, that is my choice too.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#254
I've been saying that the ad model is broken for a while, and prescribing a real fix for it: a new form of native advertising that actually benefits the user. My company, PLEENQ[1], makes it so users can hover over an image and click on the individual products within it to go where they can buy the product. Here's a demo video: https://youtu.be/V_oTtDUV0yI

My solution is to basically build features around the content of sites that enhance the areas of the site that already attract the users. More importantly, it simplifies the revenue model that the article talks about -- people click on your links and make purchases, and you get a share of every single purchase (CPA). The important thing is that it's compatible with any other revenue models a site might use. If, like GroundUp, they take donations, then it's just an extra revenue source on top of that.

I looked on GroundUp.org for building an example video of how that would work so I could show the community, but it doesn't really fit the model of PLEENQ. Regardless, there are a vast number of niches that this new form of native advertising would drastically improve the revenue for. Imagine an auto blog showing a picture of an engine, and you being able to hover over any part within the picture and purchase it from Auto Zone.

Another thing is that it can be used to split between revenue generating links, and informational links. Perhaps you have a news site, and a lot of your articles have pictures of politicians that your users might not be familiar with -- how about hovering over that person and being able to click on them to go to their Wikipedia page? I think that would greatly benefit a user browsing the site, and wouldn't cheapen in any way the experience of the site itself (in fact would greatly improve it).

[1] http://pleenq.com

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#257
post #35
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't typically sell them this way, but the CPM for an ad on e.g. retaildive.com is much higher than anything on Google's network. > Unfortunately, there is no correlation between people willing to buy stuff and high quality content. Citation needed :)

Do I really need a citation to prove dumb people have money? Because that's basically what you are asking. Or perhaps you believe that when people click an ad on "low-quality" site the are less likely to buy than from the same ad on "high-quality" site? Seriously, the "enlargement penis" spam works because the average person is not that selective on the ads they chose nor the websites they visit.

> the "enlargement penis" spam works because the average person is not that selective on the ads they chose nor the websites they visit

I don't think you understand "average". It's the extreme tail of the distribution that is targeted by such ads.

Example:

> Nigerian scam emails 'deliberately implausible'

> New research from Microsoft suggests that email scammers maximise profits by entrapping only the most gullible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/9346371/Nige...

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work on that project. I'm sad that this happened, but mostly I'm annoyed at the public -- the problem turns out to be, people don't want to pay, not even that tiny amount. It's definitely coming back, though. Just not in quite the same form.

> the problem turns out to be, people don't want to pay, not even that tiny amount. No, the problem is it didn't work with adblockers. I really want to pay for the content I read, I just am not willing to risk being outbid on the chance to view a page without spam by someone trying to deliver malware. My current solution is to buy pre-paid visa cards to pay for online news subscriptions, which is a huge pain, but nec…

"My current solution is to buy pre-paid visa cards to pay for online news subscriptions, which is a huge pain, but necessary after finding out that newspapers will continue to charge even expired or cancelled credit cards. Even after I explicitly cancelled a credit card to try to stop recurring billing, the credit card company will helpfully keep accepting those charges."

1. I haven't resorted to pre-paid Vias cards, but it's a good idea.

2. There has been so many times when I'm thinking about signing up for a website, or service, but the fear of them being "cute", like not charging the correct amount, recurrent billing, making it difficult to quit, and lousy security prevents me from giving money to anyone, except the current monopolies., and only for stuff I really need. As to really need--I don't need that much in all reality.

3. I get those Wall Street Journal offers for $1 for so many weeks. I don't care if it was .01 cents; I don't want to have another thing in the back of my mind to worry about.

It's not about the money, it's about Trust. If I feel this way about WSJ, how are the littler sites suspose to gain trust?

4. I don't have a solution as to how online companies can make money. I just know the minute you hire the MBA, or the "expert", and start underestimating your customers; you're screwed.

Every website should give the customer the option of an immediate purge of all credit card data on the servers, at the time of registration;

"We will sign you up today, charge you $10, and purge you from our database. We would not sell your information. We won't bother you ever again. You have my word--sincerely, the Founders."

You will need to re-register next month. Big deal? Most people will opt for the easy way(keep all info on the customer on the servers), but their will be people like me, that don't want you to have that information on file.

I was just about to sign up for Republic Wireless. It might me the cheapest cell phone service out there. Then I noticed their "new, and improved" billing. It's not new and improved, it's just more money per month. I didn't bite. One lost customer, at least for now.

It's about trust, at this point, for me. I don't think getting certain people to pay is an insurmountable problem, but work on trust, and make the content something they need to pay for? In my youth, I needed quality porn, and that was my last subscription. Pathetic, I know, but even then I made sure they didn't get cute with my Credit Card.

What will be the next website I really need? Yea, it's a problem, but trust should be taken for granted.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to think framing in terms of (legal or moral) rights isn't the best argument. The debate needs to be about utility and interests. People seem to think they exist in a vacuum. But now everyone is using ad blockers, and the dynamics have devolved to resemble the Greek tax system: "I'm not paying those taxes, they are too high" -> "We're not getting enough revenue, need to lower costs" -> "Why should I pay for th…

If we could go back to self-hosted ads without scripts, cookies and other forms of user tracking, without autoplaying videos and whole-page overlays, I'd be much more willing to turn off my adblocker.

I would totally turn off my ad blocker if ads to restricted to a set maximum size, constituted only a static JPG and contained no tracking pixels/code or cookies and we no more targeted than the site they were on: I.e. technology ads on tech sites (SO, Ars Technica​, etc), ads for games on gaming sites. Basically, the ad model back in the day.
Post reply on HN