To me the biggest problem with Adsense is that I can not place the ad code to "modern" pages with ajax-loaded content.
We’re dropping Google Ads
281–290 of 617 posts
Re: We’re dropping Google Ads
#282Google Ads are shit.
But Mindtree or whatever is worse.
"Millionaire from Worcester makes $100 per hour"
Re: We’re dropping Google Ads
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Actually, if the restaurant only accepts payment by credit card, you are free to not pay. That's the concept of legal tender - if they want to demand payment of a debt (i.e. after you finish the meal) from you with backing by law, they _must_ accept legal tender. If they only accept credit card payments, they can't use the law to make you pay.
Re: We’re dropping Google Ads
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Google tried that with Google Contributor [1], which they shut down mid-January, promising a replacement. I was on that program, paying $10 a month. They refunded anything that was left over. IIRC think they habitually refunded $5+. They also showed stats, and IIRC the websites I frequented the most frequently (Ars Technica, multiple times a day), still received only pennies. That's how cheap ads are. I started b…
> the websites I frequented the most frequently [...] still received only pennies. And what I don't understand is when I decide I want to subscribe to a newspaper, it's hundreds of dollars a year. They take pennies to serve me spam and malware, but if I want to pay them, it's 1000x the price. And don't get me started on how the Washington Post gives a $70 annual discount on a digital subscription if you agree to rece…
[deleted]
Re: We’re dropping Google Ads
#285Earlier 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…
> My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. The sites need to pay for servers somehow. Experience has proven time and time again that putting up paywalls just makes people go elsewhere.
NYT's digital arm has a paywall and their digital revenue is something over a half-billion dollars per year. The group that WSJ is part of, NewsCorp's "news and information services" unit, has annual revenues well over a billion dollars.
I'm pretty sure that should cover their server bills.
Re: We’re dropping Google Ads
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. The sites need to pay for servers somehow. Experience has proven time and time again that putting up paywalls just makes people go elsewhere.
> Experience has proven time and time again that putting up paywalls just makes people go elsewhere. Isn't Spotify and Netflix evidence that suggest otherwise. All the music on Spotify is available for free on the so called dodgy sites. Torrents and whatnot. Heck, you can even listen to it for free on FM radio! However, literally millions of people choose to pay for Spotify - because it's worth it. The news is no dif…
Publishers that have come to the web from old-school media are still failing to understand the medium. They take their print content, slap it up on a website (designed to replicate the look of a print newspaper!), surround it with ads, and expect it to behave in exactly the same way as hardcopy newspapers. It doesn't, for a myriad of reasons.
I have experience of this world, having worked with old-school book publishers and old-media print journalists. They are way too entrenched in their understanding of publishing/journalism to make the change. The closest I've seen anyone get to something that might work, and they're still a long, long way off, is the Guardian. At least they understand that a) they need to provide additional content, suited to the medium (e.g. quality infographics, interactive data, etc.) and b) online advertising is not enough, but current paywall implementations are a poor substitute.
Spotify is a great example to compare. If Spotify worked the same way as online news, you'd go to Spotify, browse through some skeuomorphic representation of a CD rack, get interrupted, find an album you like the look of, listen to the album with an obnoxious advert between each song, put it back in the rack, repeat. Is there a single newspaper that will allow me to even, for example, do something useful with their content by collecting it / tagging it / whatever for future reference? Will they let my contacts, or famous people, recommend content on a particular subject? Will they offer any kind of api for other publishers wishing to reference their material?
Re: We’re dropping Google Ads
#287Those people finally woke up, when others will start following the example?
Advertising is not an easy job: and it takes more than a few lazy banner to do it right. The current model, the one pushed by Google, has no future. Using adblocks is a duty we have to change the system.
Re: We’re dropping Google Ads
#288he1
Re: We’re dropping Google Ads
#289he1
Re: We’re dropping Google Ads
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If I sat down in a restaurant, finished my starter, and was then brought a bowl of vomit for my main course, I wouldn't expect to have to pay for the starter. I would get up and leave. If the restaurant had a big sign outside saying "vomit for main course", I wouldn't feel entitled to leave without paying.