371–377 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What sites are unusable? Youtube.
I paid for Red a long time ago just to get rid of the ads. I forget they even have ads. Particularly nice for the app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don’t consent why view their content? Ever since newspapers, the social contract has been that they serve content and I become a reader they can sell advertising space for me to look at. They can't suddenly change that contract and expect everyone to automatically agree.
In what way are they changing it? Surely by using ad blockers it is us that are changing the contract, by removing the ability for the publisher to show us ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you call it negative, I call it realistic. It's like putting all _caught_ pedofiles in a jail, and then saying children can roam the streets free and in safety...
You're arguing against yourself. They do put all caught pedophiles in jail, and it's extremely safe for children to roam the streets from a pedophile point of view (but very risky from a car accident point of view).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some non-legacy news sites do make ads first-party content, i.e. native advertising or sponsored content. BuzzFeed is probably the most prolific at it [0], with a great tech team and focus, but even BuzzFeed is floundering when it comes to revenue targets. I think Quartz [1] also does it well (though it's also part of the Atlantic media group. Newer outlets do it well too -- e.g. theoutline.com and axios.com -- but b…
That comment is a fantastically informed response piece in itself. Are you going to post it elsewhere?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3rd party is executing inside your first party context Lack of independent impression counting
>Lack of independent impression counting AKA Advertising companies are afraid website owners (and everybody else who can do it) are going to steal from them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is obviously the right solution. It's what print newspapers and magazines do. Why isn't there a quality first-party ad platform? Is there a business opportunity here?
I think it comes down to control and trust. Right now advertisers can run all sorts of crazy stuff without reproach, they don't want to give that up. Having ads served by the first-party would also require the advertiser to trust them to report all data accurately. Perhaps another reason is that you lose the ability to track users through third-party cookies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is obviously the right solution. It's what print newspapers and magazines do. Why isn't there a quality first-party ad platform? Is there a business opportunity here?
Some non-legacy news sites do make ads first-party content, i.e. native advertising or sponsored content. BuzzFeed is probably the most prolific at it [0], with a great tech team and focus, but even BuzzFeed is floundering when it comes to revenue targets. I think Quartz [1] also does it well (though it's also part of the Atlantic media group. Newer outlets do it well too -- e.g. theoutline.com and axios.com -- but b…