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

We’re dropping Google Ads

groundup.org.za

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#401

Post by sgc »

dhimes wrote: post #350
CM30 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. It's a change in model that the internet has created, and one that's going to be nigh impossible to undo. If everyone charged for their work, you'd be right, but it's basically impossible to end up in that situation now. Because for everyone charging money there's ten who realise they can out compete them by offering it for free (either out of the 'kindness' of their heart or funded by venture capital). I…

When the Washington Post offered me an online subscription (I live in Boston now but grew up and started my family in the Washington DC area) for $20 it was a no-brainer. The next year they wanted $100 and I worked them down to $50 so I took it. This year they wanted $100 so they got $0. If they charged $20 or $30 a year I bet they would get subscribers if the ad-revenue model died. But it's a winner-take-all operati…

Or news outlets could adopt the academic publishers / netflix / steam(?) model, and aggregate their subscriptions. I too would not pay $100 / year for WaPo. But I would pay $100/year for access to a quality selection of international news organizations. It is a blindingly obvious solution which I suspect is only hindered by pride and unrealistic expectations. There are a myriad of ways the profit could be split internally - it does not even require great creativity to find something that works fairly well, since it has all been done before numerous times.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#402

Post by MiddleEndian »

Confusion wrote: post #158
mikestew wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement. C'mon, you know better. What agreement? If your answer contains the word "unspoken", I'll let you in on the real definition of that word in this context: "non-existent". I didn't sign anything, no notice was posted. The only agreement I have is that I ask for data, and should your server d…

When you enter a physical store or the house of your neighbours, you are also entering into an unspoken agreement that far exceeds the minimum requirements set by law. You didn't sign anything and no notice was posted, yet you abide by the rules. When they clearly and openly change those requirements, for instance by hanging advertisement banners from the walls, then you have the option of leaving. You are certainly…

If I could use magic shades (a They Live reference?) to block ads in real life I would, even if it hurt the feelings of some business people.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#403

Post by zeroer »

dheera wrote: post #20
phantom_oracle wrote: post #12

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…

My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish. Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses sh…

I think a 70-90% cut is probably closer the the right ballpark. I've long thought that ads cost me, the viewer, far more in lost attention and annoyance than they give a monetary benefit to the website owner. I'd like to see the ads cost their creators an order of magnitude more, and for the viewer to get the lion's share.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#404

Post by sanderjd »

wpietri wrote: post #285
ori_b wrote: post #223

Earlier 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.

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.

The point is that it is winners-take-all now. There are a few winners with strong businesses, like the ones you mentioned, but it is not a broadly strong industry. That was not the case with print, where the local paper had some advantages in their home market.

This seems to be kind of just how technology industries work (at least right now): you don't have a broadly strong market for "social news feed", you have Facebook.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#405

Post by mrtksn »

rampage101 wrote: post #345

I recently tried putting Google ads on one of my websites. Over the course of 10,000 page views Google shows there were only 7 click throughs. It does not even make sense because it means there was basically zero mis-clicks. I don't know how they count a click-through but it seems to be more than just someone clicking on the ad. Also I'm pretty tired of hearing how Google are the good guys and 'do no evil'. It's obvi…

You can improve that with better ad space placing and styling but seems about right. Also 1000 impressions pay about 1 click.

The earnings per click will vary wildly depending on your content "quality"(whatever Google's algorithms decide is quality) and category(content about insurance will probably bring better paying insurance ads and content about 9/11 conspiracies will probably bring less paying ads).

AdSense has many problems but it's not a scam.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#406

Post by beagle3 »

paulcole wrote: post #62
mikestew wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement. C'mon, you know better. What agreement? If your answer contains the word "unspoken", I'll let you in on the real definition of that word in this context: "non-existent". I didn't sign anything, no notice was posted. The only agreement I have is that I ask for data, and should your server d…

Society has many unwritten agreements. You don't like ads, I get it. You take without compensating because you want to. Don't just shrug and say, "no notice was posted." Own it. Say, "I felt like taking this so I took it."

Society does have many unwritten agreements, but this is not one of them.

Did you ever get those "march of dimes" solicitations that include a dime? I know people who believe that there's an unspoken agreement of reciprocity - they sent you something of value (even though you did not ask for it) so you must give something back. But no such social contract, spoken or unspoken, exists.

Similarly, there is no such contract with respect to ads. Personally, I never watch TV live, even when the schedule is convenient, because I like to skip all the ads. Courts have held time shifting to be a right, so I can assure you I am in the right on this one, although there is zero practical difference between my fast-forward ad blocking (which is sometimes automated), and running uBlock Origin.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#410

Post by beagle3 »

jacquesm wrote: post #303
chongli wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other comments (including one by me) discussing this. I'm totally fine with it. Others have said that most advertisers won't pay for these ads due to an inability to audit and track users.

Well, they were happy to pay for them in the past that way and likely will be happy to pay for them again if the only other option is not to be able to advertise at all. The target of a link could still be redirected, this would not allow the ad agency to track visitors but would allow them to track the effectiveness of a campaign. That's about as much as they should be getting anyway. But it would kill most RTB sche…

It wouldn't even kill RTB - it's just that the RTB response would include the actual ad to be displayed, and we'd be back to Nielsen style outfits figuring out how many of those ads were actually displayed.

And the world is likely to be a better place for it.

Post reply on HN